Clinical significance of incidental 18 FDG PET uptake in the gastrointestinal tract: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Incidental gastrointestinal tract (GIT) uptake is found in up to 6.3% of patients undergoing positron emission tomography (PET). This may be physiologic or pathologic and requires endoscopic assessment. AIM: To determine the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in this setting and characterise PET avidity as a predictor of clinically significant findings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients undergoing upper endoscopy or colonoscopy for incidental 18 FDG PET positivity in the GIT. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients (62% male, median age 67 years) underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy for 276 separate areas of PET avidity in the colon. Malignancy was found in 44 cases (16%), and a significant polyp was found in an additional 103 cases (37%). Neoplastic change was found more often in the case of intense compared with non-intense PET avidity (odds ratio (OR) 3.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95-5.93, P < 0.001), and in focal compared with diffuse uptake (OR 5.97, 95% CI 2.9-12.2, P < 0.001). Upper GIT endoscopy was performed in 75 patients (46 male, median age 63 years) for 77 isolated areas with PET avidity. Malignancy was found in 16 cases (21%), and all were new primary lesions. Numerically, malignant findings were more common in intense (29.7%) than non-intense (12.5%) PET avidity (OR 2.96, 95%, CI 0.92-9.57, P = 0.069). CONCLUSIONS: Both focal and intense colonic 18 FDG uptake correlate strongly with a high-risk polyp or malignant lesion. Up to 21% of all gastroscopies performed for evaluation of incidental PET uptake diagnosed a new primary malignancy. These referrals need appropriate triaging and timely endoscopic assessment.

Randomized, Placebo Controlled Trial of Experimental Hookworm Infection for Improving Gluten Tolerance in Celiac Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder where intestinal immunopathology arises after gluten consumption. Previous studies suggested that hookworm infection restores gluten tolerance; however, these studies were small (n = 12) and not placebo controlled. METHODS: We undertook a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of hookworm infection in 54 people with celiac disease. The 94-week study involved treatment with either 20 or 40 Necator americanus third-stage larvae (L3-20 or L3-40) or placebo, followed by escalating gluten consumption (50 mg/d for 12 weeks, 1 g intermittent twice weekly for 12 weeks, 2 g/d sustained for 6 weeks, liberal diet for 1 year). RESULTS: Successful study completion rates at week 42 (primary outcome) were similar in each group (placebo: 57%, L3-20: 37%, and L3-40: 44%; P = 0.61), however gluten-related adverse events were significantly reduced in hookworm-treated participants: Median (range) adverse events/participant were as follows: placebo, 4 (1-9); L3-20, 1 (0-9); and L3-40, 0 (0-3) (P = 0.019). Duodenal villous height:crypt depth deteriorated similarly compared with their enrolment values in each group (mean change [95% confidence interval]: placebo, -0.6 [-1.3 to 0.2]; L3-20, -0.5 [-0.8 to 0.2]; and L3-40, -1.1 [-1.8 to 0.4]; P = 0.12). A retrospective analysis revealed that 9 of the 40 L3-treated participants failed to establish hookworm infections. Although week 42 completion rates were similar in hookworm-positive vs hookworm-negative participants (48% vs 44%, P = 0.43), quality of life symptom scores were lower in hookworm-positive participants after intermittent gluten challenge (mean [95% confidence interval]: 38.9 [33.9-44] vs 45.9 [39.2-52.6]). DISCUSSION: Hookworm infection does not restore tolerance to sustained moderate consumption of gluten (2 g/d) but was associated with improved symptom scores after intermittent consumption of lower, intermittent gluten doses.

A prospective dual-center proof-of-principle study evaluating the incremental benefit of narrow-band imaging with a fixed zoom function in real-time prediction of polyp histology. Can we resect and discard?

BACKGROUND: Advancements in endoscopic technology have increased the ability to distinguish neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy. If a minimum accuracy can be achieved, then a resect-and-discard model can be implemented, although studies to date have demonstrated limited success, especially in the assessment of serrated polyps. OBJECTIVE: To perform a proof-of-principle study assessing the accuracy of narrow-band imaging with near focus in predicting polyp histology including serrated polyps and to determine whether the minimum requirements can be achieved for a resect-and-discard policy. DESIGN: Dual-center, prospective case series. SETTING: Two tertiary-care referral endoscopic centers in Australia. PATIENTS: Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy for routine indications were recruited. INTERVENTIONS: Any polyps identified were assessed by using standard white light followed by narrow-band imaging with near focus for Kudo pit patterns and modified Sano capillary patterns. Based on this assessment and the macroscopic appearance, the polyp histology was predicted and subsequently compared with histopathology results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Correlation in postpolypectomy surveillance intervals between endoscopic and pathologic assessments as well as negative predictive value for rectosigmoid hyperplastic polyps. RESULTS: There was a 96% agreement for surveillance intervals between endoscopic assessment and histology by using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. There was a 96% negative predictive value in assessing rectosigmoid hyperplastic polyps. LIMITATIONS: Because this was a proof-of-principle study, there was no control arm, and there were small numbers, especially in assessing subgroups. The results have limited generalizability with the training requirements for polyp recognition, with confidence to be determined. CONCLUSION: Narrow-band imaging with near focus can predict polyp histology (including serrated polyps) accurately in the hands of trained endoscopists. Further studies with larger numbers are required to further validate this practice.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis: epidemiology, pathogenesis and management.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EE) is a clinico-pathological entity recognized with increased frequency in children and adults. It is an atopic disease involving ingested and inhaled allergens. A pathological eosinophilic infiltrate is diagnosed by finding ≥ 15 eosinophils per high-powered field on oesophageal mucosal biopsies. This infiltrate may result in a narrowed oesophageal lumen. It does not involve the stomach or duodenum. Children commonly present with abdominal pain, vomiting and dysphagia. Presentation in adults is with dysphagia, heartburn, chest pain or impaction of a food bolus in the oesophagus. There is often a history of allergy (asthma, hay fever, eczema). A male predominance (70% in adults) is unexplained. Distinctive endoscopic features are linear furrows, mucosal rings and white papules, and the narrowed lumen may be appreciated. Although EE and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease are separate entities, there is a significant overlap of the conditions. Treatment options include nonpharmacological approaches including an elimination or elemental diet, and/ or medications, chiefly with corticosteroids. The topical administration of fluticasone propionate has been demonstrated to improve symptoms and mobilize the pathological infiltrate of eosinophils. There has been a variable effect with the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast and promising early results with mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5. The long-term efficacy of topical corticosteroids has not been well studied and most patients experience recurrent symptoms when treatment is completed. Currently, repeated short courses of topical corticosteroids are utilized. Acid suppression by a proton pump inhibitor may be considered in view of the overlap between EE and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults with food bolus obstruction of the esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: Acute food bolus impaction is a common emergency in gastrointestinal practice. Management previously used the endoscope with an overtube to allow retrieval of the bolus per os. The push technique using air insufflation and gentle pressure on the bolus provides an alternative approach. Esophageal mucosal biopsy at the time of the initial endoscopy has not been a part of traditional practice. In view of the increasing recognition of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) as a cause of dysphagia and food bolus obstruction in adults the etiology needs to be reassessed. STUDY: Forty-three consecutive adults presenting with acute dysphagia secondary to food bolus obstruction of the esophagus were studied. The bolus was advanced into the stomach with the push technique or removed per os with a retrieval net. Protocol biopsies from the proximal and distal esophagus were obtained in 29 patients. Biopsies were contraindicated or not obtained in the remainder. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were successfully treated at endoscopy. Two subjects with a food bolus impacted at the crico-pharyngeal region required general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation for safe removal. Of 29 patients biopsied, 15 had peptic esophageal stricture as the cause. Fourteen patients (all males, mean age 32 y, range 19 to 62 y) had EE identified histologically. This represents 50% of those biopsied. Patients with EE had typical endoscopic features of linear furrows, mucosal rings, or narrow bore esophagus. Most had prior episodes of food bolus obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Food bolus obstruction can be safely managed by the push technique. EE is an important cause of food bolus obstruction that can be suspected on history and endoscopic appearance and confirmed on histology.

Diagnosis and outcome of small bowel tumors found by capsule endoscopy: a three-center Australian experience.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine diagnosis and outcome in a series of patients with small bowel tumors detected by capsule endoscopy (CE) in three Australian centers. METHODS: Review of prospectively collected data from 416 CEs identified 27 tumors in 26 patients. Clinical parameters, tumor histology, and follow-up are reported. RESULTS: Twenty-seven tumors were identified in 26 patients (mean age 61 +/- 13.7 yr). Indications for CE were obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (21), suspected tumor (3), abdominal pain (1), diarrhea (1). Prior radiology found a possible lesion in 8 of 23 (35%). Nine tumors were proven benign: hamartoma (4), cystic lymphangioma (1), primary amyloid (1), lipoma (1). Two lesions were non-neoplastic: heterotopic gastric mucosa and inflammatory fibroid polyp. Seventeen tumors were malignant: five adenocarcinomas, six carcinoids, two melanoma metastases, two gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), one colon carcinoma metastasis, one non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Tumors were surgically resected in 23 patients. Resection was considered curative in 12 (52%). Mean duration of follow-up was 26 +/- 13.7 months. Of the five patients with primary adenocarcinoma only one remains disease free. Three of the six with carcinoid tumors have had no recurrence up to 51 months postresection. Both patients with GIST are disease free. Anemia resolved after surgery in the patients with melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Small bowel tumors are a significant finding at CE and are often missed by other methods of investigation. In many patients, detection of a tumor alters management and improves outcome. Even in malignant lesions, treatment is potentially curative in the absence of metastatic disease.

Eosinophilic esophagitis in adults: clinical, endoscopic, histologic findings, and response to treatment with fluticasone propionate.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis is an increasingly recognized disorder characterized by intense eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa. The aim of this study was to define the clinical syndrome, the endoscopic features, and the distribution of the eosinophil infiltrate in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis. We undertook a prospective evaluation of the symptomatic and histologic response to treatment with fluticasone propionate. METHODS: Twenty-six patients (18 men; mean age 36 years) had symptom assessment and barium studies, esophageal motility recordings, and 24-hour esophageal pH studies. Upper-GI endoscopy was performed with quantitative eosinophil counts of biopsy specimens from the proximal and distal esophagus, the gastric antrum, and the duodenum. Nineteen subjects received 4 weeks of swallowed fluticasone propionate. After treatment, symptom assessment and endoscopic biopsies were repeated. RESULTS: All 26 patients had a history of dysphagia, and 11 presented acutely with food-bolus obstruction. Esophageal peristalsis was normal in most and gastroesophageal reflux coexisted in 10 patients. Characteristic endoscopic findings of furrows (20) and rings (18) were observed. All 19 treated patients had symptom improvement and a significant decrease in esophageal eosinophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: Eosinophilic esophagitis is a distinct entity that may coexist with gastroesophageal reflux. Swallowed fluticasone propionate is an effective treatment.