UEG's educational platform for gastroenterology education bringing recordings, courses, guidelines, and more together in one place.

UEG Week Berlin 2025 Recordings Gut Guide online

Rate for better recommendations!

Your feedback helps us show you more of what you like and less of what you dislike!

More of this!

We will show you more similar content.

Not for me!

We won't suggest this again.

Bookmark!

Save this content for later!

New to myUEG? Create an account! Log In with myUEG account

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

Management of IBD following a cancer diagnosis

Free for all myUEG account holders. Your access level is set automatically based on your occupation. Medical professionals get full access to all content. If you are a non-medical user, you can only access UEG Week content from congresses you attended.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Management of IBD following a cancer diagnosis

Lulia Al-Hillawi 1

1 John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom

Event

UEG Postgraduate Teaching Programme Berlin 2025

Topics

Digestive Oncology IBD

Session

Cancer and IBD: Mitigating risk among uncertainty

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING ENDOSCOPIC BALLOON DILATION VERSUS ENDOSCOPIC STRICTUROTOMY FOR SHORT STRICTURES (&LT; 3 CM) RELATED TO CROHN’S DISEASE (THE BEST-CD TRIAL) (NCT05521867)

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Introduction

Although endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) remains the standard intervention for Crohn’s disease (CD)-associated strictures, its efficacy is limited by high recurrence and surgery rates. Retrospective analyses suggest endoscopic stricturotomy (ES) may offer superior outcomes, particularly in anastomotic strictures. However, no randomized trials have directly compared EBD and ES for short CD-related strictures.

Aims & Methods

This single-center, randomized controlled trial (August 2022–March 2025) enrolled adult CD patients (18–65 years) with symptomatic, predominantly fibrotic or mixed, short strictures (<3 cm), including both de novo and anastomotic types, accessible via standard endoscopy. Patients with multiple (>2) strictures, strictures beyond endoscopic reach, or prior stricturotomy were excluded. Participants were randomized to undergo either EBD or ES. The primary outcome was clinical recurrence at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included re-intervention, surgery, emergency visits, hospitalization, technical success, and adverse events.

Results

Out of 70 randomized patients, 69 were analyzed (EBD: 35; ES: 34). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Technical success was similar (EBD: 91.4%, ES: 94.1%). On time to event analysis, clinical recurrence was significantly lower in the ES group (OR=0.343, 95% CI: 0.134–0.881; p=0.026). Re-intervention rates favored ES (EBD: 25.7%, ES: 8.8%; OR=0.337, 95% CI: 0.131–0.870; p=0.025). Surgery rates were numerically lower with ES (EBD: 11.4%, ES: 5.9%) but not statistically significant (p=0.581). Hospitalization was significantly more frequent in the EBD arm (OR=0.276, 95% CI: 0.091–0.840; p=0.023). ED visits also trended lower with ES, though not statistically significant (p=0.062) (see table). Adverse events occurred in 25.7% of EBD patients (bleeding n=3 [1 hemoclip], pain with admission n=3, micro-perforation n=1, post-procedure pain n=2) and 14.7% of ES patients (bleeding n=3 [1 self-limited, 1 coagrasper, 1 hemoclip], none required transfusion, suspected perforation n=1, mild pain n=1).

Outcome	EBD (n=35)	ES (n=34)	p-value	Odds Ratio (95% CI)
Technical Success (%)	91.4% (32/35)	94.1% (32/34)	0.70	-
Clinical Recurrence (%)	48.6%	23.5%	0.026	0.343 (0.134–0.881)
Re-intervention Rate (%)	25.7%	8.8%	0.025	0.337 (0.131–0.870)
Surgery (%)	11.4%	5.9%	0.581	0.707 (0.207–2.422)
Stricture-related ED Visits (%)	20.0%	11.8%	0.062	0.404 (0.156–1.047)
Stricture-related Hospitalizations (%)	25.7%	8.8%	0.023	0.276 (0.091–0.840)
Any Adverse Event (%)	25.7% (9/35)	14.7% (5/34)	0.45	-

Conclusion

In this interim analysis, ES was associated with significantly lower clinical recurrence, re-intervention, and hospitalization compared to EBD for short CD-related strictures, with similar safety outcomes. These findings support ES as a potentially superior first-line endoscopic strategy over EBD in selected patients with Crohn’s disease strictures. (NCT05521867)

References

Lan N, Shen B. Endoscopic Stricturotomy Versus Balloon Dilation in the Treatment of Anastomotic Strictures in Crohn's Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018 Mar 19;24(4):897-907. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izx085. PMID: 29546384.

RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING ENDOSCOPIC BALLOON DILATION VERSUS ENDOSCOPIC STRICTUROTOMY FOR SHORT STRICTURES (&LT; 3 CM) RELATED TO CROHN’S DISEASE (THE BEST-CD TRIAL) (NCT05521867)

Partha Pal 1, Kanapuram Pooja 1, Rajesh Gupta 1, Manu Tandan 1, D. Nageshwar Reddy 1

1 Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Endoscopy Radiology & Imaging IBD

Submission format

Abstract

Session

Advances in the investigation of the small bowel

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

REAL-LIFE VS CLINICAL TRIAL ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL THERAPY: FINDINGS FROM AN ITALIAN-AMERICAN STUDY ON INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Introduction

Treatment goals in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have evolved beyond symptom control to include mucosal healing, prevention of disease-related complications, improvement of health-related quality of life, and reduction of long-term disability, as outlined by the STRIDE II initiative¹. Despite significant progress in the development of advanced therapies (ADTs), up to 50% of IBD patients fail to respond to currently available treatments, underscoring the urgent need for new therapies, which are investigated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, stringent eligibility criteria in RCTs limit the inclusion of real-world IBD patients, potentially compromising the generalizability of trial findings to daily clinical practice.

Aims & Methods

The aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of real-life IBD patients who would be eligible for ongoing RCTs and to assess the representativeness of this population. Moreover, we aimed to identify the most frequently unmet eligibility criteria leading to patient exclusion and to characterize the clinical profiles that differentiate eligible from ineligible patients.
This prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted between October 2023 and October 2024 at 2 tertiary IBD referral centers: the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” in Rome, Italy, and the Crohn’s & Colitis Center at the University of Miami, USA. Consecutive patients with IBD indicated for a new ADT were enrolled. Each patient was systematically screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria across all actively recruiting phase 2b and 3 RCTs available at each center at the time of evaluation (6 RCTs in Rome: 4 UC and 2 CD; 5 RCTs in Miami: 3 UC and 2 CD).

Results

A total of 166 IBD patients (69 UC and 97 CD) were enrolled, with 129 patients from the Italian cohort and 37 from the American cohort. Among UC patients, only 16 (23.2%) met the eligibility criteria for at least 1 RCT, whereas 53 (76.8%) were deemed ineligible (p<0.001). In the CD group, just 10 patients (10.3%) were eligible for at least 1 RCT, compared to 87 (89.7%) who were not (p<0.001). The most common reasons for ineligibility among UC patients included: Modified Mayo score not within the required range of 5–9 (50.7%), absence of bowel urgency (63.8%), Mayo Endoscopic Subscore <2 (39.1%), failure to comply with ADT washout requirements (56.5%), insufficient number of prior ADT failures (39.0%), and recent use of topical 5-ASA or steroids within 4 weeks prior to screening (62.3%).
In CD patients, the most frequently unmet criterion was a CDAI between 220 and 450 (92.8%), followed by insufficiently liquid stool frequency (≥4 very soft or liquid stools/day; 75.3%), SES-CD<6 (39.2%), and the presence of CD-related complications such as strictures or fistulas (13.1%).

Conclusion

The majority of real-life IBD patients, particularly those with CD, are ineligible for participation in current RCTs—primarily due to relatively mild disease activity or ongoing need for concomitant therapies that are not permitted by trial protocols. Importantly, many real-world CD patients initiate new ADTs based on radiologic signs of disease activity, the presence of disease complications, or as prophylaxis for post-surgical recurrence, rather than clinical activity scores alone. Similarly, UC patients may require ADTs even in the context of corticosteroid dependence and low-grade disease activity. These findings underscore the need to revisit and broaden eligibility criteria in future RCTs to ensure greater external validity and alignment with the heterogeneity of real-life IBD population.

References

1. Turner D, Ricciuto A, Lewis A, D'Amico F, Dhaliwal J, Griffiths AM, Bettenworth D, Sandborn WJ, Sands BE, Reinisch W, Schölmerich J, Bemelman W, Danese S, Mary JY, Rubin D, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Dotan I, Abreu MT, Dignass A; International Organization for the Study of IBD. STRIDE-II: An Update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) Initiative of the International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD): Determining Therapeutic Goals for Treat-to-Target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology. 2021 Apr;160(5):1570-1583. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.031. Epub 2021 Feb 19. PMID: 33359090.

REAL-LIFE VS CLINICAL TRIAL ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL THERAPY: FINDINGS FROM AN ITALIAN-AMERICAN STUDY ON INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

Federica Di Vincenzo 1, Stephanie Ioannou 2, Chiara Principessa 3, Ivan Capobianco 1, Antonio Gasbarrini 4, Lucrezia Laterza 4, Maria T. Abreu 5, Franco Scaldaferri 4

1 Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy

2 University of Miami - Jackson Health System, Miami, United States

3 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy

4 Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli", IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

5 University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Miami, FL 33136; F. Widjaja Inflammatory Bowel Disease Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, United States