Interventional gastroenterology in oncology.

Cancer is one of the foremost health problems worldwide and is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Gastrointestinal tract cancers account for almost one third of the cancer-related mortality globally, making it one of the deadliest groups of cancers. Early diagnosis and prompt management are key to preventing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. With advancements in technology and endoscopic techniques, endoscopy has become the core in diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal tract cancers. In this extensive review, the authors discuss the role endoscopy plays in early detection, diagnosis, and management of esophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic, ampullary, biliary tract, and small intestinal cancers.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Clinically Significant Post-ERCP Bleeding: a Contemporary Multi-center Study.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Clinically significant post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding (CSPEB) is common. Contemporary estimates of risk are lacking. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes following CSPEB. METHODS: We analyzed multi-center prospective ERCP data between 2018-2023 with 30-day follow-up. The primary outcome was CSPEB, defined as hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia resulting in: hemoglobin drop ≥20 g/L or transfusion and/or endoscopy to evaluate suspected bleeding, and/or unplanned healthcare visitation and/or prolongation of existing admission. Firth logistic regression was employed. P-values <0.05 were significant, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals reported. RESULTS: CSPEB occurred following 129 (1.5%) of 8,517 ERCPs (mean onset 3.2 days), with 110 of 4,849 events (2.3%) occurring following higher-risk interventions (sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty, pre-cut sphincterotomy, and/or needle-knife access). CSPEB patients required endoscopy and transfusion in 86.0% and 53.5% of cases, respectively, with three cases (2.3%) being fatal. P2Y12 inhibitors were held for a median of 4 days (IQR 4) prior to higher-risk ERCP. Following higher-risk interventions, P2Y12 inhibitors (OR 3.33, 1.26-7.74), warfarin (OR 8.54, 3.32-19.81), dabigatran (OR 13.40, 2.06-59.96), rivaroxaban (OR 7.42, 3.43-15.24) and apixaban (OR 4.16, 1.99-8.20) were associated with CSPEB. Significant intraprocedural bleeding post sphincterotomy (OR 2.32, 1.06-4.60), but not post sphincteroplasty, was also associated. Concomitant cardiorespiratory events occurred more frequently within 30 days following CSPEB (OR 12.71, 4.75-32.54). CONCLUSIONS: Risks of antiplatelet-related CSPEB may be underestimated by endoscopists based on observations of suboptimal holding before higher-risk ERCP. Appropriate periprocedural antithrombotic management is essential and could represent novel quality initiative targets.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic tumors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Surgery is a cornerstone in the management of pancreatic cancer and precancerous pancreatic lesions. However, many patients are not suitable candidates for surgery at the time of diagnosis for various reasons. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) appears to be a promising treatment option for patients who are ineligible for surgery for management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), and pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). RECENT FINDINGS: EUS-RFA may serve as an adjunct to chemotherapy or palliative measures for inoperable cases of PDAC. Given its feasibility and efficacy, EUS-RFA has an evolving niche as a minimally invasive and potentially definitive treatment for PNETs and high-risk PCLs such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). EUS-RFA is a generally well tolerated procedure, with abdominal pain and acute pancreatitis being the most common adverse effects, though the risk can be mitigated through prophylactic measures. SUMMARY: There is an increasing body of evidence to support the use of EUS-RFA in managing pancreatic lesions, either as definitive, adjunctive, or palliative treatment, depending on lesion type.

Endoscopy ergonomics: a survey-based study exploring gender differences.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Women, on average, have smaller hand sizes as well as lower muscle mass and strength. With the increasing number of women entering training programs in gastroenterology, our aim was to study the subtle gender differences in endoscopy ergonomics. METHODS: A survey instrument regarding demographic information, personal preferences in endoscopy styles and techniques, and endoscopy-related injury was sent to practicing gastroenterologists. Statistical analysis was performed on the data. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 107 gastroenterologists, 41 (38.3%) female subjects and 66 (61.7%) male subjects. Female participants were shorter in height, had smaller hand sizes, and performed fewer weekly cases. More men (45.5%) than women (20%) performed advanced endoscopic procedures. Women preferred the following: (1) holding the endoscope with the umbilical cord outside the forearm; (2) using the right hand to turn the small wheel; and (3) using a pediatric colonoscope to perform colonoscopy in a petite patient or one with a low body mass index. Endoscopy-related injury was reported in 49.5% of all gastroenterologists, with women reporting a significantly higher risk of injury (63.4%) than men (40.9%) (P = .02). Although higher weekly case volumes and performance of advanced endoscopy procedures were not independent risk factors for endoscopy-related injury, female gender was found to be an independent risk factor for injury. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences exist in endoscopy styles and techniques, as well as endoscopy-related injury. Providing gender-specific training in endoscopy may improve ergonomics and decrease the risk of injury.

EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Emerging data suggest neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with improved survival. However, less than 40% of patients demonstrate a meaningful radiographic response to NAC. EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has emerged as a new modality to treat PDAC. We hypothesize that NAC plus EUS-RFA can be used in the management of resectable PDAC. METHODS: This was a prospective review of PDAC patients meeting the criteria of resectable tumor anatomy who underwent NAC chemotherapy plus EUS-RFA followed by pancreatic resection. Radiographic imaging and perioperative and short-term outcomes were recorded. Surgical pathology specimens were analyzed for treatment response. RESULTS: Three eligible patients with resectable PDAC received 4 months of NAC plus EUS-RFA. One month after completing NAC and EUS-RFA, all 3 patients underwent standard pancreaticoduodenectomy without adverse events. After a 6-week recovery, all patients completed 2 months of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In our institutional experience, this treatment protocol appears to be safe as patients tolerated the combination of chemotherapy and ablation. Patients underwent pancreatic resection with uneventful recovery. This novel neoadjuvant approach may provide a more effective alternative to chemotherapy alone.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the following: 1: The role of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients after failed ERCP. 2: The role of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy in resolving distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. 3: The role of EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) versus laparoscopic-assisted ERCP and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. 4: The role of EUS-BD versus E-ERCP and PTBD in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy other than RYGB. 5: The role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary transcystic gallbladder drainage in resolving acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for cholecystectomy.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

Comparing EUS-directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted ERCP Versus Enteroscopic ERCP: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of choledocholithiasis in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is challenging. This study aims to compare technical success rates, adverse events, and procedural time between 3 current approaches: endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP). METHODS: A systematic search of 5 databases was conducted. Direct and network meta-analyses were performed to compare interventions using the random effects model. A significance threshold of P < 0.05 was applied. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. On direct meta-analysis, technical success rates were comparable between EDGE and LA-ERCP (odds ratio: 0.768, CI: 0.196-3.006, P = 0.704, I2 = 14.13%). However, EDGE and LA-ERCP showed significantly higher success rates than E-ERCP. No significant differences in adverse events were found between EDGE versus LA-ERCP, EDGE versus E-ERCP, and LA-ERCP versus E-ERCP on direct meta-analysis. In terms of procedural time, EDGE was significantly shorter than E-ERCP [mean difference (MD): -31 minutes, 95% CI: -40.748 to -21.217, P < 0.001, I2 = 19.89%), and E-ERCP was shorter than LA-ERCP (MD: -44.567 minutes, 95% CI: -76.018 to -13.116, P = 0.005, I2 = 0%). EDGE also demonstrated a significant time advantage over LA-ERCP (MD: -78.145 minutes, 95% CI: -104.882 to -51.407, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). All findings were consistent with network meta-analysis on random effects model. The heterogeneity of the model was low. CONCLUSIONS: EDGE and LA-ERCP showed superior technical success rates compared with E-ERCP. Adverse events did not significantly differ among the three approaches. Furthermore, EDGE demonstrated the shortest procedural duration. We recommend considering EDGE as a first-choice procedure.