Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Sphincterotomy for biliary sphincter of Oddi disorder and idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis: the RESPOnD longitudinal cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Sphincter of Oddi disorders (SOD) are contentious conditions in patients whose abdominal pain, idiopathic acute pancreatitis (iAP) might arise from pressurisation at the sphincter of Oddi. The present study aimed to measure the benefit of sphincterotomy for suspected SOD. DESIGN: Prospective cohort conducted at 14 US centres with 12 months follow-up. Patients undergoing first-time endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy for suspected SOD were eligible: pancreatobiliary-type pain with or without iAP. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of improvement by Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), no new or increased opioids and no repeat intervention. Missing data were addressed by hierarchal, multiple imputation scheme. RESULTS: Of 316 screened, 213 were enrolled with 190 (89.2%) of these having a dilated bile duct, abnormal labs, iAP or some combination. By imputation, an average of 122/213 (57.4% (95% CI 50.4% to 64.4%)) improved; response rate was similar for those with complete follow-up (99/161, 61.5% (54.0% to 69.0%)); of these, 118 (73.3%) improved by PGIC alone. Duct size, elevated labs and patient characteristics were not associated with response. AP occurred in 37/213 (17.4%) at a median of 6 months post ERCP and was more likely in those with a history of AP (30.9% vs 2.9%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Nearly 60% of patients undergoing ERCP for suspected SOD improve, although the contribution of a placebo response is unknown. Contrary to prevailing belief, duct size and labs are poor response predictors. AP recurrence was common and like observations from prior non-intervention cohorts, suggesting no benefit of sphincterotomy in mitigating future AP episodes.

Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial participants who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of: 1) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case; 2) the amount of effort expended on PSP; 3) stent length; 4) stent diameter; and 5) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs. occurring naturally; OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs. non-substantial effort; OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 Fr vs. <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 inch vs. 0.025 inch; 0.83, 95%CI 0.49-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision-making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus endoscopic balloon dilation for the management of benign colorectal anastomotic strictures.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Limited data exist evaluating lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) with endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) for the treatment of benign colorectal anastomotic strictures (BCASs). This study compares outcomes of both interventions. METHODS: Patients with left-sided BCAS treated with LAMSs versus EBD were identified retrospectively. The primary outcome was a composite of crossover to another intervention to achieve clinical success or recurrence requiring reintervention. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (11 LAMS and 18 EBD) were identified with longer follow-up in the EBD group (734 vs 142 days; P = .003). No significant differences were found in the composite outcome, technical success, clinical success, or components of composite outcome. With LAMS, there was a nonsignificant trend toward fewer procedures (2.4 vs 3.3; P = .06) and adverse events (0% vs 16.7%; P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS appears to be as effective as EBD for the treatment of BCAS but may require fewer procedures and may be safer than EBD.

The Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Study is a Global Effort to Drive Early Detection: Baseline Imaging Findings in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy with a survival rate of only 12%. Surveillance is recommended for high-risk individuals (HRIs), but it is not widely adopted. To address this unmet clinical need and drive early diagnosis research, we established the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium. METHODS: PRECEDE is a multi-institutional international collaboration that has undertaken an observational prospective cohort study. Individuals (aged 18-90 years) are enrolled into 1 of 7 cohorts based on family history and pathogenic germline variant (PGV) status. From April 1, 2020, to November 21, 2022, a total of 3,402 participants were enrolled in 1 of 7 study cohorts, with 1,759 (51.7%) meeting criteria for the highest-risk cohort (Cohort 1). Cohort 1 HRIs underwent germline testing and pancreas imaging by MRI/MR-cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound. RESULTS: A total of 1,400 participants in Cohort 1 (79.6%) had completed baseline imaging and were subclassified into 3 groups based on familial PC (FPC; n=670), a PGV and FPC (PGV+/FPC+; n=115), and a PGV with a pedigree that does not meet FPC criteria (PGV+/FPC-; n=615). One HRI was diagnosed with stage IIB PC on study entry, and 35.1% of HRIs harbored pancreatic cysts. Increasing age (odds ratio, 1.05; P<.001) and FPC group assignment (odds ratio, 1.57; P<.001; relative to PGV+/FPC-) were independent predictors of harboring a pancreatic cyst. CONCLUSIONS: PRECEDE provides infrastructure support to increase access to clinical surveillance for HRIs worldwide, while aiming to drive early PC detection advancements through longitudinal standardized clinical data, imaging, and biospecimen captures. Increased cyst prevalence in HRIs with FPC suggests that FPC may infer distinct biological processes. To enable the development of PC surveillance approaches better tailored to risk category, we recommend adoption of subclassification of HRIs into FPC, PGV+/FPC+, and PGV+/FPC- risk groups by surveillance protocols.

Efficacy and safety of long-term indwelling plastic stents after resolution of pancreatic fluid collections with endoscopic transmural drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) may recur after resolution with endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) and standard stent removal (SSR). Herein, we compared the efficacy and safety of leaving long-term indwelling plastic stents (LTIS) vs. standard stent removal after PFC resolution with ETD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception to September 2022. Full-text articles comparing long-term (> 6 months) outcomes of LTIS and SSR were eligible, as well as single-arm studies with ≥ 10 patients with LTIS. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Measured outcomes included the following: (A) PFC recurrence; (B) interventions for PFC recurrence; (C) technical success; and (D) adverse events (AEs). Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 16 studies, encompassing 1285 patients. Compared to SSR after PFC resolution with ETD, LTIS was associated with significantly lower risk of PFC recurrence (3% vs. 23%; OR 0.22 [95%CI 0.09-0.52]; I2 = 45%) and need for interventions (2% vs. 14%; OR 0.35 [95%CI 0.16-0.78]; I2 = 0%). The superiority of LTIS on reducing PFC recurrence was found with walled-off necrosis, with or without disconnected pancreatic duct, and with placement of ≥ 2 LTIS. When using LTIS, the pooled proportion of AEs was 8% (95%CI 4-11%) and technical success was 93% (95%CI 86-99%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that LTIS after PFC resolution with ETD is feasible, safe, and superior to SSR in reducing the risk of PFC recurrence and need for interventions.

Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and Implications for Successful Early Detection in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To successfully implement imaging-based pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance, understanding the timeline and morphologic features of neoplastic progression is key. We aimed to investigate the progression to neoplasia from serial prediagnostic pancreatic imaging tests in high-risk individuals and identify factors associated with successful early detection. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the development of pancreatic abnormalities in high-risk individuals who were diagnosed with PC or underwent pancreatic surgery, or both, in 16 international surveillance programs. RESULTS: Of 2552 high-risk individuals under surveillance, 28 (1%) developed neoplastic progression to PC or high-grade dysplasia during a median follow-up of 29 months after baseline (interquartile range [IQR], 40 months). Of these, 13 of 28 (46%) presented with a new lesion (median size, 15 mm; range 7-57 mm), a median of 11 months (IQR, 8; range 3-17 months) after a prior examination, by which time 10 of 13 (77%) had progressed beyond the pancreas. The remaining 15 of 28 (54%) had neoplastic progression in a previously detected lesion (12 originally cystic, 2 indeterminate, 1 solid), and 11 (73%) had PC progressed beyond the pancreas. The 12 patients with cysts had been monitored for 21 months (IQR, 15 months) and had a median growth of 5 mm/y (IQR, 8 mm/y). Successful early detection (as high-grade dysplasia or PC confined to the pancreas) was associated with resection of cystic lesions (vs solid or indeterminate lesions (odds ratio, 5.388; 95% confidence interval, 1.525-19.029) and small lesions (odds ratio, 0.890/mm; 95% confidence interval 0.812-0.976/mm). CONCLUSIONS: In nearly half of high-risk individuals developing high-grade dysplasia or PC, no prior lesions are detected by imaging, yet they present at an advanced stage. Progression can occur before the next scheduled annual examination. More sensitive diagnostic tools or a different management strategy for rapidly growing cysts are needed.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: methodology and review of evidence.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent. In patients with unclear diagnosis or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be assured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Sphincter of Oddi Disorders.

The concept that sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) can cause attacks of biliary-type pain in postcholecystectomy patients and those with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis, and that endoscopic sphincterotomy can ameliorate symptoms, remains unproven. The Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction (EPISOD) study of patients without objective evidence for biliary obstruction showed no difference in outcomes between those who underwent sphincterotomy or sham treatment.1 To date, there have been no studies examining the characteristics of patients who still are being offered endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for SOD since the EPISOD publication, although the absolute number appears to have declined.2.

Standardization of EUS imaging and reporting in high-risk individuals of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: consensus statement of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease most often diagnosed after local progression or metastatic dissemination, precluding resection and resulting in a high mortality rate. For individuals with elevated personal risk of the development of pancreatic cancer, EUS is a frequently used advanced imaging and diagnostic modality. However, variability in the expertise and definition of EUS findings exists among gastroenterologists, as well as a lack of standardized reporting of relevant findings at the time of examination. Adoption of standardized EUS reporting, using a universally accepted and agreed on terminology, is needed. METHODS: A consensus statement designed to create a standardized reporting template was authored by a multidisciplinary group of experts in pancreatic diseases that includes gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, oncologists, and geneticists. This statement was developed using a modified Delphi process as part of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium, and >75% agreement was required to reach consensus. RESULTS: We identified reporting elements and present standardized reporting templates for EUS indications, procedural data, EUS image capture, and descriptors of findings, tissue sampling, and postprocedural assessment of adequacy. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of this standardized EUS reporting template should improve consistency in clinical decision-making for individuals with elevated risk of pancreatic cancer by providing complete and accurate reporting of pancreatic abnormalities. Standardization will also help to facilitate research and clinical trial design by using clearly defined and consistent imaging descriptions, thus allowing for comparison of results across different centers.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.

Detection of Barrett's neoplasia with a near-infrared fluorescent heterodimeric peptide.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a molecularly heterogeneous disease with poor prognosis that is rising rapidly in incidence. We aimed to demonstrate specific binding by a peptide heterodimer to Barrett's neoplasia in human subjects. METHODS: Peptide monomers specific for EGFR and ErbB2 were arranged in a heterodimer configuration and labeled with IRDye800. This near-infrared (NIR) contrast agent was topically administered to patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) undergoing either endoscopic therapy or surveillance. Fluorescence images were collected using a flexible fiber accessory passed through the instrument channel of an upper gastrointestinal endoscope. Fluorescence images were collected from 31 BE patients. A deep learning model was used to segment the target (T) and background (B) regions. RESULTS: The mean target-to-background (T/B) ratio was significantly greater for high grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC versus BE, low grade dysplasia (LGD), and squamous epithelium. At a T/B ratio of 1.5, sensitivity and specificity of 94.1 % and 92.6 %, respectively, were achieved for the detection of Barrett's neoplasia with an area under the curve of 0.95. No adverse events attributed to the heterodimer were found. EGFR and ErbB2 expression were validated in the resected specimens. CONCLUSIONS: This "first-in-human" clinical study demonstrates the feasibility of detection of early Barrett's neoplasia using a NIR-labeled peptide heterodimer.

COVID-19 related pancreatic cancer surveillance disruptions amongst high-risk individuals.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions to EUS-based pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals remain uncertain. METHODS: Analysis of enrolled participants in the CAPS5 Study, a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals. RESULTS: Amongst 693 enrolled high-risk individuals under active surveillance, 108 (16%) had an EUS scheduled during the COVID-19 pandemic-related shutdown (median length of 78 days) in the spring of 2020, with 97% of these procedures being canceled. Of these canceled surveillance EUSs, 83% were rescheduled in a median of 4.1 months, however 17% were not rescheduled after 6 months follow-up. Prior history of cancer was associated with increased likelihood of rescheduling. To date no pancreatic cancer has been diagnosed among those whose surveillance was delayed. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 delayed pancreatic cancer surveillance with no adverse outcomes in efficiently rescheduled individuals. However, 1 in 6 high-risk individuals had not rescheduled surveillance, indicating the need for vigilance to ensure timely surveillance rescheduling.

Survival analysis among unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing endoscopic or percutaneous interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed at a late stage and are not candidates for surgical resection. Many have jaundice requiring biliary drainage, which can be accomplished using ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of ERCP or PTBD on survival among patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The aims of our study were to compare overall survival between patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer receiving ERCP with those receiving PTBD, to compare overall survival between patients who received a biliary intervention (ERCP or PTBD) versus those who received no biliary intervention, and to compare secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and costs, between ERCP and PTBD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Patients with known pancreatic cancer were included if they had a pancreatic head mass and/or evidence of biliary obstruction. We used a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model to estimate overall survival of patients receiving ERCP versus PTBD and overall survival among patients who received a biliary intervention versus no biliary drainage. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, costs, and admissions within 30 days. RESULTS: Of 14,808 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, 8898 patients (60.0%) underwent biliary drainage and 5910 patients (39.9%) received no biliary intervention. ERCP accounted for most biliary interventions (8271, 93.0%), whereas 623 patients (7.0%) underwent PTBD. In multivariable analysis, ERCP was associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], .67; 95% confidence interval [CI], .60-.75). When ERCP or PTBD was compared with no biliary intervention, both procedures were associated with a survival benefit (aHR, .51 [95% CI, .49-.54] and .53 [95% CI, .48-.59], respectively). Compared with patients receiving PTBD, those who underwent ERCP had shorter mean length of hospital stay (7.0 ± 5.7 days vs 9.6 ± 6.6 days, respectively; P < .001) and lower hospital charges ($54,899.25 vs $75,246.00, P < .001) but no significant difference in hospitalization or 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP is associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD in pancreatic cancer patients, highlighting the critical role of ERCP in the management of biliary obstruction from pancreatic cancer.