Prospective, Multi-Institutional, Real-Time Next-Generation Sequencing of Pancreatic Cyst Fluid Reveals Diverse Genomic Alterations That Improve the Clinical Management of Pancreatic Cysts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of pancreatic cyst fluid is a useful adjunct in the assessment of patients with pancreatic cyst. However, previous studies have been retrospective or single institutional experiences. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate NGS on a multi-institutional cohort of patients with pancreatic cyst in real time. METHODS: The performance of a 22-gene NGS panel (PancreaSeq) was first retrospectively confirmed and then within a 2-year timeframe, PancreaSeq testing was prospectively used to evaluate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration pancreatic cyst fluid from 31 institutions. PancreaSeq results were correlated with endoscopic ultrasound findings, ancillary studies, current pancreatic cyst guidelines, follow-up, and expanded testing (Oncomine) of postoperative specimens. RESULTS: Among 1933 PCs prospectively tested, 1887 (98%) specimens from 1832 patients were satisfactory for PancreaSeq testing. Follow-up was available for 1216 (66%) patients (median, 23 months). Based on 251 (21%) patients with surgical pathology, mitogen-activated protein kinase/GNAS mutations had 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity for a mucinous cyst (positive predictive value [PPV], 100%; negative predictive value [NPV], 77%). On exclusion of low-level variants, the combination of mitogen-activated protein kinase/GNAS and TP53/SMAD4/CTNNB1/mammalian target of rapamycin alterations had 88% sensitivity and 98% specificity for advanced neoplasia (PPV, 97%; NPV, 93%). Inclusion of cytopathologic evaluation to PancreaSeq testing improved the sensitivity to 93% and maintained a high specificity of 95% (PPV, 92%; NPV, 95%). In comparison, other modalities and current pancreatic cyst guidelines, such as the American Gastroenterology Association and International Association of Pancreatology/Fukuoka guidelines, show inferior diagnostic performance. The sensitivities and specificities of VHL and MEN1/loss of heterozygosity alterations were 71% and 100% for serous cystadenomas (PPV, 100%; NPV, 98%), and 68% and 98% for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PPV, 85%; NPV, 95%), respectively. On follow-up, serous cystadenomas with TP53/TERT mutations exhibited interval growth, whereas pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with loss of heterozygosity of ≥3 genes tended to have distant metastasis. None of the 965 patients who did not undergo surgery developed malignancy. Postoperative Oncomine testing identified mucinous cysts with BRAF fusions and ERBB2 amplification, and advanced neoplasia with CDKN2A alterations. CONCLUSIONS: PancreaSeq was not only sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.

A Combined DNA/RNA-based Next-Generation Sequencing Platform to Improve the Classification of Pancreatic Cysts and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer Arising From Pancreatic Cysts.

OBJECTIVE: We report the development and validation of a combined DNA/RNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform to improve the evaluation of pancreatic cysts. BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite a multidisciplinary approach, pancreatic cyst classification, such as a cystic precursor neoplasm, and the detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma (advanced neoplasia) can be challenging. NGS of preoperative pancreatic cyst fluid improves the clinical evaluation of pancreatic cysts, but the recent identification of novel genomic alterations necessitates the creation of a comprehensive panel and the development of a genomic classifier to integrate the complex molecular results. METHODS: An updated and unique 74-gene DNA/RNA-targeted NGS panel (PancreaSeq Genomic Classifier) was created to evaluate 5 classes of genomic alterations to include gene mutations (e.g., KRAS, GNAS, etc.), gene fusions and gene expression. Further, CEA mRNA ( CEACAM5 ) was integrated into the assay using RT-qPCR. Separate multi-institutional cohorts for training (n=108) and validation (n=77) were tested, and diagnostic performance was compared to clinical, imaging, cytopathologic, and guideline data. RESULTS: Upon creation of a genomic classifier system, PancreaSeq GC yielded a 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity for a cystic precursor neoplasm, and the sensitivity and specificity for advanced neoplasia were 82% and 100%, respectively. Associated symptoms, cyst size, duct dilatation, a mural nodule, increasing cyst size, and malignant cytopathology had lower sensitivities (41-59%) and lower specificities (56-96%) for advanced neoplasia. This test also increased the sensitivity of current pancreatic cyst guidelines (IAP/Fukuoka and AGA) by >10% and maintained their inherent specificity. CONCLUSIONS: PancreaSeq GC was not only accurate in predicting pancreatic cyst type and advanced neoplasia but also improved the sensitivity of current pancreatic cyst guidelines.

Implementation of a Population-Based Cancer Family History Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Lynch syndrome increases risks for colorectal and other cancers. Though published Lynch syndrome cancer risk-management guidelines are effective for risk-reduction, the condition remains under-recognized. The Cancer Genetics Program at an academic medical center implemented a population-based cancer family history screening program, Detecting Unaffected Individuals with Lynch syndrome, to aid in identification of individuals with Lynch syndrome. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, simple cancer family history screening questionnaires were used to identify those at risk for Lynch syndrome. Program navigators triaged and educated those who screened positive about hereditary cancer, and genetic counseling and testing services, offering genetic counseling if eligible. Genetic counseling was provided primarily via telephone. Genetic counselors performed hereditary cancer risk assessment and offered genetic testing via hereditary cancer panels to those eligible. Remote service delivery models via telephone genetic counseling and at-home saliva testing were used to increase access to medical genetics services. RESULTS: This program screened 212,827 individuals, over half of whom were considered underserved, and identified 133 clinically actionable genetic variants associated with hereditary cancer. Of these, 47 (35%) were associated with Lynch syndrome while notably, 70 (53%) were not associated with hereditary colorectal cancer. Of 3,344 patients offered genetic counseling after initial triage, 2,441 (73%) elected to schedule the appointment and 1,775 individuals (73%) completed genetic counseling. Among underserved patients, telephone genetic counseling completion rates were significantly higher than in-person appointment completion rates (P < .05). While remote service delivery improved appointment completion rates, challenges with genetic test completion using at-home saliva sample collection kits were observed, with 242 of 1592 individuals (15%) not completing testing. CONCLUSION: Population-based cancer family history screening and navigation can help identify individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes across diverse patient populations, but logistics of certain downstream service delivery models can impact outcomes.

Endoscopic Treatment of Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Esophageal cancer is a leading cause of global cancer-related mortality. Here, we discuss the major endoscopic treatment modalities for management of early esophageal cancer (EEC). RECENT FINDINGS: Advances in endoscopic imaging and therapy have shifted the paradigm of managing early esophageal cancers. Though esophagectomy remains the preferred management for advanced cancers, guidelines now recommend endoscopic resection followed by ablative therapy for early (Tis and T1a) cancers. Available data suggests endoscopic treatment is comparable to surgery with regard to overall and cancer-specific survival with lower procedural morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic modalities are emerging as frontline treatment options for patients with early esophageal cancers. Accurate clinical staging with assessment of disease extent, tumor grade, and risk of nodal metastases is crucial when determining eligibility for endoscopic management of EEC. High-quality routine surveillance endoscopy is critical in patients who have undergone resection and/or ablation.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary stenting or EUS-based transmural stenting are unknown. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these procedures and to compare them with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through December 10, 2015 to identify studies (with 10 or more patients) reporting technical success and postprocedure adverse events of EGBD. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for technical and clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were calculated for both methods of EGBD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated to compare the technical success and postprocedure adverse events in patients undergoing EGBD versus PGBD. RESULTS: The WPRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis for ERC-based transpapillary drainage were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%; I2 = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I2 = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I2 = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The WPRs for EUS-based drainage for technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I2 = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I2 = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I2 = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I2 = 0%), respectively. On proportionate difference, EUS-based drainage had better technical (10%) and clinical success (4%) in comparison with ERC-based drainage. The pooled OR for technical success of EGBD versus PGBD was .51 (95% CI, .09-2.88; I2 = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was .33 (95% CI, .14-.80; I2 = 16%) in favor of EGBD. CONCLUSIONS: EGBD is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo surgery. EGBD shows a similar technical success as PGBD but appears to be safer than PGBD.

Accuracy of Referring Provider and Endoscopist Impressions of Colonoscopy Indication.

Background: Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication are used for clinical care, reimbursement, and quality reporting decisions; however, the accuracy of these impressions is unknown. This study assessed the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of methods to classify colonoscopy indication, including referring provider impression, endoscopist impression, and administrative algorithm compared with gold standard chart review. Methods: We randomly sampled 400 patients undergoing a colonoscopy at a Veterans Affairs health system between January 2010 and December 2010. Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication were compared with gold-standard chart review. Indications were classified into 4 mutually exclusive categories: diagnostic, surveillance, high-risk screening, or average-risk screening. Results: Of 400 colonoscopies, 26% were performed for average-risk screening, 7% for high-risk screening, 26% for surveillance, and 41% for diagnostic indications. Accuracy of referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication were 87% and 84%, respectively, which were significantly higher than that of the administrative algorithm (45%; P<.001 for both). There was substantial agreement between endoscopist and referring provider impressions (κ=0.76). All 3 methods showed high sensitivity (>90%) for determining screening (vs nonscreening) indication, but specificity of the administrative algorithm was lower (40.3%) compared with referring provider (93.7%) and endoscopist (84.0%) impressions. Accuracy of endoscopist, but not referring provider, impression was lower in patients with a family history of colon cancer than in those without (65% vs 84%; P=.001). Conclusions: Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication are both accurate and may be useful data to incorporate into algorithms classifying colonoscopy indication.

How Do We Manage Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia? A Survey of Clinical Practice Trends for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is an accepted pathologic precursor to gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). While surveillance of GIM in Europe and Asia is common, only limited recommendations related to endoscopic surveillance of GIM exist in the United States. AIM: To understand the clinical practice patterns of US gastroenterologists in the management and endoscopic surveillance of GIM. METHODS: A 23 item survey was developed to explore endoscopists' opinions regarding the surveillance of GIM and knowledge of current guidelines. Eight clinical vignettes were developed to address specific clinical scenarios where endoscopic surveillance of GIM might be considered. RESULTS: There were 227 respondents, with 60 % working primarily in the private sector and 40 % in academic medicine. While 68 % of the respondents refer to major society guidelines for guidance in patient management, almost 78 % of endoscopist responders believe that there are no specific US guidelines pertaining to surveillance of GIM. Only two-thirds of respondents believe that based on current data, patients at increased risk of GAC should be a part of an endoscopic surveillance program, while 15 % believe all patients with GIM should receive endoscopic surveillance. Respondents use a wide range of biopsy techniques and surveillance intervals for patients with GIM, with no consistent pattern of practice identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in the knowledge and practice patterns of US endoscopists related to surveillance of gastric intestinal metaplasia. In the absence of detailed US GI society guidelines, many endoscopists perform surveillance endoscopy on patients with GIM using variable biopsy techniques and surveillance intervals.

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost. RESULTS: After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy.

Predicting the likelihood of a persistent bile duct stone in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis: accuracy of existing guidelines and the impact of laboratory trends.

BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines aim to stratify the likelihood of choledocholithiasis to guide the use of ERCP versus a lower-risk diagnostic study such as EUS, MRCP, or intraoperative cholangiography. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of existing guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis and to determine whether trends in laboratory parameters improve diagnostic accuracy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients presenting with suspected choledocholithiasis over a 6-year period. INTERVENTIONS: Assessment of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines, its component variables, and laboratory trends in predicting choledocholithiasis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The presence of choledocholithiasis confirmed by EUS, MRCP, or ERCP. RESULTS: A total of 179 (35.9%) of the 498 eligible patients met ASGE high-probability criteria for choledocholithiasis on initial presentation. Of those, 99 patients (56.3%) had a stone/sludge on subsequent confirmatory test. Of patients not meeting high-probability criteria on presentation, 111 (34.8%) had a stone/sludge. The overall accuracy of the guidelines in detecting choledocholithiasis was 62.1% (47.4% sensitivity, 73% specificity) based on data available at presentation. The accuracy was unchanged when incorporating the second set of liver chemistries obtained after admission (63.2%), suggesting that laboratory trends do not improve performance. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, inconsistent timing of the second set of biochemical markers. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients, existing choledocholithiasis guidelines lacked diagnostic accuracy, likely resulting in overuse of ERCP. Incorporation of laboratory trends did not improve performance. Additional research focused on risk stratification is necessary to meet the goal of eliminating unnecessary diagnostic ERCP.

Accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer living in SEER regions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The two most common interventions used to treat painless jaundice from pancreatic cancer are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Our study aimed to characterize the geographic distribution of ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States and the association between geographic accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals and biliary interventions patients receive. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database for pancreatic cancer from 2005 to 2013. Multilevel models were used to examine the association between accessibility to ERCP hospitals within a 30- and 45-min drive from the patient's residential ZIP Code and the receipt of ERCP treatment. A two-step floating catchment area model was used to calculate the measure of accessibility based on the distribution across SEER regions. RESULTS: 7464 and 782 patients underwent ERCP and PTBD, respectively, over the study period. There were 808 hospitals in which 8246 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in SEER regions from 2005 to 2013 received a procedure. Patients with high accessibility within both 30- and 45-min drive to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive an ERCP (30-min adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.01; 45-min aOR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70). Furthermore, in the adjusted model, Black patients (vs. White) and patients with stage IV disease were less likely to receive ERCP than PTBD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pancreatic cancer and high accessibility to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive ERCP. Disparities in the receipt of ERCP persisted for Black patients regardless of their access to ERCP-performing hospitals.

Chronic Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including colitis. Growing evidence suggests proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increase the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Given the pathophysiological overlap between IBD and ICI colitis, we sought to evaluate the relationship between PPI use and ICI colitis in mRCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of adult patients who received ICI therapy for mRCC between 2015 and 2018 at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center affiliated hospitals. Clinical characteristics, oncological outcomes, ICI colitis details, and PPI use details were collected by manual chart review. The diagnosis of ICI colitis was made via biopsy when available, or by clinical criteria (symptoms and response to immunosuppressive therapy) when biopsy specimens were unavailable or inconclusive. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the potential contribution of PPIs to ICI colitis. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients received ICI therapy for mRCC, of which 16 (9.1%) were diagnosed with ICI colitis. Patients with ICI colitis presented with elevated stool lactoferritin and calprotectin and a wide range of endoscopic and histologic findings. There were no significant differences between patients with and without ICI colitis in age, gender, medical comorbidities, RCC history, and overall survival. However, exposure to ipilimumab and PPI use were more frequently observed in patients with ICI colitis than those without. In univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, exposure to ipilimumab and chronic use of PPIs > 8 weeks were significantly associated with ICI colitis. CONCLUSION: In addition to ipilimumab use, chronic use of PPIs may be associated with ICI colitis in patients with mRCC.

EUS-FNA with rescue fluorescence in situ hybridization for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma in patients with inconclusive on-site cytopathology results.

BACKGROUND: Detection of chromosomal abnormalities by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis has not been well-studied in FNA samples of pancreatic masses. Selective use of FISH in patients with inconclusive on-site cytopathology results may improve the sensitivity of EUS for malignancy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of FISH analysis in patients with inconclusive on-site cytopathology results. DESIGN: Consecutive patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy, nonrandomized cohort study. Final diagnosis was based on either surgical biopsy or disease progression on extended follow-up or death. SETTING: Academic center, tertiary-care referral cancer center. PATIENTS: A total of 212 EUS examinations were performed in 206 patients for solid pancreatic lesions over a 24-month period (January 2009-December 2010). FISH analysis was done for 69 patients with inconclusive or nonavailable on-site cytology results. INTERVENTION: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses with cytology and FISH analysis for polysomy of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 and deletion of 9p21. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity/specificity of cytology, FISH, and a composite of cytology and FISH. RESULTS: Patients with positive on-site cytology (110), neuroendocrine tumors (22), insufficient follow-up (1), FISH not obtained (3), and renal cancer with pancreatic metastasis (1) were excluded. Sixty-nine patients comprised the study cohort, 54 with malignancy and 15 with benign disease. Sensitivity for malignancy of cytology, FISH analysis, and the combination were 61%, 74%, and 85%, respectively (P = .009). FISH detected an additional 13 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma missed by cytology. There was no false-positive FISH analysis in 15 patients with benign disease. No major complications occurred from EUS-FNA. LIMITATIONS: Single center, selected patients underwent FISH analysis, limited number of patients with benign disease. CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, FISH analysis can detect additional cases missed by cytology without compromising specificity. FISH analysis to detect polysomy of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 and deletion of 9p21 should be considered when cytology is negative for malignancy in patients with a known pancreatic mass.

Facilitating Surveillance of Incidental Findings Using a Novel Reporting Template: Proof of Concept in Patients With Pancreatic Abnormalities.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the surveillance impact of utilizing a discrete field in structured radiology reports in patients with incidental pancreatic findings. METHODS: We implemented a dictation template containing a discrete structured field element to auto-trigger listing of patients with incidental pancreatic findings on a pancreas clinic registry in the electronic health record. We isolated CT and MRI reports with incidental pancreatic findings over a 24-month period. We stratified patients by presence or absence of the discrete field element in reports (flagged versus unflagged) and evaluated the impact of report flagging on likelihood of clinic follow-up, follow-up imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, surgical intervention, genetics referral, obtaining pathologic diagnosis, and time interval between index imaging to various outcomes. RESULTS: Patients with flagged reports were more likely to be seen or discussed in a pancreas clinic compared with those with unflagged reports (189 of 376, 50.3% versus 79 of 474, 16.7%; P <. 001). Patients with flagged reports were more likely to get follow-up imaging than patients with unflagged reports (188 of 376, 50.0% versus 121 of 474, 25.5%; P < .001) and were more likely to undergo appropriate management of actionable findings compared with patients in the unflagged group (23 of 62, 37.1% versus 28 of 129, 21.7%; P = .036). DISCUSSION: Implementation of a structured discrete field element for reporting of patients with incidental pancreatic findings had positive impact on surveillance measures and can be applied in other organ systems with established surveillance guidelines to standardize patient care.

Regional and racial variations in the utilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among pancreatic cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths by 2030. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is recommended as first-line therapy for biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer. The aim of our study was to characterize geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in ERCP utilization among patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2003-2013. The primary outcome was receipt of ERCP, with or without stent placement, vs any non-ERCP biliary intervention. RESULTS: Of the 36 619 patients with pancreatic cancer, 37.5% (n = 13 719) underwent an ERCP, percutaneous drainage, or surgical biliary bypass. The most common biliary intervention (82.6%) was ERCP. After adjusting for tumor location and stage, Blacks were significantly less likely to receive ERCP than Whites (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72, 0.97) and more likely to receive percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14, 1.66). Patients in the Southeast and the West were more likely to receive ERCP than those in the Northeast (Southeast aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04, 1.40; West aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01, 1.32). CONCLUSION: Racial/ethnic and geographic disparities in access to biliary interventions including ERCP exist for patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States. Our results highlight the need for further research and policies to improve access to appropriate biliary intervention for all patients.

Preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of ERCP. Advances in risk stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the endoscopists' ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests timely research questions in this important area.