Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of rapid on-side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally "smears" endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved through a smear-preparation-training for endoscopy staff. METHODS: In this prospective pilot study, 10 endosonographers and 12 endoscopy nurses from seven regional EUS-centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training. Subsequently, post training slides derived from solid pancreatic lesions were compared to pre-training "control" slides. Primary outcome was to assess if the training positively affects smear quality and, consequently, diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions. RESULTS: Participants collected and prepared 71 cases, mostly pancreatic head lesions (48%). Sixty-eight controls were selected from the pretraining period. The presence of artifacts was comparable for smears performed before and after training (76% vs 82%, P = .36). Likewise, smear cellularity (≥50% target cells) before and after training did not differ (44% (30/68) vs 49% (35/71), P = .48). Similar, no difference in diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was detected (P = .10). CONCLUSION: In this pilot EUS-FNA smear-preparation-training for endoscopy personnel, smear quality and diagnostic accuracy were not improved after the training. Based on these results, we plan to further study other training programs and possibilities.

Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesions : comparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology.

Background and study aims The traditional "smear technique" for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82 % (58/71)) than for smear (66 % (47/71), P  = 0.04), but did not differ when smears were compared to ThinPrep (71 % (30/42), P  = 0.56) or Cell block (62 % (39/63), P  = 0.61) individually. Artifacts were less often present in ThinPrep (57 % (24/42), P  = 0.02) or Cell block samples (40 % (25/63), P  < 0.001) than smears (76 % (54/71)). Agreement on malignancy was equally good for smears and LBC (ĸ = 0.71 versus ĸ = 0.70, P  = 0.98), but lower for ThinPrep (ĸ = 0.26, P  = 0.01) than smears. Conclusion After a single pass, LBC provides higher diagnostic accuracy than the conventional smear technique for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of ROSE. Therefore, LBC, may be an alternative to the conventional smear technique, especially in centers lacking ROSE.

Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711].

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs. DISCUSSION: The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.

An unusual cause of hematemesis: Goiter.

Downhill varices are located in the upper part of the esophagus and are usually related to superior vena cava obstruction. Bleeding from these varices is extremely rare. We describe a 77-year-old patient with hematemesis due to downhill varices as a result of recurrent goiter. A right lobe thyroidectomy was carried out with disappearance of the varices.

Coeliac disease--has the time come for routine mass screening? In 2002--2010--2020?

It might be clinically relevant to have a very low threshold when screening for coeliac disease. The question is how low? In countries familiar with coeliac disease, the classic pattern of severe malabsorption and cachexia, as described in textbooks, has become rare. Coeliac disease is not born in the minds of doctors diagnosing dyspepsia and/or irritable bowel syndrome, or associated auto-immune diseases, such as thyroid, diabetes mellitus type I, Sjögren's disease etc. The consequence is a delay in diagnosis, with secondary problems as long term autoimmune stimulation, osteoporosis and secondary malignancies. Enteropathy associated T-cell lymphomas are well known, but considering coeliac disease in T-cell lymphomas outside the gastrointestinal tract is not yet common sense. Large-scale screening studies on coeliac disease have been published and suggest a prevalence of coeliac disease in USA, Europe, Middle-East and Australia of about 1:200. Coeliac disease can be classified due to all these studies as an important health problem. However nation-wide screening programmes have not started yet, which are common for phenylketonuria and other metabolic defects. Probably they will be initiated as pilot-studies in national programmes within 10 years at the age of 2, and due to the bimodal distribution in CD with a later peak in the fourth decade, at 40 years. Additional data about cohorts of certain age groups are mandatory (f.i. 40 and/or 60 years), while initial discussions begin with national health authorities.