Background/Aim: To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors, including large adenoma, cancer, and subepithelial tumors (SET). Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 71 patients with rectal tumors who were treated with ESD (48 patients) or TEM (23 patients) from January 2013 to December 2015. The patient group comprised 56 patients with epithelial tumors and 15 patients with SET. Treatment efficacy such as en bloc resection, procedure time, local recurrence, hospital stay, additional procedure rate, and safety between the treatment groups were evaluated and analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor size, location, macroscopic appearance, and histological depth between ESD and TEM groups. For ESD compared to TEM in rectal epithelial tumors, en bloc resection rates were 95% vs. 93.7% and R0 resection rates were 92.5% vs. 87.5% (P = 0.617); in rectal SET, en bloc resection rates were 100% vs. 100% and R0 resection rates were 87% vs. 85% (P = 0.91). The procedure time was 71.5 ± 51.3 min vs. 105.6 ± 28.2 min (P = 0.016) for epithelial tumors and 32.13 ± 13.4 min vs. 80.71 ± 18.35 min (P = 0.00) for SET, respectively. Hospital stay was 4.3 ± 1.2 days vs. 5.8 ± 1.8 days (P = 0.001) for epithelial tumors and 4.1 ± 4.1 days vs. 5.5 ± 2 days (P = 0.42) for rectal SET, respectively. There were no significant differences between recurrence rates, additional procedure rates, and complications in the two groups. Conclusions: ESD and TEM are both effective and safe for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors and SET because of favorable R0 resection rates and recurrence rates. However, the ESD group showed shorter procedure times and hospital stays than the TEM group. Therefore, ESD should be considered more preferentially than TEM in the treatment of large rectal epithelial tumors and SET.

Background/Aims: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (ADA) and explored predictors of response in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).Methods: A prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted over 56 weeks in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who received ADA. Clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing were assessed using the Mayo score.Results: A total of 146 patients were enrolled from 17 academic hospitals. Clinical response rates were 52.1% and 37.7% and clinical remission rates were 24.0% and 22.0% at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. Mucosal healing rates were 39.0% and 30.1% at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. Prior use of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) did not affect clinical and endoscopic responses. The ADA drug level was significantly higher in patients with better outcomes at week 8 (P<0.05). In patients with lower endoscopic activity, higher body mass index, and higher serum albumin levels at baseline, the clinical response rate was higher at week 8. In patients with lower Mayo scores and C-reactive protein levels, clinical responses, and mucosal healing at week 8, the clinical response rate was higher at week 56. Serious adverse drug reactions were identified in 2.8% of patients.Conclusions: ADA is effective and safe for induction and maintenance in Korean patients with UC, regardless of prior anti-TNF-α therapy. The ADA drug level is associated with the efficacy of induction therapy. Patients with better short-term outcomes were predictive of those with an improved long-term response.

Background: Endoscopic assessment of disease activity is a key parameter in the management of ulcerative colitis. Whether sigmoidoscopy alone is sufficient to evaluate the disease activity in ulcerative colitis lacks studies. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records and endoscopic results of patients with ulcerative colitis followed by colonoscopy in seven tertiary hospitals between January 2012 and December 2018. Endoscopic disease activity was scored using the Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) for each segment from the colonoscopy images. Concordance was evaluated by comparing the highest MES and UCEIS in the rectosigmoid and proximal regions to confirm the usefulness of sigmoidoscopy. Results: A total of 500 colonoscopic examinations from 333 patients were enrolled. Only in 7.6% [k(kappa): 0.893, r(Spearman): 0.906, p < 0.001] and 8.6% [k(kappa): 0.890, r(Spearman): 0.914; p < 0.001] of cases, MES and UCEIS scored more severely in the proximal colon. Comparison of active disease (MES ≥ 2) in the rectosigmoid area and the entire colon showed a high concordance rate [k(kappa): 0.899, r(Spearman): 0.904, p < 0.001]. Endoscopic healing (MES = 0) also showed a high concordance rate [k(kappa): 0.882, r(Spearman): 0.887, p < 0.001]. In 38 cases (7.6%) of patients with a higher MES in the proximal area, it was significantly higher in patients with previous extensive colitis. Conclusions: Sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy showed a high concordance rate. Therefore, sigmoidoscopy is considered a sufficient substitute for colonoscopy. However, colonoscopy should be considered in patients with previous extensive colitis.

Sung Bae Kim, Jae Hee Cheon, Jae Jun Park, Eun Soo Kim, Seong Woo Jeon, Sung-Ae Jung, Dong Il Park, Chang Kyun Lee, Jong Pil Im, You Sun Kim, Hyun Soo Kim, Jun Lee, Chang Soo Eun, Jeong Mi Lee, Byung Ik Jang, and Geom Seog Seo. Gut and Liver 2020;14:331-7. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl19085