Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND : The advantage of using the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with 22G Franseen needles has not been investigated. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB with MOSE vs. EUS-FNB performed with three needle passes. METHODS : This randomized trial involved 10 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB of pancreatic or nonpancreatic solid lesions were included in the study and randomized to the two groups. MOSE was performed by gross visualization of the collected material by the endoscopists and considered adequate when a white/yellowish aggregate core longer than 10 mm was retrieved. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were specimen adequacy, number of needle passes, and safety. RESULTS : 370 patients with 234 pancreatic lesions (63.2 %) and 136 nonpancreatic lesions (36.8 %) were randomized (190 EUS-FNB with MOSE and 180 with standard EUS-FNB). No statistically significant differences were found between EUS-FNB with MOSE and conventional EUS-FNB in terms of diagnostic accuracy (90.0 % [95 %CI 84.8 %-93.9 %] vs. 87.8 % [95 %CI 82.1 %-92.2 %]; P = 0.49), sample adequacy (93.1 % [95 %CI 88.6 %-96.3 %] vs. 95.5 % [95 %CI 91.4 %-98 %]; P = 0.31), and rate of adverse events (2.6 % vs. 1.1 %; P = 0.28). The median number of passes was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB with MOSE group (1 vs. 3; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of EUS-FNB with MOSE is noninferior to that of EUS-FNB with three needle passes. MOSE reliably assesses sample adequacy and reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain the diagnosis with a 22G Franseen needle.

Global prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal cancer in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux might lead to the development of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) or even oesophageal adenocarcinoma. There has been no definitive systematic review and meta-analysis of data to estimate global prevalence of BO or oesophageal adenocarcinoma in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Embase Classic to identify cross-sectional surveys that reported prevalence of BO or oesophageal adenocarcinoma in adults with gastro-oesophageal reflux. We extracted prevalence for all studies, both for endoscopically suspected and histologically confirmed cases. We calculated pooled prevalence according to study location, symptom frequency and sex, as well as ORs with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 4963 citations evaluated, 44 reported prevalence of endoscopically suspected and/or histologically confirmed BO. Prevalence of BO among individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux varied according to different geographical regions ranging from 3% to 14% for histologically confirmed BO with a pooled prevalence of 7.2% (95% CI 5.4% to 9.3%), whereas pooled prevalence for endoscopically suspected BO was 12.0% (95% CI 5.5% to 20.3%). There was heterogeneity in many of our analyses. Prevalence of BO was significantly higher in men, both for endoscopically suspected (OR=2.1; 95% CI 1.6 to 2.8) and histologically confirmed BO (OR=2.3; 95% CI 1.7 to 3.2). Dysplasia was present in 13.9% (95% CI 8.9% to 19.8%) of cases of histologically confirmed BO, 80.7% of which was low-grade. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus among individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux varied strikingly among countries, broadly resembling the geographical distribution of gastro-oesophageal reflux itself. Prevalence of BO was significantly higher in men.

Probiotics, Prebiotics and Other Dietary Supplements for Gut Microbiota Modulation in Celiac Disease Patients.

To date, the only available treatment for celiac disease (CD) patients is a life-lasting gluten-free diet (GFD). Lack of adherence to the GFD leads to a significant risk of adverse health consequences. Food cross-contamination, nutritional imbalances, and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms are the main concerns related to GFD. Moreover, despite rigid compliance to GFD, patients struggle in achieving a full restoring of the gut microbiota, which plays a role in the nutritive compounds processing, and absorption. Pivotal studies on the supplementation of GFD with probiotics, such as Bifidobacterium and Lactobacilli, reported a potential to restore gut microbiota composition and to pre-digest gluten in the intestinal lumen, reducing the inflammation associated with gluten intake, the intestinal permeability, and the cytokine and antibody production. These findings could explain an improvement in symptoms and quality of life in patients treated with GFD and probiotics. On the other hand, the inclusion of prebiotics in GFD could also be easy to administer and cost-effective as an adjunctive treatment for CD, having the power to stimulate the growth of potentially health-promoting bacteria strains. However, evidence regarding the use of prebiotics and probiotics in patients with CD is still insufficient to justify their use in clinical practice.