Disparities in race, ethnicity, sex, and age inclusion in pancreatic cancer screening studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Substantial differences exist in pancreatic cancer outcomes across ethnoracial stratifications. We sought to assess racial, ethnic, sex, and age reporting and inclusion of participants in pancreatic cancer screening studies. METHODS: A systematic search of Cochrane Library, Ovid Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 2022 was conducted. Original studies on pancreatic cancer screening were identified and assessed for reporting and inclusion on race, ethnicity, sex, and age. The pooled proportions of study participants for these characteristics were calculated and compared with population-based benchmarks. RESULTS: Among 27 eligible pancreatic cancer screening studies, 26 reported data on either sex, race, or ethnicity, with a total of 5273 participants. Information on participant sex was reported by 26, race by 12, and ethnicity by 8 studies. Participants in these studies were almost all white (pooled proportion, 93.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 89.7-96.4) and non-Latino (pooled proportion, 97.4%; 95% CI, 94.0-100), and these groups were over-represented when compared with the general population. Female participants were well represented, with a pooled proportion of 63.2% (95% CI, 59.9-66.6). When reported, mean or median participant age was <60 years. Meta-regression revealed higher proportions of female participants in studies from the United States (P = .002). No association between increasing participation of racial or ethnic under-represented populations and study quality, ascending year of publication, or source of study funding was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial disparities in race, ethnicity, sex, and age reporting and inclusion in pancreatic cancer studies were noted, even among high-quality and publicly funded studies.

Pancreatic Cancer Screening for At-Risk Individuals (Pancreas Scan Study): Yield, Harms, and Outcomes From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines endorse pancreatic cancer screening in genetically susceptible individuals. We conducted a prospective, multicenter study to determine yield, harms, and outcomes of pancreatic cancer screening. METHODS: All high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening at 5 centers from 2020 to 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Pancreas findings were designated as low-risk (fatty or chronic pancreatitis-like changes), intermediate-risk (neuroendocrine tumor [NET] <2 cm or branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm [IPMN]), or high-risk lesions (high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia/dysplasia, main-duct IPMN, NET >2 cm, or pancreatic cancer). Harms from screening included adverse events during screening or undergoing low-yield pancreatic surgery. Annual screening was performed using endoscopic ultrasound and or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Annual screening for new-onset diabetes using fasting blood sugar was also performed ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT05006131). RESULTS: During the study period, 252 patients underwent pancreatic cancer screening. Mean age was 59.9 years, 69% were female, and 79.4% were White. Common indications were BRCA 1/2 (36.9%), familial pancreatic cancer syndrome kindred (31.7%), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (3.5%), Lynch syndrome (6.7%), Peutz-Jeghers (4.3%), and familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (3.5%). Low-risk lesions were noted in 23.4% and intermediate-risk lesions in 31.7%, almost all of which were branch-duct IPMN without worrisome features. High-risk lesions were noted in 2 patients (0.8%), who were diagnosed with pancreas cancer at stages T2N1M0 and T2N1M1. Prediabetes was noted in 18.2% and new-onset diabetes in 1.7%. Abnormal fasting blood sugar was not associated with pancreatic lesions. There were no adverse events from screening tests, and no patient underwent low-yield pancreatic surgery. DISCUSSION: Pancreatic cancer screening detected high-risk lesions with lower frequency than previously reported. No harms from screening were noted.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

Incidence and Prevalence of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms in Individuals With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of branch-duct intraductal papillary neoplasm (BD-IPMN) in BRCA1/2 patients is unknown. Our goal was to estimate the incidence and prevalence of BD-IPMN and other pancreatic lesions in BRCA1/2 patients and compare it to that for average-risk individuals. METHODS: We identified a cohort of BRCA1/2 patients followed at our institution between 1995 and 2020. Medical records and imaging results were reviewed to determine prevalence of pancreatic lesions. We then identified those who had undergone follow-up imaging and determined the incidence of new pancreatic lesions. We categorized pancreatic lesions as low, intermediate, or high-risk based on their malignant potential. RESULTS: During the study period, 359 eligible BRCA1/2 patients were identified. Average patient age was 56.8 years, 88.3% were women, and 51.5% had BRCA1 . The prevalence of low-risk pancreatic lesions was 14.4%, intermediate-risk 13.9%, and high-risk 3.3%. The prevalence of BD-IPMN was 13.6% with mean cyst size 7.7 mm (range: 2 to 34 mm). The prevalence of pancreatic cancer was 3.1%. Subsequent imaging was performed in 169 patents with mean follow-up interval of 5.3 years (range: 0 to 19.7 y). The incidence of BD-IPMN was 20.1%, with median cyst size 5.5 mm (range: 2 to 30 mm). The incidence of pancreatic cancer was 2.9%. BRCA2 patients were almost 4-times more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than BRCA1 patients, however, there was no difference in incidence or prevalence of BD-IPMN. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence and prevalence of BD-IPMNs in BRCA1/2 patients was similar to that reported for average-risk individuals. BRCA2 patients were more likely than BRCA1 patients to develop pancreatic cancer but had similar rates of BD-IPMN.

Speedometer for withdrawal time monitoring during colonoscopy: a clinical implementation trial.

OBJECTIVES: Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time. METHODS: We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer (p = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer (p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04710251.

Consensus guidelines for the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Deep sedation without tracheal intubation (monitored anaesthesia care) and general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation are commonly used anaesthesia techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are distinct pathophysiological differences between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia that need to be considered depending on the nature and severity of the patient's underlying disease, comorbidities, and procedural risks. An international group of expert anaesthesiologists and gastroenterologists created clinically relevant questions regarding the merits and risks of monitored anaesthesia care vs general anaesthesia in specific clinical scenarios for planning optimal anaesthetic approaches for ERCP. Using a modified Delphi approach, the group created practical recommendations for anaesthesiologists, with the aim of reducing the incidence of perioperative adverse outcomes while maximising healthcare resource utilisation. In the majority of clinical scenarios analysed, our expert recommendations favour monitored anaesthesia care over general anaesthesia. Patients with increased risk of pulmonary aspiration and those undergoing prolonged procedures of high complexity were thought to benefit from general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Patient age and ASA physical status were not considered to be factors for choosing between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia. Monitored anaesthesia care is the favoured anaesthesia plan for ERCP. An individual risk-benefit analysis that takes into account provider and institutional experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural risks is also needed.

EUS imaging for the diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS is increasingly used to evaluate patients with liver disease, but its role in assessing hepatic steatosis has not been reported. The goal of our study was to assess the accuracy of EUS for diagnosing hepatic steatosis. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling at our institution. All digitally stored EUS liver images were reviewed by a single radiologist, who rated the severity of liver echogenicity using a 4-point US scale. Liver biopsy specimens for all study patients were reviewed by a single liver pathologist, who rated them for steatosis and fibrosis using Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network criteria. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of EUS for hepatic steatosis for all patients and in a subgroup analysis for obese and nonobese patients. RESULTS: During the study period, 76 patients underwent EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling. The average age of study patients was 56.5 years, 50% were women, and 43.2% were obese. The accuracy for EUS for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis was .8 (95% confidence interval [CI], .7-.89). The accuracy of EUS for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis in obese patients was .93 (95% CI, .8-.99) and in nonobese patients was .69 (95% CI, .54-.83). For obese patients, EUS had a positive predictive value of 89.7% and a negative predictive value of 75%. The finding of course echotexture on EUS had an accuracy of 79% for the diagnosis of grade 3 fibrosis or cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is a useful tool for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis, particularly in obese patients in whom abdominal US has modest accuracy.

Biopsy channel of the endoscope as a potential source of infectious droplets during GI endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: During endoscopy, droplets with the potential to transmit infectious diseases are known to emanate from a patient's mouth and anus, but they may also be expelled from the biopsy channel of the endoscope. The main goal of our study was to quantify droplets emerging from the biopsy channel during clinical endoscopy. METHODS: A novel light-scattering device was used to measure droplets emanating from the biopsy channel. An endoscopy model was created, and in vitro measurements were carried out during air insufflation, air and water suctioning, and the performance of biopsy sampling. Similar measurements were then made on patients undergoing endoscopy, with all measurements taking place over 2 days to minimize variation. RESULTS: During in vitro testing, no droplets were observed at the biopsy channel during air insufflation or air and water suctioning. In 3 of 5 cases, droplets were observed during biopsy sampling, mostly when the forceps were being removed from the endoscope. In the 22 patients undergoing routine endoscopy, no droplets were observed during air insufflation and water suctioning. Droplets were detected in 1 of 11 patients during air suctioning. In 9 of 18 patients undergoing biopsy sampling and 5 of 6 patients undergoing snare polypectomies, droplets were observed at the biopsy channel, mostly when instruments were being removed from the endoscope. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the biopsy channel may be a source of infectious droplets, especially during the removal of instruments from the biopsy channel. When compared with droplets reported from the mouth and anus, these droplets were larger in size and therefore potentially more infectious.

ERCP within 6 or 12 h for acute cholangitis: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of biliary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with acute cholangitis remains controversial. The aim of our study was to determine if ERCP performed within 6 or 12 h of presentation was associated with improved clinical outcomes. METHODS: Medical records for all patients with acute cholangitis who underwent ERCP at our institution between 2009 and 2018 were reviewed. Outcomes were compared between those who underwent ERCP within or after 12 h using propensity score framework. Our primary outcome was length of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, adverse events, ERCP failure, length of ICU stay, organ failure, recurrent cholangitis, and 30-day readmission. In secondary analysis, outcomes for ERCP done within or after 6 h were also compared. RESULTS: During study period, 487 patients with cholangitis were identified, of whom 147 had ERCP within 12 h of presentation. Using propensity score matching, we selected 145 pairs of patients with similar characteristics. Length of hospitalization was similar between ERCP within or after 12 h (135.9 vs 122.1 h, p 0.094). No difference was noted in mortality, ERCP failure, adverse events, need and length of ICU stay, and recurrent cholangitis. However, 30-day readmission rates were lower when ERCP within 12 h (7.6 vs 15.2, p 0.042). No significant difference was noted in aforementioned outcomes between ERCP performed within or after 6 h. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP performed within 6 h or 12 h of presentation was not associated with superior clinical outcomes, however, may result in reduced re-hospitalization.

Coronavirus disease-2019: implications for the gastroenterologist.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the practicing gastroenterologist in several ways. Although majority of COVID-19 patients present with respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms are also seen. COVID-19 has also disrupted gastrointestinal endoscopy services in numerous ways. There are also concerns regarding the impact of these changes on gastrointestinal cancer screening and management of chronic gastrointestinal diseases. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the implications of COVID-19 for the practicing gastroenterologist. RECENT FINDINGS: COVID-19 patients can have gastrointestinal symptoms including diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain and anorexia. Separate from the management of COVID-19 patients, there has been a reduction in endoscopy volume worldwide. This has also resulted in reduction/cessation of in-person clinic visits and an increasing use of telemedicine services. In addition, patients with certain chronic diseases like chronic liver disease or inflammatory bowel disease may have worse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY: Gastroenterologists need to rapidly adapt to the challenges being faced and need to make both systems and practice-based changes to the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic practices. Gastroenterologists should stay up-to-date with the rapidly evolving literature regarding gastrointestinal symptoms in COVID-19 patients as well as its impact on chronic gastrointestinal illnesses.

Preloaded 22-gauge fine-needle system facilitates placement of a higher number of fiducials for image-guided radiation therapy compared with traditional backloaded 19-gauge approach.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) often relies on EUS-guided fiducial markers. Previously used manually backloaded fiducial needles have multiple potential limitations including safety and efficiency concerns. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of EUS-guided placement of gold fiducials using a novel preloaded 22-gauge needle compared with a traditional, backloaded 19-gauge needle. METHODS: This was a single-center comparative cohort study. Patients with pancreatic and hepatobiliary malignancy who underwent EUS-guided fiducial placement (EUS-FP) between October 2014 and February 2018 were included. The main outcome was the technical success of fiducial placement. Secondary outcomes were mean procedure time, fiducial visibility during IGRT, technical success of IGRT delivery, and adverse events. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients underwent EUS-FP during the study period. Of these, 111 patients had successful placement of a minimum of 2 fiducials. Fifty-six patients underwent placement using a backloaded 19-gauge needle and 58 patients underwent placement using a 22-gauge preloaded needle. The mean number of fiducials placed successfully at the target site was significantly higher in the 22-gauge group compared with the 19-gauge group (3.53 ± .96 vs 3.11 ± .61, respectively; P = .006). In the 22-gauge group, the clinical goal of placing 4 fiducials was achieved in 78%, compared with 23% in the 19-gauge group (P < .001). In univariate analyses, gender, age, procedure time, tumor size, and location did not influence the number of successfully placed fiducials. Technical success of IGRT with fiducial tracking was high in both the 19-gauge (51/56, 91%) and the 22-gauge group (47/58, 81%; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FP using a preloaded 22-gauge needle is feasible, effective, and safe and allows for a higher number of fiducials placed when compared with the traditional backloaded 19-gauge needle.

ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis.

Cholangitis is a GI emergency requiring prompt recognition and treatment. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an evidence-based approach for management of cholangitis. This document addresses the modality of drainage (endoscopic vs percutaneous), timing of intervention (<48 hours vs >48 hours), and extent of initial intervention (comprehensive therapy vs decompression alone). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to formulate recommendations on these topics. The ASGE suggests endoscopic rather than percutaneous drainage and biliary decompression within 48 hours. Additionally, the panel suggests that sphincterotomy and stone removal be combined with drainage rather than decompression alone, unless patients are too unstable to tolerate more extensive endoscopic treatment.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of malignant hilar obstruction.

This clinical guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the management of patients with malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses primary drainage modality (percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage [PTBD] vs endoscopic biliary drainage [EBD]), drainage strategy (unilateral vs bilateral), and stent selection (plastic stent [PS] vs self-expandable metal stent [SEMS]). Regarding drainage modality, in patients with MHO undergoing drainage before potential resection or transplantation, the panel suggests against routine use of PTBD as first-line therapy compared with EBD. In patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative drainage, the panel suggests PTBD or EBD. The final decision should be based on patient preferences, disease characteristics, and local expertise. Regarding drainage strategy, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placement of bilateral stents compared with a unilateral stent in the absence of liver atrophy. Finally, regarding type of stent, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placing SEMSs or PSs. However, in patients who have a short life expectancy and who place high value on avoiding repeated interventions, the panel suggests using SEMSs compared with PSs. If optimal drainage strategy has not been established, the panel suggests placing PSs. 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.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of benign and malignant gastroduodenal obstruction.

This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to address key clinical questions. These include the comparison of (1) surgical gastrojejunostomy to the placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for malignant GOO, (2) covered versus uncovered SEMS for malignant GOO, and (3) endoscopic and surgical interventions for the management of benign GOO. Recommendations provided in this document were founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of benefits and harms, considerations of patient and caregiver preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Outcomes after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with general anaesthesia versus sedation.

BACKGROUND: We tested the primary hypothesis that use of general anaesthesia vs sedation increases vulnerability to adverse discharge (in-hospital mortality or new discharge to a nursing facility) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients undergoing ERCP with general anaesthesia or sedation at a tertiary care hospital were included. We calculated adjusted absolute risk differences between patients receiving general anaesthesia vs sedation using provider preference-based instrumental variable analysis. We also used mediation analysis to determine whether intraoperative hypotension during general anaesthesia mediated its effect on adverse discharge. RESULTS: Among 17 538 patients undergoing ERCP from 2007 through 2018, 16 238 received sedation and 1300 received GA. Rates of adverse discharge were 5.8% (n=938) after sedation and 16.2% (n=210) after general anaesthesia. Providers' adjusted mean predicted probabilities of using general anaesthesia for ERCP ranged from 0.2% to 63.2% of individual caseloads. Utilising provider-related variability in the use of general anaesthesia for instrumental variable analysis resulted in an 8.6% risk increase (95% confidence interval, 4.5-12.6%; P<0.001) in adverse discharge among patients receiving general anaesthesia vs sedation. Intraoperative hypotensive events occurred more often during general anaesthesia and mediated 23.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-43.7%: P=0.019) of the primary association. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that use of sedation during ERCP facilitates reduced adverse discharge for patients for whom general anaesthesia is not clearly indicated. Intraoperative hypotension during general anaesthesia for ERCP partly mediates the increased vulnerability to adverse discharge.

Should This Patient Be Screened for Pancreatic Cancer? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Because pancreatic cancer is typically advanced at the time of diagnosis, it has a very low 5-year survival rate and may become the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. A screening program to find early-stage pancreatic cancer is needed but has been challenging to develop because of the lack of an effective screening test. In 2019, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force performed an evidence review and updated its guidance, confirming its 2004 "D" recommendation against routine screening for average-risk patients. Here, 2 experts review the updated guideline and recent evidence and discuss whether a patient with a family history of pancreatic cancer should undergo screening.

Two-photon polymerization nanofabrication of ultracompact light scattering spectroscopic probe for detection of pre-cancer in pancreatic cyst.

Pancreatic cancer has one of the worst survival rates of all major cancers, with pancreatic cystic lesions accounting for one in three pancreatic surgeries. The current gold-standard for diagnosis of pancreatic cyst malignancy is based on the endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) procedure, which suffers from a low accuracy in detecting malignancy. Here we present the design and two-photon polymerization based fabrication of refractive and reflective non-contact probes, capable of rapid surveillance of the entire internal cyst surface-an advance over the contact probe we recently developed that allowed, for the first time, reliable evaluation of pancreatic cyst malignant potential in vivo. We employed a novel two-photon polymerization technique, which allows direct laser-writing to an accuracy of tens of nanometers, to fit the probe within the 540 micrometer internal diameter EUS-FNA needle. The newly constructed probes show excellent separation of the illumination and collection beams, essential for proper operation of the spatial gating method. These probes can be used clinically to perform rapid "optical biopsy", ultimately eliminating unnecessary pancreatic surgeries on benign cysts and dangerous delays in surgical removal of malignant cysts, improving patient prognosis and quality of life.

Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes. METHODS: We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned. RESULTS: All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction and colonic volvulus.

Colonic volvulus and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO) are 2 causes of benign large-bowel obstruction. Colonic volvulus occurs most commonly in the sigmoid colon as a result of bowel twisting along its mesenteric axis. In contrast, the exact pathophysiology of ACPO is poorly understood, with the prevailing hypothesis being altered regulation of colonic function by the autonomic nervous system resulting in colonic distention in the absence of mechanical blockage. Prompt diagnosis and intervention leads to improved outcomes for both diagnoses. Endoscopy may play a role in the evaluation and management of both entities. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on the evaluation and endoscopic management of sigmoid volvulus and ACPO.