A gender comparison of motivations for seeking leadership positions among gastroenterologists.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A gender gap exists in leadership positions in gastroenterology. However, individual motivations for seeking leadership positions within the gastroenterology community among men and women have not been explored. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether motivations for pursuing and attaining leadership positions in gastroenterology differ by gender. METHODS: A 20-question survey was created by the authors and shared with gastroenterologists electronically via a social media group (Facebook) and emails gathered through publicly available society websites and professional and social contacts. Data gathered from the survey included demographics, practice characteristics, presence of spouse or domestic partner, past and present leadership positions, motivations for pursuit of leadership positions, and reasons for lack of desire for a leadership position. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 981 gastroenterologists (679 women, 302 men). The overall response rate was 21.4% (n = 210) (20.9% for women, 22.5% for men). Overall, 41% of respondents (84 of 206) currently hold a leadership position, including more males than females (52% vs 36%, respectively; P = .03). However, among those who completed their training in the past 5 years, more women than men hold a current leadership role (25% vs 6%; P = .11). Other factors associated with currently holding a leadership position included age and years since completion of training, practice type, full-time status, and having a spouse who is not a physician. The positive factors of leadership cited most frequently were (1) ability to effect change, (2) furthering the goals of the organization, and (3) opportunity for career advancement. The negative factors cited most frequently were increased workload and decreased time for personal life. These reported positive and negative factors were similar for male and female respondents. Forty-nine respondents did not desire a leadership position now or in the future. The most common reason cited was lack of interest in the responsibilities, long hours, or stress that accompanies a leadership position (22 of 42, 52%). The second most common reason was that respondents were too busy at home or work to take on the extra responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: A gender gap in gastroenterology leadership exists but is closing. There is fairly equal representation of men and women in leadership positions among those who completed training in the last 5 years. Many gastroenterologists are motivated for a leadership position and at the same time, many qualified individuals do not desire a leadership position because of factors that affect work-life balance. Ongoing efforts to engage motivated individuals into leadership positions and to revise the nature of leadership positions may allow for a larger talent pool from which to recruit.

RNA sequencing distinguishes benign from malignant pancreatic lesions sampled by EUS-guided FNA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the primary method used to obtain pancreatic tissue for preoperative diagnosis. Accumulating evidence suggests diagnostic and prognostic information may be obtained by gene-expression profiling of these biopsy specimens. RNA sequencing (RNAseq) is a newer method of gene-expression profiling, but published data are scant on the use of this method on pancreas tissue obtained via EUS-FNA. The aim of this study was to determine whether RNAseq of EUS-FNA biopsy samples of undiagnosed pancreatic masses can reliably discriminate between benign and malignant tissue. METHODS: In this prospective study, consenting adults presented to 2 tertiary care hospitals for EUS of suspected pancreatic mass. Tissue was submitted for RNAseq. The results were compared with cytologic diagnosis, surgical pathology diagnosis, or benign clinical follow-up of at least 1 year. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions were enrolled. Nine samples were excluded because of inadequate RNA and 3 because of final pathologic diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor. Data from the first 13 patients were used to construct a linear classifier, and this was tested on the final 23 patients (15 malignant and 8 benign lesions). RNAseq of EUS-FNA biopsy samples distinguishes ductal adenocarcinoma from benign pancreatic solid masses with a sensitivity of .87 (range, .58-.98) and specificity of .75 (range, .35-.96). CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-principle study suggests RNAseq of EUS-FNA samples can reliably detect adenocarcinoma and may provide a new method to evaluate more diagnostically challenging pancreatic lesions.

Multicenter evaluation of the utilization of endoscopic ultrasound.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There are currently no data regarding the number and type of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures being carried out in the USA. The aims of the present study are to: (i) estimate the annual number of EUS procedures being carried out in a nationwide database; (ii) describe the indications and types of EUS carried out; and (iii) examine short-term trends in volume. METHODS: Retrospective analysis from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) of EUS procedures carried out on patients >18 years of age from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2013. RESULTS: EUS cases (n = 7614) were carried out by 68 endoscopists at 18 sites over the study period, representing 1.7% of the total number of endoscopic procedures. The most common indications were evaluation of a pancreatic mass (14.7%), diagnostic sampling with fine-needle aspiration (14.1%), and evaluation of a pancreatic cyst (14.0%). The number of EUS examinations and cases undergoing same-day endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) increased over the study period (P < 0.0001). Use of general anesthesia or deep sedation increased markedly from 37.8% to 82.8% of procedures (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey of EUS practice in the USA. Evaluation of the pancreas accounts for approximately 40% of the indications for EUS. Use of EUS increased over the study period, and the proportion carried out with deep sedation or general anesthesia also increased. These data may have implications regarding the number of endosonographers who should be trained, as well as cost issues pertaining to increasing use of anesthesia providers and same-day ERCP.

Devices for the endoscopic treatment of hemorrhoids.

Multiple endoscopic methods are available to treat symptomatic internal hemorrhoids. Because of its low cost, ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and relative effectiveness, RBL is currently the most widely used technique.

Wireless capsule endoscopy.

Over the last decade, WCE has established itself as a valuable test for imaging the small intestine. It is a safe and relatively easy procedure to perform that can provide valuable information in the diagnosis of small-bowel conditions. Its applications still remain limited within the esophagus and colon. Future developments may include improving visualization within the esophagus and developing technologies that may allow manipulation of the capsule within the GI tract and biopsy capabilities.

Pancreatic and biliary stents.

Biliary and pancreatic stents are used in a variety of benign and malignant conditions including strictures and leaks and in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.Both plastic and metal stents are safe, effective, and easy to use. SEMSs have traditionally been used for inoperable malignant disease. Covered SEMSs are now being evaluated for use in benign disease. Increasing the duration of patency of both plastic and metal stents remains an important area for future research.

Endoluminal bariatric techniques.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2011 using the keywords "bariatric," "endoscopic," "intragastric balloon," "duodenojejunal bypass sleeve," and "transoral gastroplasty." Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

GI endoscopes.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through September 2010 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words "gastroscope," "colonoscope," "echoendoscope," "duodenoscope," "choledochoscope," "ultraslim endoscope," "variable stiffness colonoscope," and "wide-angle colonoscope." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Computer-assisted personalized sedation.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic, and a MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience; U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 using the keywords "computer," "computerized," "computer-assisted," "sedation," "propofol." Reports on Emerging Technology are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technology are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Enteral nutrition access devices.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Interventional EUS.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used by performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 by using the keywords "interventional endoscopic ultrasound," "EUS," and "interventional endoscopy." Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Minimizing occupational hazards in endoscopy: personal protective equipment, radiation safety, and ergonomics.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, by using a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to personal protection equipment by using the key words "personal protection equipment" (exp Protective Clothing/ or exp Protective Devices/ or exp Masks/ or exp Occupational Exposure/'') "infection control" paired with "Endoscopy." For the radiation section, the following key words were used: "radiation and endoscopy," "radiation and ERCP," and "radiation safety." For the ergonomics section, the following key words were used: "ergonomics of endoscopy," "endoscopist injury," "medical ergonomics," "endoscopy and musculoskeletal strain," "musculoskeletal injury and endoscopists," "occupational diseases and endoscopy," "cumulative trauma disorder and endoscopy," "repetitive strain injury and endoscopy." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

The role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in device evaluation and monitoring.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used by performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through October 2009 for articles and references related to devices and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by using the keywords "FDA" and "devices." In addition, the Web was searched using the same keywords. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration website was also thoroughly reviewed. Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about these issues. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Automated endoscope reprocessors.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through February 2010 for articles related to automated endoscope reprocessors, using the words endoscope reprocessing, endoscope cleaning, automated endoscope reprocessors, and high-level disinfection. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Endoscopic tattooing.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 for articles related to endoscopic tattooing by using the Keywords tattooing, colonic, endoscopic, India ink, indocyanine green in different search term combinations. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of suspected GI stromal tumors (GIST) has not been assessed in large series. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of subepithelial lesions with EUS features suggestive of GIST. DESIGN: Retrospective database review. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center and an urban Veterans Administration hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper GI subepithelial lesions of the fourth endosonographic layer who underwent EUS-FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients whose cytopathologic examination was diagnostic (immunohistochemical stains establish a specific diagnosis), suspicious (spindle cells identified, quantity not sufficient for specific stains), or nondiagnostic. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients (45.5% female, mean age 61.6 years) underwent EUS-FNA (mean number of FNA passes 5.3). Tumor location was as follows: stomach 62.5%, esophagus 30.4%, and duodenum 7.1%. EUS-FNA was diagnostic in 61.6%, suspicious (spindle cells) in 22.3%, and nondiagnostic in 16.1%. The histologic results were 31.3% GIST, 26.8% leiomyomas, 22.3% spindle cell neoplasms, 3.5 % neural tumors, and 16.1% nondiagnostic. Fifteen (12.5%) patients also underwent EUS-guided core needle biopsy needle sampling; 7 were diagnostic, 2 suspicious, and 6 nondiagnostic. Twenty-four (20.0%) patients underwent jumbo forceps sampling; 5 were diagnostic, 1 suspicious, and 18 nondiagnostic. There were no cases of diagnostic core needle biopsy after nondiagnostic FNA core needle biopsy. Jumbo forceps biopsy of ulcerated masses was diagnostic in 3 GISTs in which FNA was nondiagnostic. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that no variable was associated with an increased diagnostic yield. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA sampling of subepithelial lesions was diagnostic in 61.6% and showed a spindle cell neoplasm ("suspicious") in another 22.3% (diagnostic yield 83.9%). Core needle biopsy needle sampling did not increase the yield, but in the setting of an ulcerated mass, forceps biopsy may be diagnostic.

Diagnostic ascertainment of suspicious pancreatic mass: a threshold analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is frequently difficult to differentiate between a benign and malignant pancreatic mass. The aim of this study was to assess the parameters that affect the decision to perform surgery on a suspicious pancreatic head lesion. METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis, using decision tree and threshold analysis, accumulates costs and quality-adjusted life years in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management. The threshold value is defined as the diagnostic probability for pancreatic cancer when the cost-benefit relationships of pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management are equal. RESULTS: For a localized pancreatic head lesion, the threshold probability of cancer is 43%. Any higher probability of pancreatic cancer makes pancreaticoduodenectomy the preferred treatment option. Within a range of $20,000 to $80,000 spent on surgery, the threshold in favor of Whipple procedure remains relatively low at 40% to 65%. A reduced quality of life after surgery weighs against surgery and raises its threshold. Varying quality of life between 100% and 80% changes the threshold between 31% and 67%. The threshold also is increased in younger patients because of the potentially more dire consequences of unnecessary surgery in instances of long life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: Even if diagnostic certainty cannot be achieved, it frequently is beneficial to perform surgery despite the risk of subjecting the occasional patient with benign pancreatic head lesion to an unnecessary pancreaticoduodenectomy.