This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system [1] [2] was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett’s esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 – 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Background: KRAS mutation status is a candidate marker for predicting survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with cetuximab (CTX). Patients and methods: We studied the KRAS mutation status of 113 patients with irinotecan refractory mCRC treated with CTX in clinical trials. A predictive model for objective response (OR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was constructed using logistic and Cox regression. Results: OR was seen in 27 of 66 KRAS wild-type (WT) patients versus 0 of 42 in KRAS mutants. Median OS was significantly better in KRAS WT versus mutants (43.0 versus 27.3 weeks; P = 0.020). Decrease in tumor sizes was significantly larger at all time points in WT patients. KRAS WT patients with an initial relative decrease of tumor size >9.66% at week 6 had a significantly better median OS compared with all other patients (74.9 versus 30.6 weeks; P = 0.0000025). Within KRAS WT patients OS was significantly better in patients with an initial decrease compared with those without [median OS: 74.9 versus 30.6 weeks (P = 0.00000012)]. Conclusions: KRAS WT status is associated to survival benefit in CTX treated mCRC. This benefit is even more pronounced in those patients with early radiological response. These characteristics may be exploited for response prediction.

Recent retrospective correlative analyses of metastatic colorectal cancer trials indicate that patients with KRAS-mutated tumors (NCBI Entrez Gene 3845) do not benefit from the anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab.¹ These retrospective analyses were performed independently, and for each analysis, KRAS wild-type vs mutant were studied grouping codons 12 and 13 mutations together, without subgroup analysis. Health authorities in the United States and Europe have indicated that patients with KRAS codon 12– or KRAS codon 13–mutated tumors should not receive cetuximab or panitumumab.^2-4