Pancreatic cysts: can surveillance interval for small low-risk lesions be lengthened?

BACKGROUND: Surveillance of pancreatic cysts are necessary due to risk of malignant transformation. However, reported progression rates to advanced neoplasia are variable and the high frequency of surveillance scans may pose a considerable burden on healthcare resources. PURPOSE: To validate the effectiveness of the Fukuoka Guidelines surveillance regime and determine if a longer surveillance interval can be established. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of the pancreas performed at our institution between January 2014 and December 2016 with at least one pancreatic cystic lesion and follow-up MRI or computed tomography (CT) over at least two years were reviewed for size, worrisome feature (WF), and high-risk stigmata (HRS) at diagnosis and follow-up imaging (up to year 6). Reference standards for advanced neoplasia were based on endoscopic ultrasound, fine needle aspiration cytology, or the presence of ≥2 WF or ≥1 HRS on imaging. Comparison of MRI features of progression and outcomes of diagnostic endpoints between lesions <20 mm and ≥20 mm was performed. RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were included (201 cysts <20 mm, 69 cysts ≥20 mm). Compared with cysts <20 mm, cysts ≥20 mm were more likely to be associated with WF or HRS (40.6% vs. 12.4%; P ≤0.00001), demonstrate increase in size of ≥5 mm in two years (20.3% vs. 10.9%; P = 0.049), and develop advanced neoplasia (24.6% vs. 0.5%; P <0.00001). CONCLUSION: Pancreatic cysts <20 mm have a low risk of developing WF and HRS and surveillance interval may be lengthened.

High-stakes examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic: to proceed or not to proceed, that is the question.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted education-related activities, including the conduct of examinations. We review the literature regarding high-stakes examinations during the pandemic, discuss the decision-making process of whether to proceed with a high-stakes examination and share published experiences in conducting high-stakes examinations during the pandemic. We illustrate our own recent experiences of decision-making and conduct of our high-stakes gastroenterology licencing examinations during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is possible to conduct high-stakes examinations virtually during pandemic situations with fidelity and adherence to the established format and standards.

Clinical guidance on endoscopic management of colonic polyps in Singapore.

Colonoscopy with endoscopic resection of detected colonic adenomas interrupts the adenoma-carcinoma sequence and reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer and cancer-related mortality. In the past decade, there have been significant developments in instruments and techniques for endoscopic polypectomy. Guidelines have been formulated by various professional bodies in Europe, Japan and the United States, but some of the recommendations differ between the various bodies. An expert professional workgroup under the auspices of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, was set up to provide guidance on the endoscopic management of colonic polyps in Singapore. A total of 23 recommendations addressed the following issues: accurate description and diagnostic evaluation of detected polyps; techniques to reduce the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding and delayed perforation; the role of specific endoscopic resection techniques; the histopathological criteria for defining endoscopic cure; and the role of surveillance colonoscopy following curative resection.

Chapter of Gastroenterologists professional guidance on risk mitigation for gastrointestinal endoscopy during COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore.

In this paper, we aimed to provide professional guidance to practising gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopists for the safe conduct of GI endoscopy procedures during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and future outbreaks of similar severe respiratory tract infections in Singapore. It draws on the lessons learnt during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic and available published data concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. It addresses measures before, during and after endoscopy that must be considered for both non-infected and infected patients, and provides recommendations for practical implementation.

Chapter of Gastroenterologists professional guidance for management of patients with liver disease in Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this paper, we aim to provide professional guidance to clinicians who are managing patients with chronic liver disease during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Singapore. We reviewed and summarised the available relevant published data on liver disease in COVID-19 and the advisory statements that were issued by major professional bodies, such as the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and European Association for the Study of the Liver, contextualising the recommendations to our local situation.

Inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors in a local setting.

INTRODUCTION: There are growing concerns that the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be inappropriate in instances that do not conform to evidence-based indications. This point-prevalence study aimed to investigate the frequency, indications and appropriateness of use of PPIs in hospitalised patients on a randomly chosen day. METHODS: On a randomly chosen day, all inpatients were documented, and those on any form of PPIs on that day were determined. Indications for maintaining these patients on PPIs were obtained from the electronic medical records, which were then recorded and cross-referenced against a list of accepted indications adapted from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved list. RESULTS: In all, 1,025 inpatients were documented. Of the 477 (46.5%) inpatients using PPIs, only 219 (45.9%) fulfilled the FDA-approved indications, while the majority (n = 258, 54.1%) did not. Overall, PPIs were not strictly indicated for use in 206 (43.2%) inpatients, according to FDA criteria. Of the 477 inpatients on PPIs, 52 (10.9%) had borderline indications based on expert consensus/guidelines other than FDA criteria. CONCLUSION: Although the use of PPIs is prevalent in hospitals, less than half of the hospitalised patients using PPIs in our study had evidence-based indications that supported such use. The overuse of PPIs has a negative impact on healthcare costs and may lead to adverse effects. Steps to curb the inappropriate use of PPIs should address factors such as indications for the initiation of PPIs, and reassessment of the need for ongoing PPI use in inpatients upon discharge and during outpatient reviews.