Development of a new endoscopy system to visualize bilirubin for the diagnosis of duodenogastroesophageal reflux.

OBJECTIVES: Reflux hypersensitivity (RH) is a form of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease in which duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) plays a role. This study aimed to determine the usefulness of an endoscopy system equipped with image-enhanced technology for evaluating DGER and RH. METHODS: The image enhancement mode for detecting bilirubin and calculated values were defined as the Bil mode and Bil value, respectively. First, the visibility of the Bil mode was validated for a bilirubin solution and bile concentrations ranging from 0.01% to 100% (0.002-20 mg/dL). Second, visibility scores of the Bil mode, when applied to the porcine esophagus sprayed with a bilirubin solution, were compared to those of the blue laser imaging (BLI) and white light imaging (WLI) modes. Third, a clinical study was conducted to determine the correlations between esophageal Bil values and the number of nonacid reflux events (NNRE) during multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring as well as the utility of esophageal Bil values for the differential diagnosis of RH. RESULTS: Bilirubin solution and bile concentrations higher than 1% were visualized in red using the Bil mode. The visibility score was significantly higher with the Bil mode than with the BLI and WLI modes for 1% to 6% bilirubin solutions (P < 0.05). The esophageal Bil value and NNRE were significantly positively correlated (P = 0.031). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the differential diagnosis of RH was 0.817. CONCLUSION: The Bil mode can detect bilirubin with high accuracy and could be used to evaluate DGER in clinical practice.

Auxiliary diagnosis of subepithelial lesions by impedance measurement during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is the citerion standard for diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs); however, its diagnostic ability for SELs <20 mm is low. We developed a new diagnostic method to differentiate between GI stromal tumor (GIST) and non-GIST by measuring high-frequency impedance (H-impedance) using an EUS-FNB needle. METHODS: The H-impedance of gastric epithelial neoplasms from 16 cases were measured with a conventional impedance probe to confirm whether H-impedance is clinically useful for assessing cell density (study 1). The H-impedance values of exposed SELs from 25 cases with use of the conventional probe (study 2) and nonexposed SELs from 20 cases with use of the EUS-FNB needle probe (study 3) were measured to determine the diagnostic ability of H-impedance for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs. RESULTS: H-impedance significantly positively correlated with cell density (P = .030) (study 1). The H-impedance of GIST (99.5) measured with a conventional probe was significantly higher than with those of the muscular layer (82.4) and leiomyoma (89.2) (P < .01) (study 2). The H-impedance of GIST measured with the EUS-FNB needle was also significantly higher than that of leiomyoma (GIST: 80.2 vs leiomyoma, 71.8; P = .015). The diagnostic yield of the impedance method for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs had 94.4% accuracy, 88.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 0.95 area under the curve. Diagnostic ability was not affected by lesion size (P = .86) (study 3). CONCLUSION: Auxiliary differential diagnosis between gastric GISTs and non-GISTs by the H-impedance measurement during EUS-FNB could be a good option, especially when the lesion is <20 mm.

Negligible procedure-related dissemination risk of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy for gastrointestinal stromal tumors versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) is a valuable alternative to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for sampling gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs). This study aimed to evaluate the potential risk of dissemination and impact on postoperative prognosis associated with MIAB, which has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Study 1: A prospective observational study was conducted to examine the presence or absence and growth rate of tumor cells in gastric juice before and after the procedure in patients with SELs who underwent MIAB (n = 25) or EUS-FNAB (n = 22) between September 2018 and August 2021. Study 2: A retrospective study was conducted to examine the impact of MIAB on postoperative prognosis in 107 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors diagnosed using MIAB (n = 39) or EUS-FNAB (n = 68) who underwent surgery between January 2001 and July 2020. RESULTS: In study 1, although no tumor cells were observed in gastric juice in MIAB before the procedure, they were observed in 64% of patients after obtaining samples (P < 0.001). In contrast, no tumor cells were observed in the gastric juice in EUS-FNAB before and after the procedure. In study 2, there was no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival between MIAB (100%) and EUS-FNAB (97.1%) (P = 0.27). CONCLUSION: MIAB is safe, with little impact on postoperative prognosis, although the procedure releases some tumor cells after damaging the SEL's pseudocapsule.

Efficacy of ultrasound endoscopy with artificial intelligence for the differential diagnosis of non-gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are common subepithelial lesions (SELs) and require treatment considering their malignant potential. We recently developed an endoscopic ultrasound-based artificial intelligence (EUS-AI) system to differentiate GISTs from non-GISTs in gastric SELs, which were used to train the system. We assessed whether the EUS-AI system designed for diagnosing gastric GISTs could be applied to non-gastric GISTs. Between January 2015 and January 2021, 52 patients with non-gastric SELs (esophagus, n = 15; duodenum, n = 26; colon, n = 11) were enrolled. The ability of EUS-AI to differentiate GISTs from non-GISTs in non-gastric SELs was examined. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS-AI for discriminating GISTs from non-GISTs in non-gastric SELs were 94.4%, 100%, and 86.1%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.98 based on the cutoff value set using the Youden index. In the subanalysis, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS-AI were highest in the esophagus (100%, 100%, 100%; duodenum, 96.2%, 100%, 0%; colon, 90.9%, 100%, 0%); the cutoff values were determined using the Youden index or the value determined using stomach cases. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-AI increased as lesion size increased, regardless of lesion location. EUS-AI based on gastric SELs had good diagnostic ability for non-gastric GISTs.

Comparisons of outcomes between ProKnife injection endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large gastric lesions in ex vivo porcine model study: A randomized controlled trial.

Objective: To compare treatment outcomes between injection endoscopic submucosal dissection using ProKnife (P-ESD) and conventional ESD (C-ESD) for gastric lesions. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, we compared treatment outcomes of P-ESD and C-ESD for simulated gastric lesions ≥3 cm in resected porcine stomachs. Predictive factors associated with ESD difficulties were investigated using logistic regression analysis. Results: Seventy lesions were screened; however, two lesions were excluded. A total of 12 endoscopists performed 68 ESDs: 34 P-ESDs and 34 C-ESDs. The ESD procedure time of P-ESD (36.3 [28.4-46.8] min) was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (46 [36.4-64.6] min; p = 0.0014). The technical success rates did not differ between the P-ESD and C-ESD groups (en bloc resection rate, 100% in both groups; complete resection rate, 94.1% and 85.3%, respectively; p = 0.23). The number of injections during P-ESD (7.5 [6-10] times) was significantly higher than during C-ESD (4 [3-5] times; p < 0.001), but the total volume of injected solution during P-ESD (20 [16-26.3] ml) was significantly smaller than during C-ESD (27.5 [20-31.5] ml; p = 0.0019). In multivariate analysis, less ESD experience (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and selection of C-ESD as the ESD method (OR, 3.8) were independent predictive factors associated with ESD difficulties. Conclusions: Compared with C-ESD, P-ESD had a shorter procedure time but also allowed for notable technical success and safety.