Endoscopic ultrasound in gastric cancer staging before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A comparison with PET-CT in a clinical series.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of gastric cancer is based on accurate staging. Emerging methods, such as PET-CT, are increasingly being used for this purpose. Our aim was to analyze the results of EUS and PET-CT in staging and restaging our patients with gastric cancer, comparing both of them with the histological results. METHODS: Patients with confirmed gastric cancer were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria for the final analysis included only patients who finally received a surgical resection. All patients underwent preoperative TNM staging by means of EUS and PET-CT within 21 days prior to the surgical treatment. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were included. The overall EUS accuracy for T staging was 78% and 80.2% in restaging. EUS showed its best accuracy when distinguishing T1-T2 tumors vs. T3-T4, with an increased accuracy in restaging. Regarding N staging, the overall accuracy of EUS was 76.2%, and 72.5% for PET-CT (p = 0.02). With regards to restaging, accuracy of EUS and PET-CT for N staging was 88.5% and 69%, respectively, with significant differences (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS performed better than PET-CT in gastric cancer N staging and restaging. EUS accuracy in this setting is still suboptimal and probably more than one single diagnostic procedure should be used.

Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and Rockall score in a European series of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: performance when predicting in-hospital and delayed mortality.

OBJECTIVE: AIMS65 is a score designed to predict in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs of gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aims were to revalidate AIMS65 as predictor of inpatient mortality and to compare AIMS65's performance with that of Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) with regard to mortality, and the secondary outcomes of a composite endpoint of severity, transfusion requirements, rebleeding, delayed (6-month) mortality, and length of stay. METHODS: The study included 309 patients. Clinical and biochemical data, transfusion requirements, endoscopic, surgical, or radiological treatments, and outcomes for 6 months after admission were collected. Clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, delayed mortality, rebleeding, composite endpoint, blood transfusions, and length of stay. RESULTS: In receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses, AIMS65, GBS, and RS were similar when predicting inpatient mortality (0.76 vs. 0.78 vs. 0.78). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AIMS65 and GBS were identical (0.62 vs. 0.62). AIMS65 was useless when predicting rebleeding compared to GBS or RS (0.56 vs. 0.70 vs. 0.71). GBS was better at predicting the need for transfusions. No patient with AIMS65 = 0, GBS ≤ 6, or RS ≤ 4 died. Considering the composite endpoint, an AIMS65 of 0 did not exclude high risk patients, but a GBS ≤ 1 or RS ≤ 2 did. The three scores were similar in predicting prolonged in-hospital stay. Delayed mortality was better predicted by AIMS65. CONCLUSION: AIMS65 is comparable to GBS and RS in essential endpoints such as inpatient mortality, the need for endoscopic intervention and length of stay. GBS is a better score predicting rebleeding and the need for transfusion, but AIMS65 shows a better performance predicting delayed mortality.

The role of Toll-like receptor polymorphisms in acute pancreatitis occurrence and severity.

OBJECTIVES: Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are damage-associated molecular patterns receptors, which are essential in the activation of the inflammasome cascade, required for the initiation of inflammation. We hypothesized that changes in the function of these receptors caused by genetic polymorphisms in their encoding genes could determine acute pancreatitis (AP) incidence or severity. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-nine patients and 269 controls were included. Acute pancreatitis diagnosis criteria were abdominal pain, increased serum amylase levels, and positive findings on abdominal imaging. The patients were observed until discharge. Blood samples were obtained, determining the following TLRs: TLR1 rs5743611, TLR2 rs5743704, TLR3 rs3775291, TLR3 rs5743305, TLR4 rs4986790, TLR4 rs4986791, TLR5 rs5744174, TLR6 rs5743795, TLR7 rs2302267, TLR9 rs352140, and TLR10 rs4129009. RESULTS: No TLR polymorphism was related to AP incidence. Regarding severity, CC genotype patients in TLR3 rs3775291 had an increased risk for severe pancreatitis (CC odds ratio [OR], 2.426; P = 0.015). In addition, TLR6 rs5743795 GG genotype patients had a lower risk for severe AP (GG OR, 0.909; P < 0.05). Intensive care unit admission was related to TLR5 rs5744174 homozygote TT carriers (TT OR, 3.367; P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Our article points to genetic polymorphisms in TLR3 and TLR6 as having a plausible role in the occurrence of severe AP.

Wireless capsule endoscopy: perspectives beyond gastrointestinal bleeding.

Wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) is a technology developed for the endoscopic exploration of the small bowel. The first capsule model was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2001, and its first and essential indication was occult gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Over subsequent years, this technology has been refined to provide superior resolution, increased battery life, and capabilities to view different parts of the GI tract. Indeed, cases for which CE proved useful have increased significantly over the last few years, with new indications for the small bowel and technical improvements that have expanded its use to other parts of the GI tract, including the esophagus and colon. The main challenges in the development of CE are new devices with the ability to provide therapy, air inflation for a better vision of the small bowel, biopsy sampling systems attached to the capsule and the possibility to guide and move the capsule with an external motion control. In this article we review the current and new indications of CE, and the evolving technological changes shaping this technology, which has a promising potential in the coming future of gastroenterology.

Gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography in average-risk and high-risk patients: a prospective series.

OBJECTIVE: Only a few reports have addressed non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), but none specifically in high-risk patients. Our aim was to study the application of a propofol sedation protocol for EUS in average-risk and high-risk patients. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study including 446 patients referred for EUS. We analyzed the induction time, procedure duration, recovery times, and patients' comfort and safety. Sedation was administered by a trained nurse, under the guidance of the endoscopist. We continuously monitored vital signs as well as patient cooperation and tolerance. Complications, patient, and endoscopist satisfaction were analyzed. RESULTS: No major complications occurred. The rate of minor complications was 9%, the most frequent being hypoxemia (8%). One hundred and thirty-eight high-risk patients were included [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III-IV]. Average-risk patients received higher propofol doses (202.9 ± 84.8 vs. 164.8 ± 84.3; P=0.003). No differences were found in the rate of complications or procedure-related variables. Overall patient and endoscopist satisfaction was excellent. The logistic regression model identified propofol doses (P=0.02) as a risk factor and ASA-I classification (P=0.03) as a protective factor for the appearance of complications. CONCLUSION: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for upper EUS in high-risk and average-risk patients is safe and could be routinely offered to high-risk and elderly patients.