Performance and attitudes toward real-time computer-aided polyp detection during colonoscopy in a large tertiary referral center in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Computer-aided detection (CADe) has been shown to improve polyp detection in clinical trials. Limited data exist on the impact, utilization, and attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy in daily clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved CADe device for polyp detection in the United States and the attitudes toward its implementation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing colonoscopy at a tertiary center in the United States before and after a real-time CADe system was made available. The decision to activate the CADe system was at the discretion of the endoscopist. An anonymous survey was circulated among endoscopy physicians and staff at the beginning and conclusion of the study period regarding their attitudes toward AI-assisted colonoscopy. RESULTS: CADe was activated in 52.1% of cases. Compared with historical control subjects, there was no statistically significant difference in adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.08 vs 1.04, P = .65), even after excluding diagnostic and therapeutic indications and cases where CADe was not activated (1.27 vs 1.17, P = .45). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR), median procedure, and withdrawal times. Survey results demonstrated mixed attitudes toward AI-assisted colonoscopy, of which main concerns were high number of false-positive signals (82.4%), high level of distraction (58.8%), and impression it prolonged procedure time (47.1%). CONCLUSIONS: CADe did not improve adenoma detection in daily practice among endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Despite its availability, AI-assisted colonoscopy was only activated in half of the cases, and multiple concerns were raised by staff and endoscopists. Future studies will help elucidate the patients and endoscopists that would benefit most from AI-assisted colonoscopy.

Endoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by malignancy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding secondary to malignancy can be challenging. Endoscopy is the gold standard to diagnose and treat gastrointestinal bleeding but clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with malignancy-related bleeding are not well understood. This study aims to look at clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, safety and clinical outcomes of endoscopic interventions for GI malignancy-related bleeding. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients with confirmed GI malignancies who underwent endoscopy for GI bleeding at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Cox hazard analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with survival. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were included, with median age of 59 years; 74.8% were male. The stomach (30.0%) was the most common tumor location. Active bleeding was evident endoscopically in 47.3% of patients. Most patients (77.3%) did not receive endoscopic treatment. Of the patients who received endoscopic treatment, 57.7% had hemostasis. No endoscopy-related adverse events were recorded. Endoscopic treatment was associated with hemostasis (P < 0.001), but not decreased recurrent bleeding or mortality. Absence of active bleeding on endoscopy, stable hemodynamic status at presentation, lower cancer stage, and surgical intervention were associated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that endoscopy is a safe diagnostic tool in this patient population; while endoscopic treatments may help achieve hemostasis, it may not decrease the risk of recurrent bleeding or improve survival.

How much progress have we made?: a 20-year experience regarding esophageal stents for the palliation of malignant dysphagia.

Esophageal stents are widely used for the palliation of malignant esophageal obstruction. Advances in technology have made esophageal stenting technically feasible and widespread for such obstruction, but complications remain frequent. We present outcomes of a large cohort undergoing esophageal stent placement for malignant esophageal obstruction at a tertiary care cancer center. Patients who underwent placement of esophageal stents for malignancy-related esophageal obstruction between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2020 were identified. Exclusion criteria included stents placed for benign stricture, fistulae, obstruction of proximal esophagus (proximal to 24 cm from incisors), or post-surgical indications. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics, procedure and stent characteristics, complications, and follow-up. A total of 242 patients underwent stent placement (median age: 64 years, 79.8% male). The majority, 204 (84.3%), had esophageal cancer. During the last two decades, there has been an increasing trend in the number of esophageal stents placed. Though plastic stents were previously used, these are no longer utilized. Complications are frequent and include early complications of pain in 68 (28.1%) and migration in 21 (8.7%) and delayed complications of recurrent symptoms of dysphagia in 46 (19.0%) and migration in 26 (10.7%). Over the study period, there has not been a significant improvement in the rate of complications. During follow-up, 92 (38%) patients required other enteral nutrition modalities after esophageal stent placement. No patient, treatment, or stent characteristics were significantly associated with stent complication or outcome. Esophageal stent placement is an increasingly popular method for palliation of malignant dysphagia. However, complications, particularly pain, migration, and recurrent symptoms of dysphagia are common. Almost 40% of patients may also require other methods of enteral access after esophageal stent placement. Given the high complication rates and suboptimal outcomes, removable stents should be considered as first-line in the case of poor palliative response.

Efficacy of uncovered colonic stents for extrinsic versus intrinsic malignant large bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies evaluating self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for management of malignant extrinsic colon obstruction have yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the efficacy of uncovered SEMS for extrinsic colon malignancy (ECM) versus intrinsic colon malignancy (ICM). METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients referred for colonic SEMS at a tertiary cancer center between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Primary outcome measures were technical success, clinical success, intervention rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: 138 patients with ECM and 119 patients with ICM underwent attempted stent placement. The rectum and/or sigmoid colon was the most common stricture site. Technical success was lower in the ECM group [86% vs 96% (p = .009)]. Clinical success was lower in the ECM group both at 7 days [82% vs 95% (p = .004)] and at 90 days [60% vs 86% (p < .001)]. Subsequent intervention was required more frequently [44% vs 35%; p = .23] and earlier [median 9 vs 132 days; p < .001] in the ECM group. Median overall survival in the ECM group was 92 vs 167 days. Among predictive variables analyzed, the ECM group had a higher frequency of peritoneal metastasis (87% vs 32%; p < .001), multifocal strictures with requirement for multiple stents (20% vs 6%; p = .002), sharp angulated strictures (39% vs 25%; p = .04) , and radiation therapy (21% vs 10%; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Colonic SEMS for ECM is associated with lower technical and clinical success with earlier intervention rates compared with ICM. Our findings can be used to better inform patients and referring providers as well as guide new stent design to enhance efficacy in this population.

Safety of endoscopy in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cancer patients are prone to thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, which increase the risk of bleeding and infection. We assessed the safety of endoscopic procedures in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia. METHODS: We studied consecutive cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia who underwent endoscopic procedures from 2010 through 2015. Neutropenia was defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <1000 cells/µL, and thrombocytopenia as a platelet count <100 × 103/µL. Univariate and multivariate generalized estimating equation models were used to assess factors associated with risk of adverse events (AEs) or death. RESULTS: We identified 588 patients who underwent 783 procedures; 608 procedures were performed in the setting of thrombocytopenia and 675 procedures in the setting of neutropenia. Concurrent neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were recorded in 500 endoscopies. Twenty-four patients (4.1%) experienced infectious AEs, whereas 29 (4.9%) experienced bleeding AEs within 1 week of the procedure. On multivariate analysis, platelet count ≤50 × 103/µL was associated with risk of bleeding AEs. In contrast, poor performance status was associated with increased risk of infection AEs (P < .01). No association was observed between low ANC and infectious AEs. Poor performance status (P < .01) and platelet count ≤100 × 103/µL (P < .05) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality. A persistent platelet count <20 × 103/µL after the procedure, with a baseline platelet count of ≤20 × 103/µL before the procedure, was associated with significant risk of bleeding AEs compared with a platelet count >20 × 103/µL after the procedure (P < .01); furthermore, if the platelet count increased to >50 × 103/µL after the procedure, the bleeding risk after the procedure was greatly reduced (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic procedures are relatively safe in cancer patients with platelet count >50 × 103/µL. Nevertheless, a platelet count of ≥20 × 103/µL could be an appropriate threshold for platelet transfusion if 50 × 103/µL is difficult to achieve. The functional status of the patient, in the absence of the need for urgent or necessary endoscopic interventions, should be considered when deciding whether to perform endoscopy. The risk of procedure and the ANC did not seem to affect the outcomes.

Biliary Decompression in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Improves Survival: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The complex biliary strictures of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma present significant challenges for providing adequate and long-lasting biliary drainage. The best approach to relieve obstruction remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to assess stenting outcomes in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: This study was approved by the center's institutional review board. Subjects with a diagnosis of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were identified from endoscopic and pathologic databases from 1997 to 2014. Patient characteristics, endoscopic data, and follow-up evaluation data were retrospectively collected via review of available medical records. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who underwent a total of 504 ERCPs were included in the study. Nine of 504 (1.8%) procedures were technical failures. Among the 495 technically successful procedures, 347 (70.1%) procedures were clinical successes. Clinical success was significantly associated with longer overall survival (HR 0.57; p = 0.002). A higher proportion of patients with bilateral drainage had clinical success, compared with those with unilateral drainage. Cholangitis was not more common in the bilateral group compared to the unilateral group except in the group where a segment was not drained (1.9% vs 1.6% vs 7.1%, respectively). Patients with metal stents were 3.8 times more likely to have clinical success than those with plastic stents. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, adequate biliary drainage improves overall survival. Bilateral stenting if anatomy permits with self-expanding metal stents rather than plastic stents appears to provide the optimal chance of clinical success.

Pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals with germline genetic mutations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a deadly disease that is most commonly diagnosed at an incurable stage. Different high-risk genetic variants and cancer syndromes increase the lifetime risk of developing PC. This study aims to assess the yield of initial PC screening in patients with high-risk germline mutations. METHODS: Asymptomatic adults underwent PC screening by EUS, magnetic resonance imaging, or CT during a 10-year period and were retrospectively identified. High-risk individuals were defined as carrying germline mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53 (Li-Fraumeni), STK11 (Peutz-Jeghers), MSH2 (Lynch), ATM (ataxia-telangiectasia), or APC (familial adenomatous polyposis). Patients without germline mutations were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 86 patients met the study criteria. The median age was 48.5 years (interquartile range, 40-58), 79.1% (68) were women, and 43.0% (37) had a family history of PC. The genetic mutations were BRCA2 (50, 58.1%), BRCA1 (14, 16.3%), p53 (12, 14.0%), STK11 (5, 5.8%), MSH2 (3, 3.5%), ATM (1, 1.2%), and APC (1, 1.2%). Screening detected a pancreatic abnormality (PA) in 26.7% (23/86), including cysts (11, 47.8%), hyperechoic strands and foci (10, 43.5%), and mild pancreatic duct dilation (2, 8.7%). Patients older than 60 years were more likely to have a PA detected (P = .043). EUS detected more PAs than magnetic resonance imaging or CT. No cases of PC were diagnosed by screening or during follow-up (median, 29.8 months; interquartile range, 21.7-43.5). CONCLUSIONS: Unless indicated otherwise by family or personal history, PC screening under the age of 50 is low yield. Linear EUS may be the preferred modality for initial PC screening.

An international randomised trial of celecoxib versus celecoxib plus difluoromethylornithine in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce colorectal adenoma burden in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), the utility of combining chemopreventive agents in FAP is not known. We conducted a randomised trial of celecoxib (CXB) versus CXB+diflouromethylornithine (DFMO) to determine the synergistic effect, if any. METHODS: The primary endpoint was % change in adenoma count in a defined field. Secondary endpoints were adenoma burden (weighted by adenoma diameter) and video review of entire colon/rectal segments. Adverse event (AEs) were monitored by National Cancer Institution toxicity criteria. RESULTS: 112 subjects were randomised: 60 men and 52 women at a mean age of 38 years. For the 89 patients who had landmark-matched polyp counts available at baseline and 6 months, the mean % change in adenoma count over the 6 months of trial was -13.0% for CXB+DFMO and -1.0% for CXB (p=0.69). Mean % change in adenoma burden was -40% (CXB+DFMO) vs -27% (CXB) (p=0.13). Video-based global polyp change was -0.80 for CXB+DFMO vs -0.33 for CXB (p=0.03). Fatigue was the only significant AE, worse on the CXB arm (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: CXB combined with DFMO yielded moderate synergy according to a video-based global assessment. No significant difference in adenoma count, the primary endpoint, was seen between the two study arms. No evidence of DFMO-related ototoxicity was seen. There were no adverse cardiovascular outcomes in either trial arm and no significant increase in AEs in the CXB+DFMO arm of the trial. Differences in outcomes between primary and secondary endpoints may relate to sensitivity of the endpoint measures themselves. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number N01-CN95040.

Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with complex colon polyps were traditionally referred for surgery to avoid adverse events associated with endoscopic resection. Recent advances in endoscopic imaging as well as endoscopic hemostasis and clip closure allow for the use of EMR as an alternative to surgery for such lesions. To determine the outcome of treatment of complex colon polyps with EMR as an alternative to surgery, we conducted a retrospective observational study. METHODS: Two hundred three patients with complex colon polyps were referred to an EMR center as an alternative to surgery. Patients underwent a protocol-driven EMR. The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, residual adenoma rate, and incidence of missed synchronous polyps. RESULTS: EMR was performed in 155 patients and was deferred in 48 patients who were referred to surgery. EMR specimens revealed benign polyps in 149 and cancer in 6 patients. EMR adverse events occurred in 7 patients, requiring hospitalization in 5 of them. None of the patients died as a result of their adverse events. Surveillance colonoscopy at 4 to 6 months after resection of a benign lesion in 137 patients revealed residual adenoma at the scar site in 6 patients and additional synchronous precancerous lesions in 117 patients that were not removed by the referring endoscopist. None underwent surgery for failure of EMR. The overall precancerous lesion burden was 2.83 per patient, the adenoma burden was 2.13 per patient, and the serrated polyp burden was .69 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: EMR can be used instead of surgery for complex colon polyps in 75% of patients with few adverse events and few residual adenomas at resection sites. In addition, careful repeat examination of the entire colon for synchronous lesions overlooked by the referring endoscopist is required for most patients. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01827241.).

Can Technology Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

In order for screening colonoscopy to be an effective tool in reducing colon cancer incidence, exams must be performed in a high-quality manner. Quality metrics have been presented by gastroenterology societies and now include higher adenoma detection rate targets than in the past. In many cases, the quality of colonoscopy can often be improved with simple low-cost interventions such as improved procedure technique, implementing split-dose bowel prep, and monitoring individuals' performances. Emerging technology has expanded our field of view and image quality during colonoscopy. We will critically review several technological advances in the context of quality metrics and discuss if technology can really improve the quality of colonoscopy.

Differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions: a tertiary oncology center experience.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET), and metastatic lesions (pMET) are the most common neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Early diagnosis enables prompt treatment. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions and assess the accuracy of EUS-guided FNA. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective tertiary center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Consecutive patients referred for EUS evaluation of SPLs from 2004 to 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pretest (preceding EUS-guided FNA [EUS-FNA]) predictors of PDAC among neoplastic SPLs and accuracy of EUS-FNA. RESULTS: A total of 1333 EUS scans with 1108 EUS-FNAs were performed for pancreatic lesions. Of the 672 patients with neoplastic SPLs, 528 had PDAC and 144 non-PDAC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 97.3%, 99.3%, 99.8%, and 97.8%, respectively. Years of EUS experience significantly correlated with fewer needle passes (Rs = -0.18, P < .001). Controlling for all potential confounders, multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that patients with PDAC compared with pNETs and pMETs were older (odds ratio [OR] 4.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-9.5; P < .001), had weight loss (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6-5.4; P < .001), hyperbilirubinemia (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.5; P < .001), elevated CA19-9 (OR 6.9; 95% CI, 2.4-20.3; P < .01), evidence of arterial invasion (OR 6.5; 95% CI, 2.7-15.4; P < .001), and PD dilation (OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.8-5.9; P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, single center. CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating neoplastic SPLs, demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging characteristics can reliably discern and suggest PDAC. In addition, EUS-FNA is exceedingly sensitive and specific for PDAC.

Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: time to revise quality standards?

BACKGROUND: Standards for the detection of adenomas during screening colonoscopy are widely used to measure examination quality. No such standards exist for sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs). OBJECTIVE: To measure both the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and SSA detection rate (SSADR) during screening colonoscopy before and after quality improvement/financial incentive measures. DESIGN: Retrospective determination of baseline ADR/SSADR by the endoscopist, followed by prospective collection of data after informing physicians of baseline detection rates. SETTING: Tertiary cancer center with a large cancer screening program. PATIENTS: A total of 2833 average-risk colorectal cancer screening patients 50 to 75 years of age undergoing initial colonoscopy. DATA COLLECTION: Electronic medical records for indication and demographics, endoscopy report, and pathology report. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Detection rates of adenomas and SSAs by sex. RESULTS: The overall ADR in male and female patients was 50.6% and 36.6%, respectively. The overall detection rate of advanced adenomas in male and female patients was 12.4% and 6.5%, respectively. The overall SSADR in male and female patients was 10.1% and 7.1%, respectively. In 108 patients (3.8% of entire group), SSAs were the only premalignant lesions found. Detection rates of both types of premalignant polyps improved over time but did not reach statistical significance. LIMITATIONS: Single-center experience with limited sample size and small group of endoscopists. CONCLUSION: ADRs far in excess of current standards are achievable. Cecal withdrawal time is associated with the ADR. Prevalence of SSA rivals that of advanced adenomas and is greater than current medical literature suggests. The combination of monitoring and financial incentives did not result in statistically significant improvement in ADRs.

Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric tied to interval colon cancer occurrence. However, manual extraction of data to calculate and track the ADR in clinical practice is labor-intensive. To overcome this difficulty, we developed a natural language processing (NLP) method to identify adenomas and sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) in patients undergoing their first screening colonoscopy. We compared the NLP-generated results with that of manual data extraction to test the accuracy of NLP and report on colonoscopy quality metrics using NLP. METHODS: Identification of screening colonoscopies using NLP was compared with that using the manual method for 12,748 patients who underwent colonoscopies from July 2010 to February 2013. Also, identification of adenomas and SSAs using NLP was compared with that using the manual method with 2259 matched patient records. Colonoscopy ADRs using these methods were generated for each physician. RESULTS: NLP correctly identified 91.3% of the screening examinations, whereas the manual method identified 87.8% of them. Both the manual method and NLP correctly identified examinations of patients with adenomas and SSAs in the matched records almost perfectly. Both NLP and the manual method produced comparable values for ADRs for each endoscopist and for the group as a whole. CONCLUSIONS: NLP can correctly identify screening colonoscopies, accurately identify adenomas and SSAs in a pathology database, and provide real-time quality metrics for colonoscopy.

Pretest prediction and diagnosis of metastatic lesions to the pancreas by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Early diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) enables prompt treatment. The study aims to identify factors differentiating metastatic lesion to the pancreas (PMET) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs). METHODS: This is a retrospective study at a tertiary cancer center. Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) of SPLs from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed. The main outcomes were pre-EUS-FNA (endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration) predictors and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for PMETs. RESULTS: Among a total of 1108 EUS-FNAs for pancreatic lesions, 672 patients had neoplastic SPLs (PMETs = 53; PDACs = 528, PNETs = 91). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of PMETs were 84.9%, 100%, 100%, and 98.8%, respectively. The mean number of EUS-FNA passes for diagnosis of PMET was 3.1 per patient. For each endosonographer, preceding 3-year EUS volume (mean/year) significantly correlated with fewer needle passes (rs [-0.30], P = 0.03). The most common PMET was renal cell carcinoma. Stratified multivariate analyses were performed. Compared with patients with PDACs, PMETs were more common in men (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-4.0); located in the pancreatic tail (OR = 2.4; 95%CI = 1.1-5.2); and were less likely with increasing age (OR = 0.95; 95%CI = 0.92-0.99), presence of major symptoms (abdomen pain/diarrhea/weight loss; OR = 0.2; 95%CI = 0.1-0.4), elevated bilirubin (OR = 0.3; 95%CI = 0.13-0.69), and imaging evidence of arterial invasion (OR = 0.15; 95%CI = 0.03-0.67). Compared with PNETs, PMETs were more common with increase age (OR = 1.05; 95%CI = 1.02-1.08) and increasing lesion size (OR = 1.03; 95%CI = 1.0-1.1), and were less likely in patients with diabetes (OR = 0.34; 95%CI = 0.11-0.99). CONCLUSION: Among the largest numbers of neoplastic SPLs evaluated at a single center, pre-test features reliably characterize, and EUS-FNA provides a highly specific diagnosis of PMETs.

A case series and literature review of Merkel cell carcinoma metastasizing to pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare aggressive tumor arising from the mechanoreceptors of the epidermis with a relative higher mortality rate stage for stage than melanoma. Microscopically, the cells appear similar to small cell lung cancer, but they specifically stain positive for CK20 and are negative for TTF-1. It is rarely known to metastasize to the pancreas. AIMS: To report four cases of Merkel cell carcinoma metastasizing to pancreas and compare them to previously reported patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for a suspected pancreatic lesion between January 2004 and December 2012. We reviewed other reported cases with a literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. RESULTS: Four male patients with mean age of 66 years were found to have metastatic disease in the pancreas on average 29 months after initial diagnosis of MCC. Two cases were diagnosed with EUS-FNA and two with PET-CT. Three patients had multifocal pancreatic involvement which has not been previously described. All four patients died within 3-9 months following tumor spread to the pancreas. Merkel cell carcinoma rarely metastasizes to the pancreas with only 10 cases being described in the medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is an effective tool that can be utilized in diagnosing pancreatic masses. Differentiating metastatic pancreatic tumors, especially Merkel cell carcinoma from primary pancreatic tumor is useful as systemic therapy is an option in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but is ineffective in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

Safety of endoscopic interventions in patients with thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: The risk of endoscopic interventions in thrombocytopenia has received little attention in the medical literature. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of endoscopic interventions including evaluation of GI bleeding (GIB) in patients with thrombocytopenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study, tertiary oncology center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Review of consecutive endoscopies with preprocedure platelet counts (PCs) of 75 × 10(3)/µL or lower. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Risk of bleeding with routine endoscopic interventions and transfusion requirement after evaluation of GIB. RESULTS: A total of 617 (351 upper, 266 lower [90 colonoscopies]) endoscopies were performed in 395 patients. Forceps-biopsy specimens were obtained in 398 endoscopies (mean ± standard deviation [SD] PC: 38.21 ± 11.7 × 10(3)/µL) and 45 polypectomies were performed in 17 endoscopies (mean ± SD PC: 39.65 ± 8.53 × 10(3)/µL). The risk of bleeding was 1.5% (6 of 398 endoscopies) at the biopsy site and 4% (2 of 45 polypectomies) at the polypectomy site. Active GIB (mean ± SD PC: 32.85 ± 4.0 × 10(3)/µL) was observed in 68 (11% of 617) endoscopies and intervention (mean ± SD PC: 33.68 ± 4.6 × 10(3)/µL) was performed in 41 procedures. Together, angiodysplasias and ulcers were the most common etiology (51.2% of 41). Hemostasis was achieved in 39 (95.1% of 41) procedures. Comparison of blood transfusions ± 3 days of successful therapy showed a 52% reduction (P < .001). By multivariate analysis, a higher aggregate blood transfusion 3 days preceding endoscopy (odds ratio 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.50; P < .001) predicted endoscopic findings of active GIB. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, single center. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest endoscopic experience reported in thrombocytopenic patients (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or lower), bleeding caused by standard forceps biopsy and polypectomy (≤10 mm) was minor and easily controlled. Endoscopic therapy for GIB is safe and significantly reduces the packed red blood cell requirement and should be considered in patients with thrombocytopenia in the setting of an appropriate transfusion strategy.

Oesophageal hyperkeratosis: clinicopathological associations.

AIMS: Oesophageal hyperkeratosis is rarely described. In contrast to hyperkeratosis of orolaryngeal mucosa, where its risk factors and association with squamous neoplasia are well-studied, the prevalence and clinicopathological features of oesophageal hyperkeratosis are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed prospectively 1845 oesophageal biopsies and found hyperkeratosis in 37 (2.0%). Among 98 patients studied, hyperkeratosis occurred in two distinct settings: group 1 [within Barrett's oesophagus (BO)/adenocarcinoma, n = 61, 62%] and group 2 (outside BO/adenocarcinoma, n = 37, 38%). In contrast to group 1, hyperkeratosis in group 2 was more often multifocal (>3 foci in 51% versus 16%, P = 0.0001), involved mid-oesophagus (51% versus 2%, P < 0.0001), showed endoscopic leucoplakia (24% versus 3%, P = 0.003) and involved current/former alcohol users (51% versus 19%, P = 0.0012). Importantly, invasive squamous carcinoma and squamous dysplasia were seen only in group 2 (47% and 19% versus 0%, P < 0.0001). Further, 42% of group 2, but none of group 1, had benign or malignant squamous lesions of the oral cavity/larynx (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Hyperkeratosis involves ~2% of oesophageal biopsies and can be divided into cases occurring within BO/adenocarcinoma and those occurring outside BO/adenocarcinoma. The former lack clinical significance, whereas the latter are associated frequently with oesophageal squamous neoplasia and squamous pathology of the head and neck region.

Comparison of the utility of covered metal stents versus uncovered metal stents in the management of malignant biliary strictures in 749 patients.

BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are used to relieve malignant biliary obstruction. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMSs) and uncovered self-expandable metal stents (USEMSs) in malignant biliary obstruction. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients with malignant biliary obstruction. INTERVENTIONS: Placement of CSEMS or USEMS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRO), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. RESULTS: From January 2000 to June 2011, 749 patients received SEMSs: 171 CSEMSs and 578 USEMSs. At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with recurrent obstruction (CSEMSs, 35% vs USEMSs, 38%) and survival (CSEMSs, 45% vs USEMSs, 49%). There was no significant difference in the median OS (CSEMSs, 10.4 months vs USEMSs, 11.8 months; P = .84) and the median TRO (CSEMSs, 15.4 months vs USEMSs, 26.3 months; P = .61). The adverse event rate was 27.5% for the CSEMS group and 27.7% for the USEMS group. Although tumor ingrowth with recurrent obstruction was more common in the USEMS group (76% vs 9%, P < .001), stent migration (36% vs 2%, P < .001) and acute pancreatitis (6% vs 1%, P < .001) were more common in the CSEMS group. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the patency rate or overall survival between CSEMSs and USEMSs for malignant distal biliary strictures. The CSEMS group had a significantly higher rate of migration and pancreatitis than the USEMS group. No significant SEMS-related adverse events were observed in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation or surgical resection.