Penile Prosthetic Pump Reservoir Mimicking a Cecal Subepithelial Mass.

Intestinal subepithelial lesions are often encountered during endoscopy. Etiologies can include lesions intrinsic or extrinsic to the gastrointestinal wall. They can present a diagnostic dilemma as simple mucosal biopsies are often nondiagnostic. The combination of characteristic radiographic, endoscopic, and endosonographic features can aid in a definitive diagnosis precluding the need for unnecessary tissue sampling of extrinsic compressive etiologies. The location of the space of Retzius which is the traditional site of penile prosthetic pump reservoir insertion can predispose to cecal compression. We present a rare case of a penile prosthetic pump reservoir presenting as a cecal subepithelial mass on endoscopy.

Clinical predictive value of renalase in post-ERCP pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plasma levels of renalase decrease in acute experimental pancreatitis. We aimed to determine if decreases in plasma renalase levels after ERCP predict the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary hospital, plasma renalase was determined before ERCP (baseline) and at 30 and 60 minutes after ERCP. Native renalase levels, acidified renalase, and native-to-acidified renalase proportions were analyzed over time using a longitudinal regression model. RESULTS: Among 273 patients, 31 developed PEP. Only 1 PEP patient had a baseline native renalase >6.0 µg/mL, whereas 38 of 242 without PEP had a native renalase > 6.0 µg/mL, indicating a sensitivity of 97% (30/31) and specificity of 16% (38/242) in predicting PEP. Longitudinal models did not show differences over time between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline native renalase levels are very sensitive for predicting PEP. Further studies are needed to determine the potential clinical role of renalase in predicting and preventing PEP.

EUS-guided Gastroenterostomy: A Multicenter International Study Comparing Benign and Malignant Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a minimally invasive therapy for patients with gastric outlet obstruction without the risks of surgical bypass and the limited long-term efficacy of enteral self-expanding metal stent placement. However, due to its novelty, there is a lack of significant data comparing long-term outcomes of patients with EUS-GE, based on the underlying disease. In this study, we compare outcomes of EUS-GE on benign versus malignant indications. METHODS: Consecutive patients from 12 international, tertiary care centers who underwent EUS-GE over 3 years were extracted in a retrospective registry. Demographic characteristics, procedure-related information and follow-up data was collected. Primary outcome was the rate of adverse events associated with EUS-GE and the comparison of the rate of adverse events in benign versus malignant diseases. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success as well as hospitalization admission. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included: 72 malignant and 31 benign. The characteristics of the patients undergoing EUS-GE is shown in Table 1. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years and 58 years for malignant and benign etiology. Gender distribution was 57% and 39% being females in malignant and benign etiology group, respectively. Clinical success, technical success, average procedure time, and hospital length of stay were similar in both groups. Patients with benign underlying etiology had significantly higher number of surgically altered midgut anatomy (P=0.0379). CONCLUSION: EUS-GE is equally efficient regardless of the underlying etiology (malignant vs. benign), and the adverse events both groups were comparable.

Evaluation of socioeconomic and healthcare disparities on same admission cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Despite literature and guidelines recommending same admission cholecystectomy (CCY) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis, clinical practice remains variable. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of clinical and socio-demographic factors in the management of acute gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: Patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis who underwent ERCP during hospitalization were reviewed from the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2014. Patients were classified by treatment strategy: ERCP + same admission CCY (ERCP + CCY) versus ERCP alone. Measured variables including age, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), hospital type/region, insurance payer, household income, length of hospital stay (LOS), hospitalization cost, and in-hospital mortality were compared between cohorts using χ2 and ANOVA. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify specific predictors of same admission CCY. RESULTS: A total of 205,012 patients (ERCP + CCY: n = 118,318 versus ERCP alone: n = 86,694) were analyzed. A majority (53.4%) of patients that did not receive same admission CCY were at urban-teaching hospitals. LOS was longer with higher associated costs for patients with same admission CCY [(6.8 ± 5.6 versus 6.4 ± 6.5 days; P < 0.001) and ($69,135 ± 65,913 versus $52,739 ± 66,681; P < 0.001)]. Mortality was decreased significantly for patients who underwent ERCP + CCY versus ERCP alone (0.4% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001). Multivariable regression demonstrated female gender, Black race, higher CCI, Medicare payer status, urban-teaching hospital location, and household income decreased the odds of undergoing same admission CCY + ERCP (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based upon this analysis, multiple socioeconomic and healthcare-related disparities influenced the surgical management of acute gallstone pancreatitis. Further studies to investigate these disparities are indicated.

Education and gastroenterology fellow knowledge about endoscopic mucosal resection of colon adenomas: a survey-based study.

Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective way to remove large (> 2 cm) colon adenomas. Training about it has not been standardized in fellowship programs. This study was aimed at evaluating the education and knowledge of gastroenterology fellows about EMR of colorectal adenomas. Methods Participation in this survey was offered to 1730 gastroenterology fellows in the United States during the academic year 2019 to 2020. The survey assessed endoscopic mucosal resection training and knowledge and was approved and administered by the American College of Gastroenterology. Results A total of 163 fellows (9.4 %) completed the survey. Only 85 fellows (52.1 %) reported receiving formal education in endoscopic mucosal resection. Fellow confidence was lowest regarding knowing electrosurgery unit settings. Fewer fellows correctly identified Paris 0-IIb (79, 48.5 %; P  < 0.0001) or NICE I (114, 69.9 %; P  < 0.01) lesions as compared to other Paris and NICE III lesions, respectively. Only 73 (44.8 %) and 93 fellows (57.1 %) arranged steps of EMR in the correct order and identified the correct type of current used for resection, respectively. Training year, male sex, and provision of advanced endoscopy rotations during fellowship were associated with a higher knowledge score for EMR. Conclusions Nearly half of all fellows reported no formal education in EMR and incorrectly ordered its steps. Adenoma assessment by Paris and NICE classifications and electrosurgery unit settings were the most prominent knowledge deficiencies. Incorporation of standardized training about EMR with inclusion of advanced endoscopy rotations appears to be an important educational opportunity during gastroenterology fellowship.

Resection of pancreatic cystic neoplasms in recurrent acute pancreatitis prevents recurrent pancreatitis but does not identify more malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP) may be a presenting feature of and an indication for resection of pancreatic cysts, including intra-ductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). Few data are available regarding the prevalence of malignancy and post-operative RAP in this population. AIM: To study the role of resection to help prevent RAP and analyze if presentation as RAP would be a predictor for malignancy. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed 172 patients who underwent surgical resection of pancreatic cystic neoplasms at a university hospital between 2002 and 2016. The prevalence of preoperative high-risk cyst features, and of neoplasia was compared between patients with and without RAP. To identify the cause of pancreatitis, all the patients had a detailed history of alcohol, smoking, medications obtained, and had cross-sectional imaging (contrast-enhanced computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging) and endoscopic ultrasound to look for gallstone etiology and other structural causes for pancreatitis. The incidence of RAP post-resection was the primary outcome. RESULTS: IPMN accounted for 101 cases (58.7%) {[branch duct (BD) 59 (34.3%), main duct (MD) 42] (24.4%)}. Twenty-nine (16.9%) presented with RAP (mean 2.2 episodes): 15 had BD-IPMN, 8 MD-IPMN, 5 mucinous cystic neoplasm and 1 serous cystic neoplasm. Malignancy was similar among those with vs without RAP for all patients [6/29 (20.7%) vs 24/143 (16.8%)] and IPMN patients [6/23 (26.1%) vs 23/78 (29.5%)], although tended to be higher with RAP in BD-IPMN, [5/15 (33.3%) vs 3/44 (6.8%), P = 0.04]. At mean follow-up of 7.2 years, 1 (3.4%) RAP patient had post-resection RAP. The mean episodes of acute pancreatitis before vs after surgery were 3.4 vs 0.02 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Malignancy was not increased in patients with pancreatic cystic neoplasms who have RAP compared to those without RAP. In addition, specific cyst charac-teristics were not clearly associated with RAP. The incidence of RAP was markedly decreased in almost all patients following cyst resection.

Musculoskeletal Pain Symptoms and Injuries Among Endoscopists Who Perform ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The leaded protective gear worn, patient and endoscopist positioning, and longer average procedural time place endoscopists who perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at an increased risk of injuries as compared to other endoscopists. While multiple studies have investigated the prevalence of various pain symptoms and injuries among endoscopists, only one has been carried out in endoscopists who perform ERCP, and none have investigated potential predisposing risk factors. Our aim was thus to assess the prevalence of these pain symptoms, injuries, and potential risk factors. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey containing 23 questions was sent to 3276 gastroenterologists. Only providers that performed ERCPs were asked to respond. RESULTS: A total of 203 surveys were completed. Of the 203 respondents, 91% reported a musculoskeletal pain symptom. The most prevalent pain symptoms were neck pain (24%) and lower back pain (17%). In total, 48% of respondents reported a musculoskeletal injury. In total, 32% attributed these injuries to performing ERCPs. The most prevalent musculoskeletal injuries were De Quervain's tenosynovitis (16%) and cervical radiculopathy (12%). Only 25% of participants had received any education/training on ergonomics in endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of endoscopists who perform ERCPs suffer from a musculoskeletal pain symptom, and almost half report a musculoskeletal injury. Further investigation regarding risk factors and preventative strategies is warranted. This information can then be incorporated into ergonomics education which only a small proportion of advanced endoscopists report having received any training in.

Enhanced EUS imaging (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS remains a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disease. Although EUS combined with FNA or biopsy sampling is highly sensitive for the diagnosis of neoplasia within the pancreaticobiliary tract, limitations exist in specific clinical settings such as chronic pancreatitis. Enhanced EUS imaging technologies aim to aid in the detection and diagnosis of lesions that are commonly evaluated with EUS. METHODS: We reviewed technologies and methods for enhanced imaging during EUS and applications of these methods. Available data regarding efficacy, safety, and financial considerations are summarized. RESULTS: Enhanced EUS imaging methods include elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS). Both technologies have been best studied in the setting of pancreatic mass lesions. Robust data indicate that neither technology has adequate specificity to serve as a stand-alone test for pancreatic malignancy. However, there may be a role for improving the targeting of sampling and in the evaluation of peritumoral lymph nodes, inflammatory pancreatic masses, and masses with nondiagnostic FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling. Further, novel applications of these technologies have been reported in the evaluation of liver fibrosis, pancreatic cysts, and angiogenesis within neoplastic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Elastography and CE-EUS may improve the real-time evaluation of intra- and extraluminal lesions as an adjunct to standard B-mode and Doppler imaging. They are not a replacement for EUS-guided tissue sampling but provide adjunctive diagnostic information in specific clinical situations. The optimal clinical use of these technologies continues to be a focus of ongoing research.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract mesenchymal tumors: Impact of rapid onsite evaluation and correlation with histopathologic follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal tumors (MTs) of upper gastrointestinal tract (UGIT) can show morphologic overlap thus posing a diagnostic challenge. This study evaluated the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology in the diagnosis of UGIT-MTs and impact of rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE). METHODS: We retrospectively search our electronic database between January 2001 and August 2019 for cases that underwent EUS-FNA for a submucosal/or intramural upper GI tract mass forming lesions. Data pertinent to immunostain expression in UGIT-MTs was also collected. RESULTS: We identified 139 cases, of which 72 cases had subsequent surgical resection. The cytologic diagnoses included nondiagnostic, negative, atypical, suspicious for neoplasm and positive for neoplasm (PFN) in 11, 7, 11, 10, and 100 cases, respectively. Diagnosis of PFN was rendered in 51 of 69 cases with ROSE (74%) and in 49 of 70 cases without ROSE (70%). However, the cases with ROSE had a higher percentage of cases being precisely classified than without ROSE (86% vs 61%, P < .05). On comparison of cytologic cases with cell block (CB) (n = 118) and without CB (n = 21), ROSE was performed in 67 (57%) and 2 (10%) cases, respectively (P < .01). All the cases with diagnosis of PFN were confirmed on subsequent surgical resection. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA has a diagnostic yield of 72% for UGIT-MTs. ROSE could improve diagnostic performance by further classifying MTs, probably via securing adequate lesional material for cell block for additional ancillary testing and precise diagnosis.

Factors associated with complete clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM : Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. METHODS : This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS : In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94-9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36-3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48-22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35-5.56]). CONCLUSIONS : Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided, Percutaneous, and Transjugular Liver Biopsy: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Percutaneous liver biopsy (PCLB) or transjugular liver biopsy (TJLB) have traditionally been performed to obtain a sample of hepatic tissue; however, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUSLB) has become an attractive alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EUSLB, PCLB, and TJLB. METHODS: Search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Major outcomes included the following: adequacy of biopsy specimens (i.e., complete portal triads [CPT], total specimen length [TSL] in mm, and length of longest piece [LLP]) in mm), and rate of adverse events. Only studies comparing all biopsy approaches (i.e., EUSLB, PCLB, and TJLB) were included. RESULTS: Five studies (EUSLB [n=301]; PCLB [n=176]; and TJLB [n=179]) were included. Biopsy cumulative adequacy rates for EUSLB, PCLB, and TJLB were 93.51%, 98.27%, and 97.61%, respectively. Based on the subgroup analysis limited to EUS biopsy needles in current clinical practice, there was no difference in biopsy adequacy or adverse events for EUSLB compared to PCLB and TJLB (all p>0.050). A comparison of EUSLB and PCLB revealed no difference between specimens regarding both CPT (p=0.079) and LLP (p=0.085); however, a longer TSL (p<0.001) was observed. Compared to TJLB, EUSLB showed no difference in LLP (p=0.351), fewer CPT (p=0.042), and longer TSL (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: EUSLB appears to be a safe, minimally invasive procedure that is comparable to PCLB and TJLB regarding biopsy specimens obtained and rate of adverse events associated with each method.

Intestinal metaplasia around the gastroesophageal junction is frequently associated with antral reactive gastropathy: implications for carcinoma at the gastroesophageal junction.

Increasing evidence suggests that bile reflux (BR) plays a major role in mucosal injury, leading to adenocarcinoma of the proximal stomach and distal esophagus. However, gastric BR is difficult to diagnose and investigate. Reactive gastropathy (RG), in the absence of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other known causes, likely represents bile-mediated injury to the gastric mucosa. The goal of this study is to explore the association between antral RG and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) mucosal inflammation and intestinal metaplasia (IM). The pathology database was searched for patients who had gastric biopsies with a diagnosis of antral RG and concurrent gastric cardia/GEJ/distal esophagus biopsies from 2013 to 2015. Age- and sex-matched patients with normal gastric antral biopsies served as controls. Biopsies from the GEJ region were evaluated for histological changes, including inflammation, antral and pancreatic metaplasia, RG, the type of gastric glands, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) changes, and IM. Detailed clinical history and medication use (including PPIs and NSAIDs) were recorded. IM in the GEJ region was more frequent in patients with antral RG than in controls (33.0% vs. 5.2%, 95% confidence interval [18.3-37.3%]). In addition, inflammation, other mucosal changes around the GEJ (RG and foveolar hyperplasia), antral IM, and PPI-associated mucosal changes were also more frequently seen in patients with antral RG. Our results show that antral RG is associated with mucosal injury and IM around GEJ, suggesting a role of BR. Further studies are needed to study duodenogastric-esophageal BR and its role in development of proximal gastric and distal esophageal adenocarcinoma.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update is to describe the indications for screening for pancreas cancer in high-risk individuals. METHODS: The evidence reviewed in this work is based on reports of pancreas cancer screening studies in high-risk individuals and expert opinion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients determined to be at high risk, including first-degree relatives of patients with pancreas cancer with at least 2 affected genetically related relatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients with genetic syndromes associated with an increased risk of pancreas cancer, including all patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hereditary pancreatitis, patients with CDKN2A gene mutation, and patients with 1 or more first-degree relatives with pancreas cancer with Lynch syndrome, and mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM genes. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Genetic testing and counseling should be considered for familial pancreas cancer relatives who are eligible for surveillance. A positive germline mutation is associated with an increased risk of neoplastic progression and may also lead to screening for other relevant associated cancers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Participation in a registry or referral to a pancreas Center of Excellence should be pursued when possible for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not screen average-risk individuals for pancreas cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals should begin at age 50 years, or 10 years younger than the initial age of familial onset. Screening should be initiated at age 40 years in CKDN2A and PRSS1 mutation carriers with hereditary pancreatitis and at age 35 years in the setting of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should be used in combination as the preferred screening modalities in individuals undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The target detectable pancreatic neoplasms are resectable stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and high-risk precursor neoplasms, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia and some enlarged pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasias. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Screening intervals of 12 months should be considered when there are no concerning pancreas lesions, with shortened intervals and/or the performance of EUS in 6-12 months directed towards lesions determined to be low risk (by a multidisciplinary team). EUS evaluation should be performed within 3-6 months for indeterminate lesions and within 3 months for high-risk lesions, if surgical resection is not planned. New-onset diabetes in a high-risk individual should lead to additional diagnostic studies or change in surveillance interval. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Decisions regarding therapy directed towards abnormal findings detected during screening should be made by a dedicated multidisciplinary team together with the high-risk individual and their family. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Surgical resection should be performed at high-volume centers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Clinicians should consider discontinuing pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals when they are more likely to die of non-pancreas cancer-related causes due to comorbidity and/or are not candidates for pancreas resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: The limitations and potential risks of pancreas cancer screening should be discussed with patients before initiating a screening program.