Prospective multicentre study of indications for surgery in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasonography (PICUS).

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP). METHODS: This prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life. CONCLUSION: EUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study.

Some patients develop acute inflammation of the pancreas without a clear cause. These patients have a high risk of developing more episodes of acute inflammation of the pancreas. Potentially, such inflammation could be caused by tiny gallstones that physicians are not able to detect. If this is true, these patients may also benefit from surgical removal of the gallbladder. However, this is still controversial. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a diagnostic procedure during which a physician looks at the gallbladder and bile ducts in detail via a small ultrasound probe inserted through the mouth. This endoscopic ultrasonography may be able to detect gallstones better than physicians were able to previously. This study tested the value of endoscopic ultrasonography, and the number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation after endoscopic ultrasonography was recorded. Some 106 patients with acute inflammation of the pancreas for the first time without a clear cause participated and were offered endoscopic ultrasonography. The number of times endoscopic ultrasonography found a cause for the acute inflammation was recorded, as well as safety parameters, number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation, and quality of life. After screening 957 patients, 105 ultimately underwent endoscopic ultrasonography. A cause was found in one-third of patients. This was mostly (tiny) gallstones, but chronic inflammation and even tumours were found. These patients were mostly treated surgically for their gallstones and tumours. In the first year after the first acute episode of inflammation, the inflammation came back at least once in almost one in six patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography did not find a cause. This occurred less in patients in whom a cause was found; the inflammation came back in 1 in 16 of these patients. It was also found that having inflammation coming back negatively affected quality of life. In this study, endoscopic ultrasonography was able to detect a cause in one-third of patients with first-time acute inflammation of the pancreas. In one in four patients, this cause could be treated by a surgical procedure. Whether surgical removal of the gallbladder can be helpful in patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography is not able to detect an aetiology should be investigated in further studies.

Targeted next-generation sequencing has incremental value in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspect pancreatic masses; a multi-center prospective cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic process of patients with suspect pancreatic lesions is often lengthy and prone to repeated diagnostic procedures due to inconclusive results. Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) performed on cytological material obtained with fine needle aspiration (FNA) or biliary duct brushing can speed up this process. Here, we study the incremental value of NGS for establishing the correct diagnosis, and subsequent treatment plan in patients with inconclusive diagnosis after regular diagnostic work-up for suspect pancreatic lesions. METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional cohort study, patients were screened for inclusion in four hospitals. NGS was performed with AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 and v4b in patients with inconclusive cytology results or with an uncertain diagnosis. Diagnostic results were evaluated by the oncology pancreatic multidisciplinary team. The added value of NGS was determined by comparing diagnosis (malignancy, cystic lesion or benign condition) and proposed treatment plan (exploration/resection, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, follow-up, palliation or repeated FNA) before and after integration of NGS results. Final histopathological analysis or a 6-month follow-up period were used as the reference standard in case of surgical intervention or non-invasive treatment, respectively. RESULTS: In 50 of the 53 included patients, cytology material was sufficient for NGS analysis. Diagnosis before and after integration of NGS results differed in 24% of the patients. The treatment plan was changed in 32% and the diagnosis was substantiated by the NGS data in 44%. Repetition of FNA/brushing was prevented in 14% of patients. All changes in treatment plan were correctly made after integration of NGS. Integration of NGS increased overall diagnostic accuracy from 68% to 94%. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates the incremental diagnostic value of NGS in patients with an initial inconclusive diagnosis. Integration of NGS results can prevent repeated EUS/FNA, and can also rigorously change the final diagnosis and treatment plan.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. METHODS: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colonic polyps harboring a small focus of invasive cancer: a case series.

Endoscopic treatment of large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with a focus of submucosally invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) can be challenging. We evaluated outcomes of a hybrid resection technique using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in patients with large colonic LSTs containing suspected T1 CRC. Six hybrid pEMR-eFTR procedures for T1 CRCs were registered in a nationwide eFTR registry between July 2015 and December 2019. In all cases, the invasive part of the lesion was successfully isolated with eFTR; with eFTR, histologically complete resection of the invasive part was achieved in 5 /6 patients (83.3 %). No adverse events occurred during or after the procedure. The median follow-up time was 10 months (range 6-27), with all patients having undergone ≥ 1 surveillance colonoscopy. One patient had a small adenomatous recurrence, which was removed endoscopically. In conclusion, hybrid pEMR-eFTR is a promising noninvasive treatment modality that seems feasible for a selected group of patients with large LSTs containing a small focus of T1 CRC.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

Early Versus Standard Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Results of the BLEED Study.

GOALS: The aim of our study was to examine differences in length of hospital stay (LOHS) between patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding who received either an early colonoscopy (within 24 h of presentation) or a standard colonoscopy (within 1 to 3 d). BACKGROUND: Diagnostic management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding has been extensively debated in recent literature, especially whether colonoscopy within 24 hours of presentation is feasible and safe. STUDY: In this single center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial, patients presenting at the emergency department with acute hematochezia were eligible if they required hospital admission. A total of 132 patients were included. Primary outcome was LOHS. Secondary outcomes included yield of colonoscopy, blood transfusion requirements, recurrent bleedings, complications, interventions related to complications, and 30-day mortality. The follow-up period was 1 month. RESULTS: In total, 63 patients were randomized for <24 hours colonoscopy and 69 for standard colonoscopy. In the intention to treat analysis, LOHS was significantly lower in patients that underwent an early colonoscopy, compared with the standard group: median 2.0 days (inter quartile range, 2.0 to 4.0) versus median 3.0 days (inter quartile range, 2.0 to 4.0) (P=0.009). Recurrent bleedings and hospital readmissions were significantly more frequent in the <24-hour group: 13% versus 3% (P=0.04) and 11% versus 2% (P=0.02), respectively. No difference was observed regarding the number of patients diagnosed with a confirmed or presumptive bleeding source. In both groups, blood transfusion rate was similar and 30-day mortality was 0. CONCLUSIONS: Early colonoscopy reduces LOHS, but also results in lower clinical efficacy compared with standard colonoscopy.

[Pigtail stent for gallbladder drainage]. / 'Pigtail'-stent voor inwendige galblaasdrainage.

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage is a new, relatively non-invasive treatment for patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease and a high surgery risk. Placement of an internal pigtail stent is an alternative treatment for percutaneous gallbladder drainage. This procedure can be performed in patients with a temporary contra-indication - in preparatory process to a cholecystectomy - as well as in patients with a prolonged contra-indication where the pigtail stent can remain in situ for a longer period of time. This technique appears to be an effective and safe procedure for patients with acute cholecystitis or symptomatic gallbladder disease and a high surgery risk.