Introduction

Endoscopic resection techniques, particularly endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), are increasingly adapted for lesions located beyond the gastrointestinal tract, including the hypopharynx. Atypical lesions in the pyriform sinus are uncommon and pose significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to their anatomical complexity and limited endoscopic experience. We present a rare case of a flat mucosal lesion in the left pyriform sinus, initially suggestive of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) managed by ESD for excisional biopsy. Our optical diagnosis and resection strategy were based on a previously published case by Di et al., who demonstrated the feasibility of modified ESD in the hypopharyngeal region. (BMC Cancer 17, 712 (2017).

Aims & Methods

A 28-year-old female presented with upper abdominal pain and was referred for diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). She was a non-smoker with no relevant oncological family history. Routine examination of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum was unremarkable. However, careful inspection of the hypopharynx revealed a flat elevated lesion (Paris 0-IIa), approximately 10×10 mm in size, with a demarcated border, located in the left pyriform sinus. Under narrow-band imaging (NBI) with dual focus, intrapapillary capillary loop (IPCL) pattern type IV was observed, raising suspicion for low-grade neoplasia or high-grade neoplasia. The lesion was photo-documented, and the patient was referred for therapeutic resection.
ESD was performed under general anesthesia. En bloc excision was achieved without adverse events; the resection time was 12 minutes.

Results

Histopathologic analysis revealed stratified non-keratinizing squamous epithelium overlying subepithelial lymphoid tissue, consistent with mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT). Areas of lymphoid follicular hyperplasia with fused follicles were present. The epithelium was non-dysplastic, with regenerative changes and mild intraepithelial lymphocytosis. Immunohistochemistry revealed non-block-type p16 staining, and Ki-67 expression was limited to the basal layer. No morphological or immunohistochemical evidence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) was found.
The patient experienced mild local discomfort for two weeks post-procedure, controlled with ibuprofen. Follow-up endoscopy at one month confirmed complete healing with no recurrence.

Conclusion

This case highlights the growing applicability of advanced endoscopic techniques beyond the gastrointestinal tract and emphasizes the diagnostic limitations of optical assessment in small hypopharyngeal lesions. Despite features suggestive of squamous dysplasia, accurate diagnosis relied on excisional biopsy. ESD proved to be a safe and effective therapeutic option in this anatomically challenging location.

References

Di, L., Fu, KI., Xie, R. et al. A modified endoscopic submucosal dissection for a superficial hypopharyngeal cancer: a case report and technical discussion. BMC Cancer 17, 712 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3685-7

Introduction

The global burden of Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), is increasing. Due to its chronic nature, IBD entails long-term healthcare resource use, contributing to substantial economic and environmental costs. Digestive endoscopy, while a cornerstone of disease monitoring, is associated with high energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and medical waste. Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) has emerged as a non-invasive, accurate, and potentially more sustainable alternative.

Aims & Methods

The present study aimed to compare the environmental impacts in terms of CO₂ emissions, energy consumption (kWh), and disposable waste of IUS and endoscopy for therapeutic monitoring in IBD. In this single-center, retrospective observational study conducted at IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital (Rozzano, Milan), all consecutive IUS and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies performed for therapeutic monitoring in IBD patients between January 2022 and December 2025 were included. Procedures for oncologic surveillance in long-standing disease, isolated rectal involvement (<15 cm from the anal verge), or without confirmed IBD were excluded. Clinical and procedural data were collected. Environmental metrics such as CO₂ emissions, energy consumption (kWh), and disposable waste were estimated using validated conversion factors and compared using appropriate statistical tests (Independent-samples t-test or Mann–Whitney U test).

Results

Endoscopic procedures performed during study period (n=2698) ↓ Exclusion criteria - Endoscopic procedures in trial setting (n=1157) -Endoscopic surveillance in UC (n= 216) -Pouchoscopies & ulcerative proctitis monitoring (n=162) - Operative/ emergency procedures (n=71) ↓ Endoscopic procedures included in the analysis (n=1092) Colonoscopies (n= 710)↵ ↳ Sigmoidoscopies (n=382)

intestinal ultrasounds performed during study period (n=1541) ↓ Exclusion criteria - Indications other than disease monitoring/ patient BMI> 30 Kg/m2 (n= 231) ↓ Intestinal ultrasounds included in the analysis (n=1310) ​

Flowchart 1. Visual representation of the process of selecting procedures to be included in the final analysis. UC: Ulcerative colitis; BMI: Body Mass Index.

During the study period, a total of 1092 endoscopic procedures, comprising 710 colonoscopies and 382 sigmoidoscopies, along with 1310 IUS were performed in 1028 IBD patients (58% UC, 42% CD). Estimated resource use for all endoscopic procedures totaled 1,256 kWh of electricity, 72,080 L of CO₂ emissions, and 585.6 kg of disposable waste, based on procedural averages (~1.5 kWh, 80 L of CO₂, 650 g waste per colonoscopy; ~50% of values for sigmoidoscopies). In contrast, IUS was associated with an estimated 524 kWh of electricity and 196.5 kg of disposable waste (average ~0.4 kWh, almost no CO₂ consumption, 150 g waste per exam). Compared to endoscopy, IUS reduced energy use by 82%, CO₂ emissions by 95%, and waste generation by 66% (P < 0.05 for all comparisons).

Conclusion

While gastrointestinal endoscopy remains indispensable in certain clinical scenarios, its environmental impact is considerable. In contrast, IUS emits almost no equivalent of CO₂, consumes significantly less energy per examination and produces negligible wastes. For therapeutic monitoring in IBD, IUS has demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with a markedly lower ecological footprint. These findings promote IUS as a sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative for routine IBD monitoring in appropriate scenarios.

Disclosure

A Armuzzi has received consulting and/or advisory board fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, lecture and/or speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Tigenix, and research grants from MSD, Pfizer, Takeda and Biogen. A Repici received consulting fee from Medtronic, Fuji and Olympus and has received research grant from Alfa Sigma, Norgine, Boston and Erbe. C Bezzio received speaker’s fees and consulting fees from for Takeda, MSD, Ferring, Abbvie, Galapagos and Janssen. A Dal Buono has received speaker’s fees from Pfizer, MSD, Eli-Lilly, Celltrion, Janssen, and consulting fees from Ferring. R Gabbiadini has received speaker’s fees from Pfizer, MSD, Ferring, Eli-Lilly, Celltrion, Janssen, consulting fees from Pfizer and Abbvie. G. Privitera has received speaker’s fees from Janssen and Alphasigma. B. Masoni and G. Franchellucci declare no conflict of interests.

Introduction

Local excision (LE) is increasingly used to treat early rectal cancer (cT1-2N0M0), but its role in pT2 cancer remains controversial due to a reported 20–30% risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM). Since this risk is largely linked to adverse histological features, patients without these risk factors may safely avoid completion total mesorectal excision (cTME). We aimed to refine LNM risk in pT2 rectal cancer following LE to better guide decisions on rectal-preserving treatment strategies.

Aims & Methods

Patients with pT2 rectal cancer who underwent en bloc LE for cT1-2N0M0 lesions were retrospectivelly enrolled from seven international centres (2015-2025). Eligible patients received either cTME or active surveillance with MRI follow-up for at least two years. Exclusion criteria were positive resection margins (<0.1mm), synchronous or recurrent colorectal cancer and (neo)adjuvant therapy. LNM were confirmed through TME histology or considered absent when no suspicious lymph nodes appeared on follow-up MRI. A detailed histological review of LE specimens was conducted by specialised pathologists at each participating centre using a standardised protocol. Assessed risk factors included high-grade differentiation and/or mucinous subtype, lymphovascular invasion (small and/or large vessels), tumour budding grade 2-3 and/or poorly differentiated clusters grade 2-3, and perineural invasion. Primary endpoint was LNM rate in patients without histological risk factors. Secondary endpoints included the association between individual risk factors and LNM, as well as locoregional recurrences during active surveillance.

Results

A total of 103 patients (mean age 66 (SD 10), 56% male) with a median lesion size of 25mm (IQR 15) were included. Endoscopic LE was performed in 31 patients (30%) and surgical LE in 72 (70%). After LE, 76 patients (74%) underwent cTME while 27 (26%) opted for active surveillance. The overall LNM rate was 17.5% (18/103). Among the 36 patients (35%) without histological risk factors, the LNM rate was 5.6% (2/36; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.87, p=0.032). Both LNM cases were detected in the cTME group. LNM rates per individual risk factor are presented in Table 1.
In the active surveillance group, no locoregional recurrences occurred in the ten patients without risk factors during a median follow-up of 53 months (IQR 26). Among patients with risk factors, two of 14 patients with one risk factor developed a locoregional recurrence and one of two patients with two risk factors. All recurrences occurred intramurally following prior surgical LE. The only patient with three risk factors had no locoregional recurrence but died from unrelated cause at 24 months.

Table 1. Univariate analyses of histological risk factors for lymph node metastasis

Risk factor	n/N (%)	Lymph node metastasis rate (%)	Odds ratio (95% CI)	P-value
No histological risk factors	36/103 (35.0)	2/36 (5.6)	0.19 (0.04-0.87)	0.032
Lymphovascular invasion Small vessel invasion Large vessel invasion	47/103 (45.6) 32/103 (31.1) 28/103 (27.2)	12/47 (25.5) 11/32 (34.4) 4/28 (14.3)	7.0 (2.2-21.8) 4.3 (1.5-12.5) 7.5 (2.4-23.3)	0.055 0.004 0.604
Tumour budding and/or poorly differentiated clusters grade 2-3 Tumour budding grade 2-3 Poorly differentiated clusters grade 2-3	36/103 (35.0) 29/103 (28.2) 19/103 (18.4)	13/36 (36.1) 10/29 (34.5) 9/19 (47.4)	7.0 (2.2-21.8) 4.3 (1.5-12.5) 7.5 (2.4-23.3)	<0.001 0.007 <0.001
Adverse histology Poor tumour differentiation Mucinous subtype	13/103 (12.6) 7/103 (6.8) 6/103 (5.8)	6/13 (46.2) 3/7 (42.9) 3/6 (50.0)	5.6 (1.6-19.4) 4.1 (0.8-20.0) 5.5 (1.0-29.7)	0.007 0.086 0.049
Perineural invasion	11/103 (10.7)	5/11 (45.5)	5.1 (1.3-19.0)	0.016

Conclusion

In this group of pT2 rectal cancer patients treated with LE, detailed histological analysis suggests a low LNM risk (5.6%) in patients without histological risk factors. No locoregional recurrences occurred in this low-risk group during active surveillance. As 35% of pT2 rectal cancers lacked histological risk factors, a risk-stratified approach could potentially allow a substantial proportion of patients to avoid cTME. Prospective validation in larger cohorts is needed before clinical implementation.