Groove pancreatitis: From enigma to future directions-A comprehensive review.

Groove pancreatitis (GP) is a rare and clinically distinct form of chronic pancreatitis affecting the pancreaticoduodenal groove comprising the head of the pancreas, duodenum, and the common bile duct. It is more prevalent in individuals in their 4-5th decade of life and disproportionately affects men compared with women. Excessive alcohol consumption, tobacco smoking, pancreatic ductal stones, pancreatic divisum, annular pancreas, ectopic pancreas, duodenal wall thickening, and peptic ulcers are significant risk factors implicated in the development of GP. The usual presenting symptoms include severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and jaundice. Establishing a diagnosis of GP is often challenging due to significant clinical and radiological overlap with numerous benign and malignant conditions affecting the same anatomical location. This can lead to a delay in initiation of treatment leading to increasing morbidity, mortality, and complication rates. Promising research in artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered immense interest in recent years. Due to its widespread application in diagnostic imaging with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity, AI has the potential of becoming a vital tool in differentiating GP from pancreatic malignancies, thereby preventing a missed or delayed diagnosis. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of GP, covering the etiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, radiological and endoscopic evaluation, management strategies, and future directions. This article also aims to increase awareness about this lesser known and often-misdiagnosed clinical entity amongst clinicians to ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Helicobacter pylori infection does not influence the progression from gastroesophageal reflux disease to Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a meta-analysis evaluating the overall risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in individuals with Helicobacter pylori infection, and a network meta-analysis to assess the role of H. pylori infection in the progression from Barrett's esophagus (BE) to EAC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched between 1988 and June 2023 for observational studies of H. pylori infection and the risk of EAC. Summary odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method. I2 statistics were calculated to examine heterogeneity. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis and 3 additional studies were included in the network meta-analysis. For comparisons with controls, individuals with H. pylori infection were 46% less likely to develop EAC than individuals without H. pylori infection (OR, 0.54; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.64), with low heterogeneity between studies (I2=4.4%). The magnitude of the inverse association was stronger in the two large cohort studies (OR=0.31) than in the 11 case-control studies (OR=0.55). When comparing to controls, the network meta-analysis of 6 studies showed that H. pylori infection was associated with a lower risk of GERD (OR=0.68) or BE (OR=0.59) or EAC (OR=0.54); however, H. pylori infection was not associated with risk of EAC in patients with BE (OR=0.91; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.21). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides the strongest evidence yet that H. pylori infection is inversely associated with EAC. H. pylori does not appear to be associated with BE progression to EAC.

Comparing EUS-directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted ERCP Versus Enteroscopic ERCP: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of choledocholithiasis in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is challenging. This study aims to compare technical success rates, adverse events, and procedural time between 3 current approaches: endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP). METHODS: A systematic search of 5 databases was conducted. Direct and network meta-analyses were performed to compare interventions using the random effects model. A significance threshold of P < 0.05 was applied. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. On direct meta-analysis, technical success rates were comparable between EDGE and LA-ERCP (odds ratio: 0.768, CI: 0.196-3.006, P = 0.704, I2 = 14.13%). However, EDGE and LA-ERCP showed significantly higher success rates than E-ERCP. No significant differences in adverse events were found between EDGE versus LA-ERCP, EDGE versus E-ERCP, and LA-ERCP versus E-ERCP on direct meta-analysis. In terms of procedural time, EDGE was significantly shorter than E-ERCP [mean difference (MD): -31 minutes, 95% CI: -40.748 to -21.217, P < 0.001, I2 = 19.89%), and E-ERCP was shorter than LA-ERCP (MD: -44.567 minutes, 95% CI: -76.018 to -13.116, P = 0.005, I2 = 0%). EDGE also demonstrated a significant time advantage over LA-ERCP (MD: -78.145 minutes, 95% CI: -104.882 to -51.407, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). All findings were consistent with network meta-analysis on random effects model. The heterogeneity of the model was low. CONCLUSIONS: EDGE and LA-ERCP showed superior technical success rates compared with E-ERCP. Adverse events did not significantly differ among the three approaches. Furthermore, EDGE demonstrated the shortest procedural duration. We recommend considering EDGE as a first-choice procedure.

Temporal trends in mortality location in patients with anal cancer in the USA: an analysis of the National Center for Health Statistics mortality data.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate trends in where patients died of anal cancer in the USA. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the US National Center for Health Statistics Wide-Ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research platform from 2003 to 2020; all patients with death certificates listing anal cancer as the underlying cause of death in the USA. Main outcome measure of location of patient death: inpatient facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility and other. RESULTS: There were a total of 16 296 deaths with anal cancer as the underlying diagnosis during the study period. The crude rate increased from 0.191 per 100 000 deaths in 2003 to 0.453 per 100 000 deaths in 2020. Over the study period, 22.4% of patient deaths occurred in inpatient facilities, 44.9% at home, 12.2% at hospice facilities and 13.1% at nursing homes/long-term care facilities. The percentage of deaths occurring in hospice facilities increased from 1.0% to 13.3% during the study period. Deaths at home also increased from 42.7% in 2003 to 55.8% in 2020. Meanwhile, inpatient deaths decreased from 33.5% in 2003 to 14.4% in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant increase in the proportion of patients with anal cancer dying at home or hospice from 2003 to 2020.

Comparison of Artificial Intelligence With Other Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate for Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis have demonstrated improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colonoscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) compared with high-definition (HD) colonoscopy without AI. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all RCTs to assess the impact of AI compared with other endoscopic interventions aimed at increasing ADR such as distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed through May 6, 2022, to include RCTs comparing ADR for any endoscopic intervention mentioned above. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach and random effects model. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for proportional outcome. RESULTS: A total of 94 RCTs with 61,172 patients (mean age 59.1±5.2 y, females 45.8%) and 20 discrete study interventions were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved ADR for AI compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.06 to 1.66), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.40), endocap (RR: 1.32, CI: 1.17 to 1.50), endocuff (RR: 1.19, CI: 1.04 to 1.35), endocuff vision (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.13 to 1.41), endoring (RR: 1.30, CI: 1.10 to 1.52), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.09 to 1.46), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR: 1.40, CI: 1.19 to 1.65), HD (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.28 to 1.54), linked color imaging (RR: 1.21, CI: 1.08 to 1.36), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.18 to 1.48), water exchange (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.42), and water immersion (RR: 1.47, CI: 1.19 to 1.82). CONCLUSIONS: AI demonstrated significantly improved ADR when compared with most endoscopic interventions. Future RCTs directly assessing these associations are encouraged.