EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastroenterostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE) has been the mainstay treatment for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The emergence of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) presents a less invasive alternative for palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GE compared to SGE. Methods Multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings up to April 2021 were searched to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to SGE. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) of technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AE) and recurrence, and pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of procedure time and post-procedure length of stay (LOS) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and Cochran Q statistics. Results Seven studies including 625 patients (372 EUS-GE and 253 SGE) were included. EUS-GE had lower pooled odds of technical success compared with SGE (OR 0.19, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.60, I 2 0 %). Among the technically successful cases, EUS-GE was superior in terms of clinical success (OR 4.73, 95 % CI 1.83-12.25, I 2 18 %), lower overall AE (OR 0.20, 95 % CI 0.10-0.37, I 2 39 %), and shorter procedure time (SMD -2.4, 95 % CI -4.1, -0.75, I 2 95 %) and post-procedure LOS (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.94, -0.03, I 2 78%). Rates of severe AE (0.89, 95 % CI 0.11-7.36, I 2 67 %) and recurrence (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.18-1.38, I 2 49 %) were comparable. Conclusions Our results suggest EUS-GE is a promising alternative to SGE due to its superior clinical success, overall safety, and efficiency. With further evolution EUS-GE could become the intervention of choice in GOO.

Donning a New Approach to the Practice of Gastroenterology: Perspectives From the COVID-19 Pandemic Epicenter.

The COVID-19 pandemic seemingly is peaking now in New York City and has triggered significant changes to the standard management of gastrointestinal diseases. Priorities such as minimizing viral transmission, preserving personal protective equipment, and freeing hospital beds have driven unconventional approaches to managing gastroenterology (GI) patients. Conversion of endoscopy units to COVID units and redeployment of GI fellows and faculty has profoundly changed the profile of most GI services. Meanwhile, consult and procedural volumes have been reduced drastically. In this review, we share our collective experiences regarding how we have changed our practice of medicine in response to the COVID surge. Although we review our management of specific consults and conditions, the overarching theme focuses primarily on noninvasive measures and maximizing medical therapies. Endoscopic procedures have been reserved for those timely interventions that are most likely to be therapeutic. The role of multidisciplinary discussion, although always important, now has become critical. The support of our faculty and trainees remains essential. Local leadership can encourage well-being by frequent team check-ins and by fostering trainee development through remote learning. Advancing a clear vision and a transparent process for how to organize and triage care in the recovery phase will allow for a smooth transition to our new normal.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Lesions in a Multicenter, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard of care for tissue sampling of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide higher diagnostic yield with fewer needle passes. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial from 6 large tertiary care centers. Patients referred for tissue sampling of solid lesions were randomized to either FNA or FNB of the target lesion. Demographics, size, location, number of needle passes, and final diagnosis were recorded. RESULTS: After enrollment, 135 patients were randomized to FNA (49.3%), and 139 patients were randomized to FNB (50.7%).The following lesions were sampled: mass (n = 210, 76.6%), lymph nodes (n = 46, 16.8%), and submucosal tumors (n = 18, 6.6%). Final diagnosis was malignancy (n = 192, 70.1%), reactive lymphadenopathy (n = 30, 11.0%), and spindle cell tumors (n = 24, 8.8%). FNA had a diagnostic yield of 91.1% compared with 88.5% for FNB (P = .48). There was no difference between FNA and FNB when stratified by the presence of on-site cytopathology or by type of lesion sampled. A median of 1 needle pass was needed to obtain a diagnostic sample for both needles. CONCLUSIONS: FNA and FNB obtained a similar diagnostic yield with a comparable number of needle passes. On the basis of these results, there is no significant difference in the performance of FNA compared with FNB in the cytologic diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01698190.

Practice patterns in FNA technique: A survey analysis.

AIM: To ascertain fine needle aspiration (FNA) techniques by endosonographers with varying levels of experience and environments. METHODS: A survey study was performed on United States based endosonographers. The subjects completed an anonymous online electronic survey. The main outcome measurements were differences in needle choice, FNA technique, and clinical decision making among endosonographers and how this relates to years in practice, volume of EUS-FNA procedures, and practice environment. RESULTS: A total of 210 (30.8%) endosonographers completed the survey. Just over half (51.4%) identified themselves as academic/university-based practitioners. The vast majority of respondents (77.1%) identified themselves as high-volume endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (> 150 EUS/year) and high-volume FNA (> 75 FNA/year) performers (73.3). If final cytology is non-diagnostic, high-volume EUS physicians were more likely than low volume physicians to repeat FNA with a core needle (60.5% vs 31.2%; P = 0.0004), and low volume physicians were more likely to refer patients for either surgical or percutaneous biopsy, (33.4% vs 4.9%, P < 0.0001). Academic physicians were more likely to repeat FNA with a core needle (66.7%) compared to community physicians (40.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in EUS-FNA practices among United States endosonographers. Differences appear to be related to EUS volume and practice environment.

Diagnostic yield and safety of jumbo biopsy forceps in patients with subepithelial lesions of the upper and lower GI tract.

BACKGROUND: EUS-FNA often fails to make a definitive diagnosis in the evaluation of subepithelial lesions. The addition of jumbo biopsy forceps has the potential to improve diagnostic yield, but published series are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the likelihood of definitive diagnosis for subepithelial lesions by using jumbo biopsy forceps during EUS examination. DESIGN: Pooled retrospective analysis. SETTING: 6 tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: All patients having undergone EUS examination for a subepithelial lesion in which jumbo biopsy forceps were used for tissue acquisition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic yield of jumbo biopsy forceps use, complication rates, and comparison of diagnostic yield with that of EUS-FNA. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients underwent EUS with jumbo biopsy forceps; 31 patients (24%) had simultaneous EUS-FNA. The lesion locations were stomach (n = 98), esophagus (n = 14), duodenum (n = 11), colon (n = 5), and jejunum (n = 1). The average lesion size was 14.9 mm ± 9.3 mm. Overall, definitive diagnosis was obtained in 87 of 129 patients (67.4%) by using either method. A definitive diagnosis was provided by jumbo biopsy forceps use in 76 of 129 patients (58.9%) and by FNA in 14 of 31 patients (45.1%) (P = .175). The results in third-layer lesions were definitive with jumbo biopsy forceps in 56 of 86 lesions (65.1%) and with FNA in 6 of 16 lesions (37.5%) (P = .047). For fourth-layer lesions, the results with jumbo biopsy forceps were definitive in 10 of 25 (40.0%) and with FNA in 8 of 14 (57.1%) (P = .330). Forty-five of 129 patients (34.9%) experienced significant bleeding after biopsy with jumbo forceps and required some form of endoscopic hemostasis. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Jumbo forceps are a useful tool for the definitive diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. The greatest benefit appears to be with third-layer (submucosal) lesions. The risk of bleeding is significant.

Accurate discrimination of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and chronic pancreatitis using multimarker expression data and samples obtained by minimally invasive fine needle aspiration.

To augment cytological diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in tissue samples obtained by minimally invasive endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration, we investigated whether a small set of molecular markers could accurately distinguish PDAC from chronic pancreatitis (CP). Expression levels of 29 genes were first determined by quantitative real-time RT-PCR in a training set of tissues in which the final diagnosis was PDAC (n=20) or CP (n=10). Using receiver operator characteristic curve analysis, we determined that the single gene with the highest diagnostic accuracy for discrimination of CP vs. PDAC in the training study was urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (UPAR; AUC value = 0.895, 95% CI=0.728-0.976). In the set of test tissues (n=14), the accuracy of UPAR decreased to 79%. However, we observed that the addition of 6 genes (EPCAM2, MAL2, CEA5, CEA6, MSLN and TRIM29; referred to as the 6-gene classifier) to UPAR resulted in high accuracy in both training and testing sets. Excluding 3 samples (out of 44; 7%) for which results of the UPAR/6-gene classifier were "undefined," the accuracy of the UPAR/6-gene classifier was 100% in training samples (n=29), 92% in 12 test samples (p=0.004 that results were randomly generated; p=0.046 that the UPAR/6-gene classifier was comparable to UPAR alone; chi2 test), 100% in 3 samples for which the initial cytological diagnosis was "suspicious" and 98% (40/41) overall. Our results provide evidence that molecular marker expression data can be used to augment cytological analysis.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration in the staging of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Precise mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer is extremely important, as mediastinal lymph node metastases generally indicate unresectable disease. Reliance on computed tomography (CT) and positron-emission tomography (PET) alone to stage and determine resectability is limited by false-positive results. Whenever possible, pathologic confirmation of metastases is desirable. Mediastinoscopy and transbronchial fine-needle aspiration are widely established but imperfect modalities. Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as a diagnostic and staging tool because of its safety, accuracy, and patient convenience. We reviewed 13 prospective studies evaluating the comparative performance of EUS for staging lung cancer. We conclude that EUS is a valuable staging modality. Further studies of the role of EUS compared to other modalities such as integrated PET/CT and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) are forthcoming.

The molecular and genetic basis of colon cancer.

Remarkable progress has been accomplished in understanding the molecular basis of genetic colon cancer syndromes including FAP and HNPCC, and their variants; of sporadic colon cancer; and of the rare hamartomatous polyp syndromes. This molecular progress now has to be translated into clinical progress in molecular diagnosis, and in pharmacologic therapy for colonic polyps and cancers. It is hoped that such progress will impact on the frequency and mortality of this very common and frequently fatal cancer.