Endohepatology: The endoscopic armamentarium in the hand of the hepatologist.

ABSTRACT: Recent advances in the field of hepatology include new and effective treatments for viral hepatitis. Further effort is now being directed to other disease entities, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, with an increased need for assessment of liver function and histology. In fact, with the evolving nomenclature of fat-associated liver disease and the emergence of the term "metabolic-associated fatty liver disease" (MAFLD), new diagnostic challenges have emerged as patients with histologic absence of steatosis can still be classified under the umbrella of MAFLD. Currently, there is a growing number of endoscopic procedures that are pertinent to patients with liver disease. Indeed, interventional radiologists mostly perform interventional procedures such as percutaneous and intravascular procedures, whereas endoscopists focus on screening for and treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. EUS has proven to be of value in many areas within the realm of hepatology, including liver biopsy, assessment of liver fibrosis, measurement of portal pressure, managing variceal bleeding, and EUS-guided paracentesis. In this review article, we will address the endoscopic applications that are used to manage patients with chronic liver disease.

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) with vs without bupivacaine.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with less than 5% 5-year survival. Inoperable patients often present with pain. Randomized controlled trial have shown that endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) improves pain control. It is usually performed by injecting bupivacaine followed by absolute alcohol around the celiac axis. STUDY DESIGN: Single center, randomized, double blind controlled trial of EUS-CPN with and without bupivacaine in patients with inoperable malignancy (pancreatic or other) involving the celiac plexus. The study was approved by research ethics board with approval number of 2022-9969, 21.151 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04951804). DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that bupivacaine is superfluous and may actually reduce pain control by diluting the neurolytic effect of alcohol. Bupivacaine is also potentially dangerous in that it may produce serious adverse events such as arrythmias and cardiac arrest if inadvertently injected intravascularly. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial is designed to assess whether bupivacaine is of any value during EUS-CPN.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDS) is a promising modality for management of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with potential for better stent patency. We compared its outcomes with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stenting (ERCP-M). METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with MDBO secondary to borderline resectable, locally advanced, or unresectable peri-ampullary cancers across 10 Canadian institutions and 1 French institution. This was a superiority trial with a noninferiority assessment of technical success. Patients were randomized to EUS-CDS or ERCP-M. The primary end point was the rate of stent dysfunction at 1 year, considering competing risks of death, clinical failure, and surgical resection. Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2022, 144 patients were recruited; 73 were randomized to EUS-CDS and 71 were randomized to ERCP-M. The mean (SD) procedure time was 14.0 (11.4) minutes for EUS-CDS and 23.1 (15.6) minutes for ERCP-M (P < .01); 40% of the former was performed without fluoroscopy. Technical success was achieved in 90.4% (95% CI, 81.5% to 95.3%) of EUS-CDS and 83.1% (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.1%) of ERCP-M with a risk difference of 7.3% (95% CI, -4.0% to 18.8%) indicating noninferiority. Stent dysfunction occurred in 9.6% vs 9.9% of EUS-CDS and ERCP-M cases, respectively (P = .96). No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy and oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although not superior in stent function, EUS-CDS is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP-M in patients with MDBO. These findings provide evidence for greater adoption of EUS-CDS in clinical practice as a complementary and exchangeable first-line modality to ERCP in patients with MDBO. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03870386.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most effective diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or biopsy (EUS-FNB). Several randomized clinical trials have compared different EUS tissue sampling needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA as EUS-FNB needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: A literature review with a meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guide. The databases of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used, including studies published between 2011-2021 comparing the diagnostic yield (diagnostic accuracy or probability of positivity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Random effect models allowed estimation of the pooled odds ratio with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. RESULTS: Nine randomized control trials were selected out of 5802 articles identified. Among these, five studies found no statistically significant difference between the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, whereas the other four did. The meta-analysis found EUS-FNB accuracy superior to EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a pooled odds ratio of 1.87 (IC 95%: 1.33-2.63). CONCLUSION: As compared to EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to improve diagnostic accuracy when applied to suspicious pancreatic lesions.

A randomized noninferiority trial comparing the diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle to the standard 25G needle in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (-4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%. CONCLUSION: The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

A proposal for the ideal algorithm for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of pancreas masses suspicious for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Results of a working group of the Canadian Society for Endoscopic Ultrasound.

Numerous clinical pathways exist for patients presenting with a suspicious pancreatic mass. These range from direct surgical intervention following staging, with preoperative cross-sectional imaging, EUS with or without fine-needle aspiration or fine-needle core biopsy; neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy; or palliation. Although international guidelines exist for pancreas cancer management, the ideal workup and treatment for a suspicious pancreas mass is unclear. During its annual meeting in September 2017 (The Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasonography), the Canadian Society of Endoscopic Ultrasound organized a working group of experienced endosonographers and hepatobiliary surgeons from across Canada to achieve this goal.

ELEMENT TRIAL: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial on endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage of first intent with a lumen-apposing metal stent vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, its growth has been limited by a lack of multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) and dedicated devices. A dedicated EUS-BD lumen- apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed with the potential to greatly facilitate the technique and safety of the procedure. We aim to compare a first intent approach with EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a dedicated biliary LAMS vs. standard ERCP in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction. METHODS: The ELEMENT trial is a multicenter single-blinded RCT involving 130 patients in nine Canadian centers. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or borderline resectable malignant distal biliary obstruction meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized to EUS-choledochoduodenostomy using a LAMS or ERCP with traditional metal stent insertion in a 1:1 proportion in blocks of four. Patients with hilar obstruction, resectable cancer, or benign disease are excluded. The primary endpoint is the rate of stent dysfunction needing re-intervention. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, interruptions in chemotherapy, rate of surgical resection, time to stent dysfunction, and adverse events. DISCUSSION: The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction, which is an important and timely question that has not been addressed using an RCT study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03870386. Date of registration: 03/12/2019.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA of pelvic lesions: A large single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (PEUS-FNA) of rectal or perirectal lesions is safe, minimally invasive, and well tolerated. It provides valuable information, which can greatly influence patient management. Herein, the authors present what to their knowledge is the largest series to date of PEUS-FNA. METHODS: PEUS-FNA specimens were retrieved from the archives of the study institution from January 2001 to March 2015. Only patients with solid pelvic lesions were examined. The cytopathology findings, immunohistochemistry, corresponding histology, and clinical data were collected. For analysis of accuracy, atypical or suspicious results were classified as "negative." The sensitivity and specificity of PEUS-FNA were calculated in a subset of patients with available surgical pathology. RESULTS: A total of 127 cases meeting the current study criteria were obtained from patients who underwent PEUS-FNA at the study institution between January 2001 and March 2015. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, and 53% were female. Pelvic lesions were comprised of 72% masses and 28% lymph nodes, with a mean mass diameter of 27.38 mm (range, 5-100 mm). PEUS-FNA was positive for malignancy in 45% of cases, atypical/suspicious in 4.7% of cases, and negative for malignancy in 50.3% of cases. Surgical pathology was available for 44 patients. PEUS-FNA demonstrated 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a diagnostic accuracy of 93.2%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 84.2%. No complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS: PEUS-FNA is safe and effective for the investigation of pelvic lesions. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:836-41. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Randomized controlled trial comparing stylet-free endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22-G and 25-G needles.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Previous studies comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) results with different gauge needles have all been carried out with the stylet in place and show no clear advantage to the larger 22-G needle. Similar data for stylet-free EUS-FNA (SF-EUS-FNA) are unavailable. The aim of the present study was to determine whether diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy is superior with the 22-G needle as compared to the 25-G needle. METHODS: All patients ≥ 18 years referred for solid-lesion EUS-FNA were eligible. Patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, sarcoidosis, significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.5 or platelets < 50000/mm(3)), use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS, and pregnancy were excluded. The two needles were compared regarding diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, visibility, number of passes, failures, and complications. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were included and 126 lesions were sampled. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 22-G SF-EUS-FNA were 83%, 100%, 100% and 56%, respectively, and for the 25-G SF-EUS-FNA were 88.8%, 100%, 100% and 76.5%, respectively (P=NS). There were no significant differences between the 22-G and the 25-G FNA needles in sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, FNA failure, visibility, number of passes and complications; and no significant differences between either needle were found in relation to lesion site. CONCLUSION: For SF-EUS-FNA, the larger 22-G needle offers no advantage over the smaller 25-G needle.

Techniques for EUS-guided FNA cytology.

This article addresses the technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions to obtain cytologic specimens. The technique can be broken down into a sequence of steps. The ultimate goal is to maximize the likelihood of obtaining adequate tissue for diagnostic purposes. This requires a technique that ensures that the needle can be moved inside the lesion, under ultrasound guidance, as widely as possible, as easily as possible, and safely. The other variables such as suction, needle type, and stylet use are of secondary importance.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology results with and without the stylet in 3364 cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA) is traditionally carried out with the stylet, as it is believed to prevent blockage or contamination of the needle by tissue coming from the gastrointestinal wall. However, this recommendation has not been demonstrated on an empirical basis. The aim of the present study was to compare the yield of EUS-FNA in a very large series of patients with (S+) and without (S-) the stylet. METHODS: Until 2004, the stylet was used for EUS-FNA in our center. After that, the stylet was never used. The results of all EUS-FNA in solid lesions carried out by one endosonographer with the same needle type were compared before and after stylet use was stopped. RESULTS: 3364 EUS-FNA procedures (in 3078 patients) in solid lesions were included (1483 S+ and 1881 S-). There was no significant difference between the S+ and S- results for any variable other than the number of passes required. The number of passes was significantly lower in the S- group when sampling lymph nodes, wall lesions and when carrying out biopsies through the gastric or rectal wall. However the statistical differences disappeared after controlling for malignancy, location and lesion size. CONCLUSION: This very large comparative study showed no benefit in diagnostic yield when using the stylet for EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology and biopsy in the evaluation of lymphoma.

Accurate diagnosis and subtyping of lymphoma have important prognostic implications and are generally required for treatment planning. Histological assessment, immunophenotyping, and genetic studies are usually necessary. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) is a minimally invasive technique widely used for the evaluation of deep-seated benign and malignant lesions. However, the value of cytological samples in lymphoma diagnosis is still a matter of debate. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNAB) can provide tissue core samples that may help overcome the limitations of cytology. The aim of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNAB for the diagnosis and subtyping of lymphoma. In addition, we discuss its usefulness in the management of primary extra-nodal lymphomas, as well as technical issues that may influence sample quality.

Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of early endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis to prevent pain progression in patients with newly diagnosed, painful, inoperable pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is currently used as salvage therapy for morphine-resistant pancreatic cancer pain. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided CPN (EUS-CPN) can be performed early, at the time of EUS. We hypothesized that early EUS-CPN would reduce pain and morphine consumption, increase quality of life (QOL), and prolong survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were eligible if referred for EUS for suspected pancreatic cancer with related pain. If EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology confirmed inoperable adenocarcinoma, patients were randomly assigned to early EUS-CPN or conventional pain management. Pain scores (7-point Likert scale), morphine equivalent consumption, and QOL scores (Digestive Disease Questionnaire-15) were assessed at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty eligible patients were seen between April 2006 and December 2008. Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned (48 patients per study arm). Pain relief was greater in the EUS-CPN group at 1 month and significantly greater at 3 months (difference in mean percent change in pain score = -28.9 [95% CI, -67.0 to 2.8], P = .09, and -60.7 [95% CI, -86.6 to -25.5], P = .01, respectively). Morphine consumption was similar in both groups at 1 month (difference in mean change in morphine consumption = -1.0 [95% CI, -47.7 to 49.2], P = .99), but tended toward lower consumption at 3 months in the neurolysis group (difference in mean change in morphine consumption = -49.5 [95% CI, -127.5 to 7.0], P = .10). There was no effect on QOL or survival. CONCLUSION: Early EUS-CPN reduces pain and may moderate morphine consumption in patients with painful, inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EUS-CPN can be considered in all such patients at the time of diagnostic and staging EUS.

In patients referred for investigation because computed tomography suggests thickened gastric folds, endoscopic ultrasound is superfluous if gastroscopy is normal.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is often requested in patients in whom computed tomography (CT) shows gastric wall thickening. It is unclear if EUS is useful if upper endoscopy is normal. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the yield of upper endoscopy and EUS for this indication. METHODS: All patients referred for endoscopic ultrasound because of thickened gastric folds on CT from May 2001 and June 2003 were included. A single physician, questioned, examined, and performed upper endoscopy followed by EUS in all patients. Data were recorded prospectively. The main outcome measures were: upper endoscopy and EUS findings and predictors of abnormal EUS. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled. The average age was 57.9, 49% were male, 51% were asymptomatic, 57% had normal upper endoscopy, and 70% had normal EUS. If upper endoscopy was abnormal, EUS was abnormal in 70% of cases (95% CI 62%-78%). If upper endoscopy was normal, the EUS was normal in 100% of cases (95% CI 92%-100%). Multivariate analysis revealed that neither age, gender, presence of abdominal symptoms nor alarm symptoms predicted abnormal EUS. CONCLUSIONS: When CT shows gastric wall thickening: (a) Nnormal upper endoscopy is strongly associated with normal EUS; (b) abnormal upper endoscopy is associated with abnormal EUS in 70% of cases; (c) clinical variables such as age, sex, and the presence of symptoms do not predict or increase the likelihood of abnormal EUS. Therefore, in patients with thickened gastric wall on CT, upper endoscopy should be used to select patients for EUS.