EUS-Guided Choledocho-duodenostomy Using Lumen Apposing Stent Versus ERCP With Covered Metallic Stents in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DRA-MBO Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several studies have compared primary endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with insertion of metal stents in unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) and the results were conflicting. The aim of the current study was to compare the outcomes of the procedures in a large-scale study. METHODS: This was a multicenter international randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients admitted for obstructive jaundice due to unresectable MDBO were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to receive EUS-guided choledocho-duodenostomy (ECDS) or ERCP for drainage. The primary outcome was the 1-year stent patency rate. Other outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, time to stent dysfunction, reintervention rates, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and February 2021, 155 patients were recruited (ECDS 79, ERCP 76). There were no significant differences in 1-year stent patency rates (ECDS 91.1% vs ERCP 88.1%, P = .52). The ECDS group had significantly higher technical success (ECDS 96.2% vs ERCP 76.3%, P < .001), whereas clinical success was similar (ECDS 93.7% vs ERCP 90.8%, P = .559). The median (interquartile range) procedural time was significantly shorter in the ECDS group (ECDS 10 [5.75-18] vs ERCP 25 [14-40] minutes, P < .001). The rate of 30-day adverse events (P = 1) and 30-day mortality (P = .53) were similar. CONCLUSION: Both procedures could be options for primary biliary drainage in unresectable MDBO. ECDS was associated with higher technical success and shorter procedural time then ERCP. Primary ECDS may be preferred when difficult ERCPs are anticipated. This study was registered to Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03000855.

Outcomes of a 3-Year Prospective Surveillance in Individuals at High Risk of Pancreatic Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance of high-risk individuals (HRI) is becoming more common worldwide, aiming at anticipating PC diagnosis at a preclinical stage. In 2015, the Italian Registry of Families at Risk of Pancreatic Cancer was created. We aimed to assess the prevalence and incidence of pancreatic findings, oncological outcomes, and harms 7 years after the Italian Registry of Families at Risk of Pancreatic Cancer inception, focusing on individuals with at least a 3-year follow-up or developing events before. METHODS: HRI (subjects with a family history or mutation carriers with/without a family history were enrolled in 18 centers). They underwent annual magnetic resonance with cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound (NCT04095195). RESULTS: During the study period (June 2015-September 2022), 679 individuals were enrolled. Of these, 524 (77.2%) underwent at least baseline imaging, and 156 (29.8%) with at least a 3-year follow-up or pancreatic malignancy/premalignancy-related events, and represented the study population. The median age was 51 (interquartile range 16) years. Familial PC cases accounted for 81.4% of HRI and individuals with pathogenic variant for 18.6%. Malignant (n = 8) and premalignant (1 PanIN3) lesions were found in 9 individuals. Five of these 8 cases occurred in pathogenic variant carriers, 4 in familial PC cases (2 tested negative at germline testing and 2 others were not tested). Three of the 8 PC were stage I. Five of the 8 PC were resectable, 3 Stage I, all advanced cases being prevalent. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year cumulative hazard of PC was 1.7%, 2.5%, and 3%, respectively. Median overall and disease-free survival of patients with resected PC were 18 and 12 months (95% CI not computable). Considering HRI who underwent baseline imaging, 6 pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (1 resected) and 1 low-yield surgery (low-grade mixed-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm) were also reported. DISCUSSION: PC surveillance in a fully public health care system is feasible and safe, and leads to early PC or premalignant lesions diagnoses, mostly at baseline but also over time.

Lumen-apposing metal stents for the treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections and bleeding risk: a propensity matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) using the Hot-Axios device has recently been associated with a significant risk of bleeding. This adverse event (AE) seems to occur less frequently with the use of a different device, the Spaxus stent. The aim of the current study was to compare the rates of bleeding between the two stents. METHODS: Patients admitted for treatment of PFCs by EUS plus lumen-apposing metal stent in 18 endoscopy referral centers between 10 July 2019 and 28 February 2022 were identified and their outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis. RESULTS: 363 patients were evaluated. After a 1-to-1 propensity score match, 264 patients were selected (132 per group). The technical and clinical success rates were comparable between the two groups. Significantly more bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred in the Hot-Axios group than in the Spaxus group (6.8% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.03); stent type was a significant predictor of bleeding in both univariate and multivariate regression analyses (P = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). Bleeding necessitating arterial embolization did not however differ significantly between the two groups (3.0% vs. 0%; P = 0.12). In addition, the Hot-Axios was associated with a significantly higher rate of overall AEs compared with the Spaxus stent (9.8% vs. 3.0%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that, in patients with PFCs, bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred significantly more frequently with use of the Hot-Axios stent than with the Spaxus stent, although this was not the case for bleeding requiring embolization.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage as a first approach for jaundice palliation in unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction: Prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) represents the gold standard for jaundice palliation in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO). Biliary drainage using electrocautery lumen apposing metal stent (EC-LAMS) is currently a well-established procedure when ERCP fails. In a palliative setting the endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) could represent an easy and valid option. We performed a prospective study with a new EC-LAMS with the primary aim to assess the clinical success rate of EUS-GBD as a first-line approach to the palliation of DMBO. METHODS: In all, 37 consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GBD with a new EC-LAMS were prospectively enrolled. Clinical success was defined as bilirubin level decrease >15% within 24 h and >50% within 14 days after EC-LAMS placement. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.5 ± 10.8 years; there were 17 male patients (45.9%). EC-LAMS placement was technically feasible in all patients (100%) and the clinical success rate was 100%. Four patients (10.8%) experienced adverse events, one bleeding, one food impaction, and two cystic duct obstructions because of disease progression. No stent-related deaths were observed. The mean hospitalization was 7.7 ± 3.4 days. Median overall survival was 4 months (95% confidence interval 1-8). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage with the new EC-LAMS is a valid option in palliative endoscopic biliary drainage as a first-step approach in low survival patients with malignant jaundice unfit for surgery. A smaller diameter EC-LAMS should be preferred, particularly if the drainage is performed through the stomach, to avoid potential food impaction, which could result in stent dysfunction.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Surgical Resection for Treatment of Pancreatic Insulinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is emerging as a safe and effective treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. We aimed to compare EUS-RFA and surgical resection for the treatment of pancreatic insulinoma (PI). METHODS: Patients with sporadic PI who underwent EUS-RFA at 23 centers or surgical resection at 8 high-volume pancreatic surgery institutions between 2014 and 2022 were retrospectively identified and outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis. Primary outcome was safety. Secondary outcomes were clinical efficacy, hospital stay, and recurrence rate after EUS-RFA. RESULTS: Using propensity score matching, 89 patients were allocated in each group (1:1), and were evenly distributed in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, distance between lesion and main pancreatic duct, lesion site, size, and grade. Adverse event (AE) rate was 18.0% and 61.8% after EUS-RFA and surgery, respectively (P < .001). No severe AEs were observed in the EUS-RFA group compared with 15.7% after surgery (P < .0001). Clinical efficacy was 100% after surgery and 95.5% after EUS-RFA (P = .160). However, the mean duration of follow-up time was shorter in the EUS-RFA group (median, 23 months; interquartile range, 14-31 months vs 37 months; interquartile range, 17.5-67 months in the surgical group; P < .0001). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the surgical group (11.1 ± 9.7 vs 3.0 ± 2.5 days in the EUS-RFA group; P < .0001). Fifteen lesions (16.9%) recurred after EUS-RFA and underwent a successful repeat EUS-RFA (11 patients) or surgical resection (4 patients). CONCLUSION: EUS-RFA is safer than surgery and highly effective for the treatment of PI. If confirmed in a randomized study, EUS-RFA treatment can become first-line therapy for sporadic PI.

Talniflumate abrogates mucin immune suppressive barrier improving efficacy of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel treatment in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal disease. This is due to its aggressive course, late diagnosis and its intrinsic drugs resistance. The complexity of the tumor, in terms of cell components and heterogeneity, has led to the approval of few therapies with limited efficacy. The study of the early stages of carcinogenesis provides the opportunity for the identification of actionable pathways that underpin therapeutic resistance. METHODS: We analyzed 43 Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) (12 Low-grade and 31 High-grade) by Spatial Transcriptomics. Mouse and human pancreatic cancer organoids and T cells interaction platforms were established to test the role of mucins expression on T cells activity. Syngeneic mouse model of PDAC was used to explore the impact of mucins downregulation on standard therapy efficacy. RESULTS: Spatial transcriptomics showed that mucin O-glycosylation pathway is increased in the progression from low-grade to high-grade IPMN. We identified GCNT3, a master regulator of mucins expression, as an actionable target of this pathway by talniflumate. We showed that talniflumate impaired mucins expression increasing T cell activation and recognition using both mouse and human organoid interaction platforms. In vivo experiments showed that talniflumate was able to increase the efficacy of the chemotherapy by boosting immune infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Finally, we demonstrated that combination of talniflumate, an anti-inflammatory drug, with chemotherapy effectively improves anti-tumor effect in PDAC.

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.

Wet-suction versus slow-pull technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND : It is unknown whether there is an advantage to using the wet-suction or slow-pull technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with new-generation needles. We aimed to compare the performance of each technique in EUS-FNB. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, crossover trial including patients with solid lesions of ≥ 1 cm. Four needle passes with 22 G fork-tip or Franseen-type needles were performed, alternating the wet-suction and slow-pull techniques in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the histological yield (samples containing an intact piece of tissue of at least 550 µm). Secondary end points were sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination), diagnostic accuracy, and adequate tumor fraction. RESULTS: Overall, 210 patients with 146 pancreatic and 64 nonpancreatic lesions were analyzed. A tissue core was retrieved in 150 (71.4 %) and 129 (61.4 %) cases using the wet-suction and the slow-pull techniques, respectively (P = 0.03). The mean tissue integrity score was higher using wet suction (P = 0.02), as was the blood contamination of samples (P < 0.001). In the two subgroups of pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions, tissue core rate and tissue integrity score were not statistically different using the two techniques, but blood contamination was higher with wet suction. Diagnostic accuracy and tumor fraction did not differ between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: Overall, the wet-suction technique in EUS-FNB resulted in a higher tissue core procurement rate compared with the slow-pull method. Diagnostic accuracy and the rate of samples with adequate tumor fraction were similar between the two techniques.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the management of acute cholecystitis: Practical review.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has emerged over the last years as an alternative procedure to percutaneous drainage (PT)-GBD in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) at high surgical risk. This process has been driven by the advent of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) with electrocautery-enhanced capability, which has rendered the drainage procedure easier to accomplish and safer. Studies and meta-analyses have proven the superiority of EUS-GBD over PT-GBD in high-surgical-risk patients with AC. Little evidence exists in the same setting that EUS-GBD compares equally with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Moreover, EUS-GBD might theoretically have a possible role in patients at high surgical risk with an indication to undergo cholecystectomy or with a high probability of conversion from LC to open cholecystectomy. Properly designed studies are needed to better clarify the role of EUS-GBD in these patient populations.

Repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive sampling.

OBJECTIVES: Repeated endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the standard practice for solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Since data are lacking, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS fine-needle biopsy (rEUS-FNB) in this setting. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; sample adequacy, sensitivity, specificity, and safety were secondary outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing rEUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions at 23 Italian centers from 2019 to 2021 were retrieved. Pathology on the surgical specimen, malignant histology together with ≥6-month follow-up, and benign pathology together with ≥12-month follow-up were adopted as gold standards. RESULTS: Among 462 patients, 56.5% were male, with a median age of 68 (59-75) years, malignancy prevalence 77.0%. Tumor size was 26 (20-35) mm. Second-generation FNB needles were used in 89.6% cases. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of rEUS-FNB were 89.2%, 91.4%, and 81.7%, respectively (19 false-negative and 12 false-positive results). On multivariate analysis, rEUS-FNB performed at high-volume centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-3.17; P = 0.03) and tumor size (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00-1.06; P = 0.05) were independently related to diagnostic accuracy. Sample adequacy was 94.2%. Use of second-generation FNB needles (OR 5.42; 95% CI 2.30-12.77; P < 0.001) and tumor size >23 mm (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.31-7.06; P = 0.009) were independently related to sample adequacy. CONCLUSION: Repeated EUS-FNB allowed optimal diagnostic performance after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Patients' referral to high-volume centers improved diagnostic accuracy. The use of second-generation FNB needles significantly improved sample adequacy over standard EUS-FNB needles.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE. METHODS: A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time. RESULTS: Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Safety and efficacy of a novel electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent in interventional EUS procedures (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Electrocautery-tip lumen-apposing metal stents (EC-LAMSs) have extended the indications of therapeutic EUS. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate safety and technical and clinical success of a newly developed EC-LAMS, the Hot-Spaxus (Taewoong Medical Co, Gimpo, Korea), for various EUS-guided procedures. METHODS: We included and retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients at 8 tertiary care referral centers who had undergone EUS interventional procedures using the Hot-Spaxus between October 2018 and February 2021. RESULTS: Of 58 included patients (male-to-female, 36:22; mean age, 63.5 ± 14.9 years), 29 had undergone pancreatic fluid collection drainage (50%), 22 (37.9%) biliary drainage for malignant distal obstruction, 3 (5.1%) gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis, 3 gastroenteroanastomoses, and 1 (1.7%) pelvic collection drainage. Technical success was achieved in 54 of 58 patients (93.1%) and clinical success in all 58. Adverse events occurred in 6 patients (11.1%): 2 early (3.7%), 1 late (1.8%), and 3 long term (5.6%). The outcomes were similar to those observed in a control group of patients treated with the Hot-Axios (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA), the other available EC-LAMS. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the novel EC-LAMS has high technical and clinical success rates for various interventional EUS indications. Future multicenter prospective studies will better clarify the role of this new EC-LAMS for different indications.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.

1: ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

The endoscopic ultrasound features of pancreatic fluid collections and their impact on therapeutic decisions: an interobserver agreement study.

BACKGROUND: A validated classification of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) morphological characteristics and consequent therapeutic intervention(s) in pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is lacking. We performed an interobserver agreement study among expert endosonographers assessing EUS-related PFC features and the therapeutic approaches used. METHODS: 50 EUS videos of PFCs were independently reviewed by 12 experts and evaluated for PFC type, percentage solid component, presence of infection, recognition of and communication with the main pancreatic duct (MPD), stent choice for drainage, and direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) performance and timing. The Gwet's AC1 coefficient was used to assess interobserver agreement. RESULTS: A moderate agreement was found for lesion type (AC1, 0.59), presence of infection (AC1, 0.41), and need for DEN (AC1, 0.50), while fair or poor agreements were stated for percentage solid component (AC1, 0.15) and MPD recognition (AC1, 0.31). Substantial agreement was rated for ability to assess PFC-MPD communication (AC1, 0.69), decision between placing a plastic versus lumen-apposing metal stent (AC1, 0.62), and timing of DEN (AC1, 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement between expert endosonographers regarding morphological features of PFCs appeared suboptimal, while decisions on therapeutic approaches seemed more homogeneous. Studies to achieve standardization of the diagnostic endosonographic criteria and therapeutic approaches to PFCs are warranted.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Predictors of adverse events after endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy of pancreatic cysts: a recursive partitioning analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is associated with a non-negligible risk for adverse events (AEs). We aimed to identify the hierarchic interaction among independent predictors for TTNB-related AEs and to generate a prognostic model using recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). PATIENTS AND METHODS : Multicenter retrospective analysis of 506 patients with PCLs who underwent TTNB. RPA of predictors for AEs was performed and the model was validated by means of bootstrap resampling. RESULTS : Mean cysts size was 36.7 mm. Most common diagnoses were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN, 45 %), serous cystadenoma (18.8 %), and mucinous cystadenoma (12.8 %). Fifty-eight (11.5 %) AEs were observed. At multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 1.09-2.14; p = 0.05), number of TTNB passes (OR from 2.17, 1.32-4.34 to OR 3.16, 2.03-6.34 with the increase of the number of passes), complete aspiration of the cyst (OR 0.56, 0.31-0.95; p = 0.02), and diagnosis of IPMN (OR 4.16, 2.27-7.69; p < 0.001) were found to be independent predictors of AEs, as confirmed by logistic regression and random forest analyses. RPA identified three risk classes: high-risk (IPMN sampled with multiple microforceps passes, 28 % AEs rate), low-risk (1.4 % AE rate, including patients < 64 years with other-than-IPMN diagnosis sampled with ≤ 2 microforceps passes and with complete aspiration of the cyst) and middle-risk class (6.1 % AEs rate, including the remaining patients). CONCLUSION : TTNB should be selectively used in the evaluation of patients with IPMN. The present model could be applied during patient selection as to optimize the benefit/risk of TTNB.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage using lumen-apposing metal stent of malignant afferent limb syndrome in patients with previous Whipple surgery: Multicenter study (with video).

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided digestive anastomosis (EUS-A) is a new alternative under evaluation in patients presenting with afferent limb syndrome (ALS) after Whipple surgery. The aim of the present study is to analyze the safety and effectiveness of EUS-A in ALS. METHODS: This is an observational multicenter study. All patients ≥18 years old with previous Whipple surgery presenting with ALS who underwent an EUS-A using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) between 2015 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of the ALS or ALS-related cholangitis. Furthermore, technical success, adverse event rate, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (mean age: 65.5 ± 10.2 years; 44.4% male) were included. The most common underlying disease was pancreatic cancer (68.9%). EUS-A was performed at a median of 6 weeks after local tumor recurrence. The most common approach used was the direct/freehand technique (66.7%). Technical success was achieved in 95.6%, with no differences between large (≥15 mm) and small LAMS (97.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.664). Clinical success was retained in 91.1% of patients. A complementary treatment by dilation of the stent followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography through the LAMS was performed in three cases (6.7%). There were six recurrent episodes of cholangitis (14.6%) and two procedure-related adverse events (4.4%) after a median follow-up of 4 months. Twenty-six patients (57.8%) died during the follow-up due to disease progression. CONCLUSION: EUS-A is a safe and effective technique in the treatment of malignant ALS, achieving high clinical success with an acceptable recurrence rate.

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy histology for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Studies comparing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the evaluation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are lacking. We aimed at comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB in terms of Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) estimation capability, cellularity of the samples, and reliability of Ki-67 PI/tumor grading compared with surgical specimens. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with pNETs on EUS and/or surgical specimens were retrospectively identified. Specimens were re-evaluated to assess Ki-67 PI feasibility, sample cellularity by manual counting, and determination of Ki-67 PI value. Outcomes in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups were compared. Kendall rank test was used for Ki-67 PI correlation between EUS and surgical specimens. Subgroup analysis including small (≤20 mm), non-functioning pNETs was performed. RESULTS: Three-hundred samples from 292 lesions were evaluated: 69 EUS-FNA cytology and 231 EUS-FNB histology. Ki-67 PI feasibility was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (91.3% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.15), while EUS-FNB performed significantly better in the subgroup of 179 small pNETs (88.2% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.04). Rate of poor cellulated (<500 cells) specimens was equal between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. A significant correlation for Ki-67 PI values between EUS and 92 correspondent surgical specimens was found in both groups, but it was stronger with EUS-FNB (tau = 0.626, p < 0.0001 vs. tau = 0.452, p = 0.031). Correct grading estimation was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.482). CONCLUSION: Our study showed stronger correlation for Ki-67 values between EUS-FNB and surgical specimens, and that EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA in the evaluation of small pNETs. EUS-FNB should become standard of care for grading assessment of suspected pNETs.

Laparoscopic versus EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: an international multicenter propensity score-matched comparison (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) seems to be safe and more effective than enteral stent placement. However, comparisons with laparoscopic GE (L-GE) are scarce. Our aim was to perform a propensity score-matched comparison between EUS-GE and L-GE. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive EUS-GE and L-GE procedures in 3 academic centers (January 2015 to May 2020) using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. A standard maximum propensity score difference of .1 was applied, also considering underlying disease and oncologic staging. RESULTS: Overall, 77 patients were treated with EUS-GE and 48 patients with L-GE. By means of propensity score matching, 37 patients were allocated to both groups, resulting in 74 (1:1) matched patients. Technical success was achieved in 35 of 37 EUS-GE-treated patients (94.6%) versus 100% in the L-GE group (P = .493). Clinical success, defined as eating without vomiting or GOO Scoring System ≥2, was achieved in 97.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P = .358). Median time to oral intake (1 [interquartile range {IQR}, .3-1.0] vs 3 [IQR, 1.0-5.0] days, P < .001) and median hospital stay (4 [IQR, 2-8] vs 8 [IQR, 5.5-20] days, P < .001) were significantly shorter in the EUS-GE group. Overall (2.7% vs 27.0%, P = .007) and severe (.0% vs 16.2%, P = .025) adverse events were identified more frequently in the L-GE group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with GOO, EUS-GE and L-GE showed almost identical technical and clinical success. However, reduced time to oral intake, shorter median hospital stay, and lower rate of adverse events suggest that the EUS-guided approach might be preferable.

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.