Linear EUS Accuracy in Preoperative Staging of Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative gastric cancer (GC) staging is the most reliable prognostic factor that affects therapeutic strategies. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and radial endoscopic ultrasound (R-EUS) scans are the most commonly used staging tools for GC. The accuracy of linear EUS (L-EUS) in this setting is still controversial. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the accuracy of L-EUS and CECT in preoperative GC staging, with regards to depth of tumor invasion (T staging) and nodal involvement (N staging). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 191 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for GC were retrospectively enrolled. Preoperative staging had been performed using both L-EUS and CECT, and the results were compared to postoperative staging by histopathologic analysis of surgical specimens. RESULTS: L-EUS diagnostic accuracy for depth of invasion of the GC was 100%, 60%, 74%, and 80% for T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively. CECT accuracy for T staging was 78%, 55%, 45%, and 10% for T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively. L-EUS diagnostic accuracy for N staging of GC was 85%, significantly higher than CECT accuracy (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that L-EUS has a higher accuracy than CECT in preoperative T and N staging of GC.

Fine Needle Aspiration versus Fine Needle Biopsy of Biliopancreatic Lesions: Are They Really Opposing Techniques or Can They Be Complementary? Our Experience in a Large Cohort of Cases from a Single Institution.

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA), and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are considered the best procedures for the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions. These methods represent a milestone since they proved to be both safe for the patient and useful to achieve diagnostic material useful to plan the best treatment strategy. OBJECTIVE: Since in the literature, a debate between cytology and histology supporters is still ongoing and the trend is changing in favor of FNB, we would like to present our experience about the diagnostic yield of FNA and FNB. The aim of our study is to highlight FNA versus FNB diagnostic role of biliopancreatic lesions, highlight advantages, and drawbacks of these procedures, and our view on these 2 procedures and whether they should still be considered complementary or opposing techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our hospital series of 469 EUS diagnostics procedures of biliopancreatic lesions performed in 419 patients, between 2015 and 2019. RESULTS: The overall adequacy rates of FNA and FNB were, respectively, 98.9 and 100%. Stratifying cases according to anatomic location of the mass (pancreas vs. biliary system), we detected 168 malignancies out of 349 pancreatic lesions (168/349; 48.1%), while biliary system cases positive for malignancy represented 33.8% (23/68 cases) (p value = 0.045, χ2 test). As for concomitant FNB, our series displayed a high rate of diagnostic concordance (88.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous data published, it is still unclear which is the most feasible method to use; therefore, we compared FNA, FNB, or their combination to understand the best applicable technique. Our experience confirmed that FNA is extremely efficient in the diagnosis of biliopancreatic lesions, especially in the hands of expert endoscopists and pathologists. Considering anatomic location, EUS-FNA is more accurate for mass-forming neoplasms in the pancreatic parenchyma rather than for lesions of the biliary system. Moreover, concomitant FNB usually confirmed the cytological diagnosis, allowing a deeper immunohistochemical characterization of the neoplasia. This proves that a "pure" cytology and "pure" histology approach should be looked differently since these are complementary techniques especially if we can obtain a cellblock from FNA.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage in pancreatic cancer and cholangitis: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Head pancreatic cancers often present with clinical challenges requiring biliary drainage for chemotherapy or palliative scope. If usual endoscopic modalities fail or if percutaneous approach is not feasible, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided biliary drainage can be considered. Here we describe and discuss an interesting clinical case in which EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) was chosen to treat acute severe cholangitis in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. CASE SUMMARY: An 84-year-old female with a previous EUS-biopsy proven diagnosis of head pancreatic cancer presented with clinical signs of acute cholangitis. In September 2018 she had positioned a biliary and duodenal stent to relieve jaundice and an initial duodenal substenosis. In the emergency ward, an abdominal computed tomography scan showed proximal biliary stent occlusion due to neoplastic progression, but endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was impossible because of worsening duodenal stenosis and the absence of a chance to reach the Vater's papilla area. EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy was not technically feasible but because the cystic duct was free of neoplastic infiltration, an EUS-GBD using an Axios™ stent was successfully performed. The patient started to feed after 48 h and was discharged 1 wk later. No other hospitalizations due to cholangitis or symptoms of Axios™ stent occlusion/dysfunction were observed up until her death 6 mo later due to underlying disease. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrated how different EUS therapeutic approaches could have a key role to treat critical and seemingly unsolvable situations and that they could play a more fundamental role in the next future.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a case series.

Background and study aims Surgery is the considered the therapeutic cornerstone for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs), although burdened by high risk of significant adverse events. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has been described for P-NETs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of EUS-RFA for treatment of P-NETs. Patients and methods We prospectively included all consecutive patients with P-NET ≤ 20 mm who were treated with EUS-RFA and were followed-up for at least 12 months. Results Ten patients (5 males, mean age 78.6 years, mean body mass index 28.2) with 11 P-NETs (mean size 14.5 mm; range 9 - 20 mm) localized in the pancreatic head (3 lesions), pancreatic body (5 lesions), and tail (3 lesions) underwent complete EUS ablation with one session of RFA. Complete ablation of P-NET was reached using a single-session RFA with a mean of 2.3 treatment applications per session. At both 6 - and 12-months computed tomography scans, all the patients had complete disappearance of lesions with radiological normalization. Regarding safety, only two cases of mild abdominal pain were recorded in two subjects with pancreatic head lesion, which were effectively treated with analgesics. The mean duration of hospital stay was 4 days (range 3 - 7 days). Conclusions EUS-RFA is effective and safe in treating P-NETs. It may be considered an effective therapeutic option in the treatment of small P-NETs independently from their functional status.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review of the literature.

Background and study aims Surgery is the mainstay therapy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs), but it is associated with significant adverse events (AEs). In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has been described for treating P-NETs. We performed a systematic literature review aimed at exploring the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of EUS-RFA in treatment of P-NETs. Methods The literature review was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS to identify all case reports of EUS-RFA for treatment of P-NETs. Results Sixyt-one patients (males 49.2 %, mean age 64.5 years) and 73 tumors (mean size 16 mm, insulinomas 30.1 %) treated with EUS-RFA were included from 12 studies. The overall effectiveness of EUS-RFA was 96 % (75 % - 100 %) without differences between functional vs. non-functional P-NETs ( P  = 0.3) and without relevant issues about safety (mild AEs 13.7 %). While tumor location was not predictive for incomplete/non-response to EUS-RFA, greater tumor dimensions predicted treatment failure (21.8 ±â€Š4.71 mm in the non-response group vs 15.07 ±â€Š7.34 mm in the response group, P  = 0.048). At ROC analysis, a P-NET size cut-off value ≤18 mm predicted response to treatment, with a sensitivity of 80 % (95 % CI 28.4 % - 99.5 %), a specificity of 78.6 % (95 % CI 63.2 % - 89.7 %), a positive predictive value of 97.1 % (95 % CI 84.7 % - 99.9 %) and a negative predictive value of 30.8 % (95 % CI 9.1 % - 61.4 %), with an area under the curve of 0.81 (95 % CI 0.67 - 0.95). Conclusions EUS-RFA is safe and effective for treating P-NETs. It may be reasonable to consider EUS-RFA for small P-NETs, irrespective of the functional status.

Efficacy of a novel self-assembling peptide hemostatic gel as rescue therapy for refractory acute gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Topical hemostatic products have been developed for endoscopic use to help in the management of difficult bleeding. Our aim was to demonstrate the ease of use, safety, and efficacy of PuraStat, a novel hemostat, to control AGIB. METHODS: We describe 77 patients (41 men) who were treated for acute upper and lower AGIB in a 2-year period. In 50 patients, bleeding occurred as a complication of a previous endoscopic procedure, predominantly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, in the other 27 patients, it derived from peptic ulcers, angiodysplasia, cancers, and surgical anastomoses. Bleeding was spurting in 13 of the 77 patients and oozing in 64. PuraStat was used after the failure of at least two conventional hemostatic methods. RESULTS: A mean of 2.6 conventional hemostatic methods had been attempted prior to the application of PuraStat. PuraStat achieved successful hemostasis in 90.9 % of patients. In 41 patients, once hemostasis was obtained with PuraStat, endoscopists further stabilized hemostasis by using at least one additional method. Recurrence of bleeding was observed in eight patients (10.4 %). In 16 patients with intraprocedural bleeding, it was possible to complete the procedures (14 EMR, 2 ERCP) after PuraStat hemostasis. No adverse events related to PuraStat were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: PuraStat is feasible, safe, and effective in controlling different types of gastrointestinal hemorrhage after failure of conventional hemostatic methods. Its application also does not hinder continuing endotherapy.