Effect of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus block on the palliation of pain in chronic pancreatitis (EPOCH Trial): study protocol for a randomized multicenter sham-controlled trial {1}.

BACKGROUND: Celiac plexus block has been commonly utilized for the treatment of chronic pancreatitis-associated abdominal pain. Prospective studies suggest efficacy in 30 to 50% of patients, although no randomized sham-controlled trials have been performed. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus block on abdominal pain in patients with documented chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: This is a two-arm randomized sham-controlled trial with blinded evaluators. The study will be conducted at multiple academic sites in the United States who are members of the United States Pancreatic Disease Study Group (USPG). Patients referred for EUS to exclude chronic pancreatitis as a cause of abdominal pain as well as those with established painful chronic pancreatitis undergoing EUS for another indication will be eligible. At the time of EUS with confirmation of chronic pancreatitis by standard EUS diagnostic criteria, patients will be randomized to either celiac plexus block or sham whereby an anesthetic and steroid combination will be injected into the celiac plexus or saline will be injected into the gastric lumen with the same type of needle as used for celiac plexus block, respectively. The main outcome measure will be a 50% reduction in abdominal pain using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) at 1 month post-intervention. A number of secondary outcomes will be measured including visual analog scale (VAS), Comprehensive Pain Assessment Tool Short Form (COMPAT-SF) pain scores, and quality of life using a pancreas-specific validated measure (PANQOLI). DISCUSSION: In this study, the effect of celiac plexus block on abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis will be compared to a sham intervention. This randomized trial will offer a definitive assessment of the role of celiac plexus block for the treatment of abdominal pain in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION {2}: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06178315. Registered on December 21, 2023.

Comparative outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading lesions in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: The role of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial despite its effectiveness in the general population. We aimed to characterize outcomes of EMR for IBD-associated LSLs compared with controls without IBD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with IBD who underwent EMR and endoscopic follow-up for LSLs, compared with a control group without IBD. The primary outcome was histologic recurrence. Secondary outcomes included en bloc resection and adverse events. Factors associated with recurrence were identified using multivariate mixed effects logistic regression. RESULTS: 210 premalignant lesions in 155 patients were included. By histology, 91.0% were adenoma/low grade dysplasia or sessile serrated lesions. Median (IQR) lesion size was 25 (12-30) mm in the IBD group and 20 (12-30) mm in the control group. Recurrence was detected in 30.4% of IBD-associated lesions (7/23) compared with 20.9% of controls (39/187; odds ratio [OR] 2.51, 95%CI 0.59-10.71). En bloc resection was less common in the IBD group (2/23 [8.7%], 95%CI 1.1-28.0) versus controls (106/187 [56.7%], 95%CI 50.4-65.2). After adjusting for lesion size and histology, recurrence appeared more common in patients with IBD compared with controls (OR 3.08, 95%CI 1.04-9.13). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence of LSLs after EMR appeared to be more frequent in patients with IBD. Given the added complexity, EMR in patients with IBD should be performed in expert centers with close endoscopic surveillance.

ChatGPT4 Outperforms Endoscopists for Determination of Postcolonoscopy Rescreening and Surveillance Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large language models including Chat Generative Pretrained Transformers version 4 (ChatGPT4) improve access to artificial intelligence, but their impact on the clinical practice of gastroenterology is undefined. This study compared the accuracy, concordance, and reliability of ChatGPT4 colonoscopy recommendations for colorectal cancer rescreening and surveillance with contemporary guidelines and real-world gastroenterology practice. METHODS: History of present illness, colonoscopy data, and pathology reports from patients undergoing procedures at 2 large academic centers were entered into ChatGPT4 and it was queried for the next recommended colonoscopy follow-up interval. Using the McNemar test and inter-rater reliability, we compared the recommendations made by ChatGPT4 with the actual surveillance interval provided in the endoscopist's procedure report (gastroenterology practice) and the appropriate US Multisociety Task Force (USMSTF) guidance. The latter was generated for each case by an expert panel using the clinical information and guideline documents as reference. RESULTS: Text input of de-identified data into ChatGPT4 from 505 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy between January 1 and April 30, 2023, elicited a successful follow-up recommendation in 99.2% of the queries. ChatGPT4 recommendations were in closer agreement with the USMSTF Panel (85.7%) than gastroenterology practice recommendations with the USMSTF Panel (75.4%) (P < .001). Of the 14.3% discordant recommendations between ChatGPT4 and the USMSTF Panel, recommendations were for later screening in 26 (5.1%) and for earlier screening in 44 (8.7%) cases. The inter-rater reliability was good for ChatGPT4 vs USMSTF Panel (Fleiss κ, 0.786; 95% CI, 0.734-0.838; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial real-world results suggest that ChatGPT4 can define routine colonoscopy screening intervals accurately based on verbatim input of clinical data. Large language models have potential for clinical applications, but further training is needed for broad use.

Artificial intelligence for gastric cancer in endoscopy: From diagnostic reasoning to market.

Recognition of gastric conditions during endoscopy exams, including gastric cancer, usually requires specialized training and a long learning curve. Besides that, the interobserver variability is frequently high due to the different morphological characteristics of the lesions and grades of mucosal inflammation. In this sense, artificial intelligence tools based on deep learning models have been developed to support physicians to detect, classify, and predict gastric lesions more efficiently. Even though a growing number of studies exists in the literature, there are multiple challenges to bring a model to practice in this field, such as the need for more robust validation studies and regulatory hurdles. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current use of artificial intelligence applied to endoscopic imaging to evaluate gastric precancerous and cancerous lesions and the barriers to widespread implementation of this technology in clinical routine.

Balanced Solution versus Normal Saline in Predicted Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of balanced multielectrolyte solutions(BMES) versus normal saline(NS) for intravenous fluid on chloride levels and clinical outcomes.in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (pSAP). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Isotonic crystalloids are recommended for initial fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis, but whether the use of BMES in preference to NS confers clinical benefits is unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial, we enrolled patients with pSAP (APACHE II score ≥8 and C-reactive protein >150 mg/L) admitted within 72 hours of the advent of symptoms. The study sites were randomly assigned to staggered start dates for one-way crossover from the NS phase (NS for intravenous fluid) to the BMES phase(Sterofudin for intravenous fluid). The primary endpoint was the serum chloride concentration on trial day3. Secondary endpoints included a composite of clinical and laboratory measures. RESULTS: Overall, 259 patients were enrolled from eleven sites to receive NS(n=147) or BMES(n=112). On trial day3, the mean chloride level was significantly lower in patients who received BMES(101.8 mmol/L(SD4.8) versus 105.8 mmol/L(SD5.9), difference -4.3 mmol/L [95%CI -5.6 to -3.0 mmol/L];P<0.001). For secondary endpoints, patients who received BMES had less systemic inflammatory response syndrome(19/112,17.0% versus 43/147,29.3%, P=0.024) and increased organ failure-free days (3.9 d(SD2.7) versus 3.5days(SD2.7), P<0.001) by trial day7. They also spent more time alive and out of ICU(26.4 d(SD5.2) versus 25.0days(SD6.4), P=0.009) and hospital(19.8 d(SD6.1) versus16.3days(SD7.2), P<0.001) by trial day30. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with pSAP, using BMES in preference to NS resulted in a significantly more physiological serum chloride level, which was associated with multiple clinical benefits(Trial registration number: ChiCTR2100044432).

A machine learning-based choledocholithiasis prediction tool to improve ERCP decision making: a proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated limited accuracy of existing guidelines for predicting choledocholithiasis, leading to overutilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). More accurate stratification may improve patient selection for ERCP and allow use of lower-risk modalities. METHODS: A machine learning model was developed using patient information from two published cohort studies that evaluated performance of guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis. Prediction models were developed using the gradient boosting model (GBM) machine learning method. GBM performance was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Important predictors of choledocholithiasis were identified based on relative importance in the GBM. RESULTS: 1378 patients (mean age 43.3 years; 61.2% female) were included in the GBM and 59.4% had choledocholithiasis. Eight variables were identified as predictors of choledocholithiasis. The GBM had accuracy of 71.5% (SD 2.5%) (AUC 0.79 [SD 0.06]) and performed better than the 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.4% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.63 [SD 0.03]) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.8% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.67 [SD 0.02]). The GBM correctly categorized 22% of patients directed to unnecessary ERCP by ASGE guidelines, and appropriately recommended as the next management step 48% of ERCPs incorrectly rejected by ESGE guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning-based tool was created, providing real-time, personalized, objective probability of choledocholithiasis and ERCP recommendations. This more accurately directed ERCP use than existing ASGE and ESGE guidelines, and has the potential to reduce morbidity associated with ERCP or missed choledocholithiasis.

Population-based evaluation of disparities in stomach cancer by nativity among Asian and Hispanic populations in California, 2011-2015.

BACKGROUND: Stomach cancer incidence presents significant racial/ethnic disparities among racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States, particularly among Asian and Hispanic immigrant populations. However, population-based evaluation of disparities by nativity has been scarce because of the lack of nativity-specific population denominators, especially for disaggregated Asian subgroups. Population-based stomach cancer incidence and tumor characteristics by detailed race/ethnicity and nativity were examined. METHODS: Annual age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated by race/ethnicity, sex, and nativity and tumor characteristics, such as stage and anatomic subsite, were evaluated using the 2011-2015 California Cancer Registry data. For Hispanic and Asian populations, nativity-specific population counts were estimated using the US Census and the American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample data. RESULTS: During 2011-2015 in California, 14,198 patients were diagnosed with stomach cancer. Annual age-adjusted incidence rates were higher among foreign-born individuals than their US-born counterparts. The difference was modest among Hispanics (∼1.3-fold) but larger (∼2- to 3-fold) among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans. The highest incidence was observed for foreign-born Korean and Japanese Americans (33 and 33 per 100,000 for men; 15 and 12 per 100,000 for women, respectively). The proportion of localized stage disease was highest among foreign-born Korean Americans (44%); a similar proportion was observed among US-born Korean Americans, although numbers were limited. For other Asians and Hispanics, the localized stage proportion was generally lower among foreign-born than US-born individuals and lowest among foreign-born Japanese Americans (23%). CONCLUSIONS: Nativity-specific investigation with disaggregated racial/ethnic groups identified substantial stomach cancer disparities among foreign-born immigrant populations.

A Preliminary Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fiducial Markers to Guide Pancreas Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is routinely used for fiducial marker placement (FMP) to guide stereotactic radiation of pancreatic tumors, but EUS-FMP explicitly to guide surgery has not been studied in a prospective, controlled manner. Multipurpose EUS systems have been developed that facilitate simultaneous EUS-FMP at the time of biopsy. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-FMP to guide pancreatic resection. METHODS: In this prospective trial, we enrolled patients with resectable pancreas masses undergoing tissue sampling and placed preloaded fiducials immediately after biopsy. Intraprocedure confirmation of carcinoma, neuroendocrine, and nonlymphomatous neoplasia by rapid on-site evaluation and lesion size <4 cm was required. The main outcomes were the feasibility and ease of preoperative placement and intraoperative detection of the markers using predefined Likert scales. RESULTS: In 20 patients, EUS-FMP was successful before planned surgery and placement was technically straightforward (Likert Scale: 9.1 ± 1.3; range: 1, most challenging to 10, most facile). Intraoperative detection was feasible and improved when compared with a pre-established comparator of 5 representing an equivalent lesion without a marker (Likert Scale: 7.8 ± 2.2; range: 1, most difficult to 10, most facile; P = 0.011). The mean tumor size on EUS was 1.7 ± 0.9 (range: 0.5 to 3.6) cm. CONCLUSION: EUS-FMP is feasible and safe for resectable pancreatic tumors before surgery and may assist in perioperative detection. Preloaded fiducials may be considered for placement at the time of initial referral for EUS-fine needle biopsy.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background and study aims Colorectal malignancy is a leading cause of death. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is a strategy used to resect precancerous lesions that involves injecting fluid beneath a polyp to create a gap for resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newer method that forgoes injection, instead filling the intestinal cavity with water to facilitate polyp resection. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of these approaches by synthesizing the most contemporary evidence. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched from inception through November 11, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR and CEMR for resection of colorectal lesions. The primary outcome was the rate of en bloc resection and secondary outcomes included recurrence, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 2539 studies were identified through our systematic literature search. After screening, seven RCTs with a total of 1581 polyps were included. UEMR was associated with significantly increased rates of en bloc resection (RR 1.18 [1.03, 1.35]; I 2 = 76.6%) versus conventional approaches. No significant differences were found in procedure time, recurrence, or AEs. Conclusions UEMR is a promising effective technique for removal of colorectal lesions. The most contemporary literature indicates that it improves en bloc resection rate without increasing procedure time, recurrence, or AEs (PROSPERO ID CRD42022374935).

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

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.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

Hybrid resection of GI stromal tumor with endoscopic submucosal dissection and the full-thickness resection device.

Video 1Hybrid resection of gastric GI stromal tumor with endoscopic submucosal dissection and the Full-Thickness Resection Device.