Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

Background: The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps. Results: A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007). Conclusion: In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Endoluminal vacuum therapy in the management of an esophago-pleural fistula as a complication of Boerhaave syndrome in a patient with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Boerhaave syndrome is an uncommon condition that represents about 15% of all esophageal perforation. A subset of these patients has eosinophilic esophagitis, a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus, that carries a risk of perforation of about 2%. Esophageal perforations can rarely result in the development of an esophago-pleural fistula. Treatment of esophago-pleural fistula represent a challenge due to lack of high quality evidence and scarce reported experience. Endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy could have a role in the management by using the same principle applied in external wounds which provide wound drainage and tissue granulation. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a unique case of a 24-year-old man with eosinophilic esophagitis complicated with an esophageal rupture who developed an esophago-pleural fistula and was successfully managed with a non-surgical approach using endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy. To our knowledge this could be the first experience reported in a patient with eosinophilic esophagitis. CONCLUSION: Endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy might be an effective and novel strategy in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis and esophago-pleural fistula as a consequence of Boerhaave syndrome. Appropriately designed studies are required.

Endoscopic ultrasonography can avoid unnecessary laparotomies in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and undetected peritoneal carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the presence of ascites detected by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent a EUS for preoperative staging of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The diagnosis of PC was confirmed by histopathology or peritoneal fluid cytology. The main outcome of the study was the relationship of ascites at EUS and PC in patients with pancreatic cancer. Secondarily, to evaluate the relationship between this finding and survival as well as the development of PC during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included: 30 patients with local unresectable tumor or metastatic disease and 106 potentially-resectable candidates based on CT staging. EUS showed ascites in 27 (20%) patients, of whom 8 (29.6%) had PC. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of ascites by EUS in the detection of PC in this group of patients were 67%, 85%, 30%, 96% and 83%, respectively. Ascites detected by EUS was the only independent predictive factor of PC with an OR of 11 (CI 95%: 3-40). The detection of ascites by EUS was associated with a shorter survival (median survival time 7,3 months; range 0-60 vs 14.2 months; range 0-140) (p = 0.018) and earlier development of PC during follow-up (median 3.2 months, range 1.4-18.1 vs 12.7 months, range 5.4-54.8; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The finding of ascites at EUS in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma is highly associated with PC and a poor outcome.