RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is limited literature on sample adequacy for molecular testing in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma obtained via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). We aimed to compare these two modalities regarding sample adequacy for molecular and genomic sequencing. METHODS: We reviewed all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent EUS at Saint Luke's Hospital from 2018 to 2021. The patients were categorized based on the method of EUS tissue acquisition, specifically FNA or FNB. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted for all cases by cytotechnologists. RESULTS: Out of 132 patients who underwent EUS-guided biopsies, 76 opted for FNA, 48 opted for FNB, and 8 opted for a combination of both. The average number of passes required for FNB and FNA was 2.58 ± 1.06 and 2.49 ± 1.07, respectively (p = 0.704), indicating no significant difference. Interestingly, 71.4% (35) of FNB-obtained samples were deemed adequate for molecular testing, surpassing the 32.1% (26) adequacy observed with FNA (p < 0.001). Additionally, 46.4% (26) of FNB-obtained samples were considered adequate for genomic testing, a notable improvement over the 23.8% (20) adequacy observed with FNA (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Although the number of passes required for cytologic diagnosis did not differ significantly between EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA, the former demonstrated superiority in obtaining samples adequate for molecular testing. Tumor surface area and cellularity were crucial parameters in determining sample adequacy for molecular testing, irrespective of the chosen tissue acquisition modality.
RESUMEN
Background: There are conflicting data on the frequency and variability of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) outcomes in patients with cirrhosis. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on the incidence of post-ERCP adverse events in cirrhotic patients and to examine the differences across continents. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify studies reporting adverse events after ERCP in patients with cirrhosis from conception to September 30, 2022. The random effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and confidence intervals (CIs). A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q-statistic (I2). Results: Twenty-one studies that included 2,576 cirrhotic patients and 3,729 individual ERCPs were analyzed. The pooled overall rate of adverse events after ERCP in patients with cirrhosis was 16.98% (95% CI: 13.06-21.29%, P < 0.001, I2 = 86.55%). ERCPs performed in Asia had the highest ERCP adverse events with an overall complication rate of 19.90%, while the lowest overall adverse events were in North America at 13.04%. The pooled post-ERCP bleeding, pancreatitis, cholangitis and perforation were 5.10% (95% CI: 3.33-7.19%, P < 0.001, I2 = 76.79%), 3.21% (95% CI: 2.20-5.36%, P = 0.03, I2 = 42.25%), 3.02% (95% CI: 1.19-5.52%, P < 0.001, I2 = 87.11%), and 0.12% (95% CI: 0.00 - 0.45, P = 0.26, I2 = 15.76%), respectively. The pooled post-ERCP mortality rate was 0.22% (95% CI: 0.00-0.85%, P = 0.01, I2 = 51.86%). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that the overall complication rates after ERCP, bleeding, pancreatitis, and cholangitis are high in patients with cirrhosis. Because cirrhotic patients are more likely to have post-ERCP complications, with significant cross-continent variations, the risks and benefits of ERCP in this patient population should be carefully considered.
RESUMEN
Background: The role of variceal embolization (VE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of variceal rebleeding, shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death between patients treated with TIPS alone and those treated with TIPS in combination with VE. Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for all studies comparing the incidence of complications between TIPS alone and TIPS with VE. The primary outcome was variceal rebleeding. Secondary outcomes include shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of stent (covered vs. bare metal). The random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of outcome. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Eleven studies with a total of 1,075 patients were included (597: TIPS alone and 478: TIPS plus VE). Compared to the TIPS alone, the TIPS with VE had a significantly lower incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 - 0.81, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in covered stents (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 - 0.86, P = 0.008) but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the subgroup analysis of bare stents and combined stents. There was no significant difference in the risk of encephalopathy (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66 - 1.06, P = 0.13), shunt dysfunction (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.19, P = 0.40), and death (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.65 - 1.17, P = 0.34). There were similarly no differences in these secondary outcomes between groups when stratified according to type of stent. Conclusions: Adding VE to TIPS reduced the incidence of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, the benefit was observed with covered stents only. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.