Does a history of head and neck cancer affect outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Background and study aims Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the most common secondary tumor in patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). Currently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred approach to manage superficial ESCC, however, it remains to be elucidated whether patients with HNSCC and early ESCC managed by ESD have different outcomes. Patients and methods We retrospectively analyzed esophageal ESD for early ESCC from September 2009 to September 2017 and the following variables: demographics, tumor and specimen size, Paris classification, location, en bloc and R0 resection rates, overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). To reduce selection bias, propensity score matching was applied to compare the results. Results Eighty-nine ESDs were performed in 81 consecutive patients (47 with HNSCC and 34 without HNSCC). Patients with HNSCC who developed superficial ESCC were found to be younger and to refer a more frequent history of alcohol ingestion and smoking. There was no difference in lesion size, number of lesions, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, local recurrence and adverse event rate between the two groups. The histological depth of invasion for patients with HNSCC was significantly shallower before ( P  = 0.016) and after ( P  = 0.047) matching. The overall survival rate was similar in both groups. Conclusions Patients with HNSCC have earlier detection of ESCC, probably due to endoscopic screening. Previous history of chemoradiation and surgery for HNSCC does not affect procedure time, AEs and OS.

II Brazilian consensus statement on endoscopic ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: At the time of its introduction in the early 80s, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was indicated for diagnostic purposes. Recently, EUS has been employed to assist or to be the main platform of complex therapeutic interventions. METHODS: From a series of relevant new topics in the literature and based on the need to complement the I Brazilian consensus on EUS, twenty experienced endosonographers identified and reviewed the pertinent literature in databases. The quality of evidence, strength of recommendations, and level of consensus were graded and voted on. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for eight relevant topics: treatment of gastric varices, staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer, biliary drainage, tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs), treatment of pancreatic fluid collections, tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions, celiac neurolysis, and evaluation of the incidental pancreatic cysts. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high level of evidence for staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer; biopsy of SELs as the safest method; unilateral and bilateral injection techniques are equivalent for EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, and in patients with visible ganglia, celiac ganglia neurolysis appears to lead to better results. There is a moderate level of evidence for: yield of tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions is not influenced by the needle shape, gauge, or employed aspiration technique; EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage present similar clinical success and adverse event rates; plastic and metallic stents are equivalent in the EUS-guided treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst. There is a low level of evidence in the routine use of EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices.

Reality named endoscopic ultrasound biliary drainage.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used for diagnosis and evaluation of many diseases of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. In the past, it was used to guide a cholangiography, but nowadays it emerges as a powerful therapeutic tool in biliary drainage. The aims of this review are: outline the rationale for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EGBD); detail the procedural technique; evaluate the clinical outcomes and limitations of the method; and provide recommendations for the practicing clinician. In cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), patients are usually referred for either percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgical bypass. Both these procedures have high rates of undesirable complications. EGBD is an attractive alternative to PTBD or surgery when ERCP fails. EGBD can be performed at two locations: transhepatic or extrahepatic, and the stent can be inserted in an antegrade or retrograde fashion. The drainage route can be transluminal, duodenal or transpapillary, which, again, can be antegrade or retrograde [rendezvous (EUS-RV)]. Complications of all techniques combined include pneumoperitoneum, bleeding, bile leak/peritonitis and cholangitis. We recommend EGBD when bile duct access is not possible because of failed cannulation, altered upper GI tract anatomy, gastric outlet obstruction, a distorted ampulla or a periampullary diverticulum, as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery or radiology.