Composite Assessment Using Intestinal Ultrasound and Calprotectin Is Accurate in Predicting Histological Activity in Ulcerative Colitis: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Beyond endoscopic remission, histological remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) is predictive of clinical outcomes. Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) may offer a noninvasive surrogate marker for histological activity; however, there are limited data correlating validated ultrasound and histological indices. AIM: Our aim was to determine the correlation of IUS activity in UC with a validated histological activity index. METHODS: Twenty-nine prospective, paired, same-day IUS/endoscopy/histology/fecal calprotectin (FC) cases were included. Intestinal ultrasound activity was determined using the Milan Ultrasound Criteria, histological activity using the Nancy Histological Index, endoscopic activity using Mayo endoscopic subscore and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity, and clinical activity using the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Score. RESULTS: Histological activity demonstrated a significant linear association with overall IUS activity (coefficient 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.25; P = .011). Intestinal ultrasound activity was also significantly associated with endoscopic activity (0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.49; P < 0.001), total Mayo score (0.31; 95% CI, 0.02-0.60; P = .036) but not FC (0.10; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.21; P = .064) or clinical disease activity (0.04; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.28; P = .768). A composite of IUS and FC showed the greatest association (1.31; 95% CI, 0.43-2.18; P = .003) and accurately predicted histological activity in 88% of cases (P = .007), with sensitivity of 88%, specificity 80%, positive predictive value 95%, and negative predictive value 57%. CONCLUSIONS: Intestinal ultrasound is an accurate noninvasive marker of histological disease activity in UC, the accuracy of which is further enhanced when used in composite with FC. This can reduce the need for colonoscopy in routine care by supporting accurate point-of-care decision-making in patients with UC.

Methods of tissue preparation after EUS-guided tissue acquisition without rapid on-site assessment: Results of a randomized study.

In the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), it is not clear which method of tissue preparation is best to process tissue obtained from EUS guidance. Cytological smearing (CS), cell block (CB), and direct histology (DH) are the available techniques. AIM: To compare the diagnostic yield of three techniques of tissue preparation for EUS-guided tissue acquisition without ROSE. METHODS: Patients who were referred for EUS-FNA of peri-gastrointestinal masses were recruited. Without ROSE, each lesion was biopsied with three needle passes, and the order in which tissue is prepared was randomized to either (i) CS + CB, (ii) CB only, or (iii) DH only. The prepared specimens were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 243 specimens were taken from 81 patients. Tissue diagnosis was achieved in 78/81 (96.3%) of patients, including 63 neoplasms (PDAC [n = 45], pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [PNET; n = 4], cholangiocarcinoma [n = 5], metastatic disease [n = 4], lymphoma [n = 1], linitis plastica [n = 2], leiomyoma [n = 2]) and 15 benign pathologies (chronic pancreatitis [n = 8], reactive nodes [n = 5], inflammatory biliary stricture [n = 1], and pancreatic rest [n = 1]). The three non-diagnostic cases were found to be PDAC (n = 2) and PNET (n = 1). Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy was highest with DH (94 and 95%), which was significantly better than that by CS + CB (43 and 54%; P = 0.0001) and CB-only preparations (32 and 48.6%; P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the CS + CB and CB-only arms (P > 0.22). CONCLUSION: Without ROSE, our findings suggest that with just a single pass, DH should be the tissue preparation method of choice given its significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with CS and/or CB techniques.