Methods of tissue preparation after EUS-guided tissue acquisition without rapid on-site assessment: Results of a randomized study.

In the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), it is not clear which method of tissue preparation is best to process tissue obtained from EUS guidance. Cytological smearing (CS), cell block (CB), and direct histology (DH) are the available techniques. AIM: To compare the diagnostic yield of three techniques of tissue preparation for EUS-guided tissue acquisition without ROSE. METHODS: Patients who were referred for EUS-FNA of peri-gastrointestinal masses were recruited. Without ROSE, each lesion was biopsied with three needle passes, and the order in which tissue is prepared was randomized to either (i) CS + CB, (ii) CB only, or (iii) DH only. The prepared specimens were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 243 specimens were taken from 81 patients. Tissue diagnosis was achieved in 78/81 (96.3%) of patients, including 63 neoplasms (PDAC [n = 45], pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [PNET; n = 4], cholangiocarcinoma [n = 5], metastatic disease [n = 4], lymphoma [n = 1], linitis plastica [n = 2], leiomyoma [n = 2]) and 15 benign pathologies (chronic pancreatitis [n = 8], reactive nodes [n = 5], inflammatory biliary stricture [n = 1], and pancreatic rest [n = 1]). The three non-diagnostic cases were found to be PDAC (n = 2) and PNET (n = 1). Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy was highest with DH (94 and 95%), which was significantly better than that by CS + CB (43 and 54%; P = 0.0001) and CB-only preparations (32 and 48.6%; P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the CS + CB and CB-only arms (P > 0.22). CONCLUSION: Without ROSE, our findings suggest that with just a single pass, DH should be the tissue preparation method of choice given its significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with CS and/or CB techniques.

Application of stereotactic body radiotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancers in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of pancreatic cancers present locally advanced and carry a high mortality rate. Treatment is challenging, with mixed data suggesting use of chemotherapy alone or in combination with radiotherapy. The use of radiotherapy has previously been limited due to lack of ability to deliver radiation to the tumour mass without causing significant toxicity to surrounding organs. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows delivery of higher biologically equivalent dose in a shorter treatment duration. We sought to investigate the safety and application of this technique in our centre. METHOD: We enrolled 27 patients from 2015, identified as locally advanced unresectable with histologically confirmed, non-metastatic, pancreatic adenocarcinoma. All patients had endoscopically inserted fiducial markers and where possible concurrent chemotherapy was administered. Dose schedules ranged from 25 to 42 Gy in 5 or 3 fractions. RESULTS: With an overall median follow up of 9 months (range, 3-32.7), the median survival was 11.6 months. Of those alive at 1 year, the local control rate was 67%. Six patients had Grade 3 toxicity, and other six had Grade 2 toxicity. None had Grade 4 or above toxicity. The most common symptom recorded was fatigue. CONCLUSION: SBRT for locally advanced pancreatic cancer is technically complex but feasible in a high volume centre. SBRT is unique, allowing safe delivery of high radiation dose resulting in good local control and decreases treatment time making it an attractive option for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Performance of a new preloaded fiducial needle to guide radiation therapy of upper gastrointestinal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of fiducials to outline the targeted lesion allows image-guided radiotherapy, and is best achieved by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This study is a performance comparison of the new EUS-guided preloaded fiducial needle against Visicoil fiducials. METHODS: Technical success, visibility score, procedural time, costs, and complications for patients who underwent EUS-guided fiducial placement in upper gastrointestinal malignancies were prospectively collected. RESULTS: 60 patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers had fiducials (14 Visicoil; 46 preloaded fiducials) inserted for image-guided radiotherapy. Technical success was 100 %, with a shorter mean (standard deviation) insertion time of 0.94 minutes (0.28 minutes) vs. 5.5 minutes (1.9 minutes; P < 0.001) and higher visibility score on fluoroscopy of 2 vs. 1.18 (P < 0.001) in the preloaded group. Neither group had major complications related to fiducial insertion. The cost of consumables per patient was lower in the preloaded group at US$480 (US$124) vs. US$643 (US$123; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fiducial insertion for image-guided radiotherapy using the new preloaded needle is associated with 100 % technical success, shorter insertion time, and higher visibility, and is more cost-effective than the Visicoil system.

Ultrathin disposable gastroscope for screening and surveillance of gastroesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: a prospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the role of unsedated, ultrathin disposable gastroscopy (TDG) against conventional gastroscopy (CG) in the screening and surveillance of gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) in patients with liver cirrhosis. METHOD: Forty-eight patients (56.4 ± 1.3 years; 38 male, 10 female) with liver cirrhosis referred for screening (n = 12) or surveillance (n = 36) of GEVs were prospectively enrolled. Unsedated gastroscopy was initially performed with TDG, followed by CG with conscious sedation. The 2 gastroscopies were performed by different endoscopists blinded to the results of the previous examination. Video recordings of both gastroscopies were validated by an independent investigator in a random, blinded fashion. Endpoints were accuracy and interobserver agreement of detecting GEVs, safety, and potential cost saving. RESULTS: CG identified GEVs in 26 (54%) patients, 10 of whom (21%) had high-risk esophageal varices (HREV). Compared with CG, TDG had an accuracy of 92% for the detection of all GEVs, which increased to 100% for high-risk GEVs. The interobserver agreement for detecting all GEVs on TDG was 88% (κ = 0.74). This increased to 94% (κ = 0.82) for high-risk GEVs. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Unsedated TDG is safe and has high diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reliability for the detection of GEVs. The use of clinic-based TDG would allow immediate determination of a follow-up plan, making it attractive for variceal screening and surveillance programs. (Clinical trial (ANZCTR) registration number: ACTRN12616001103459.).

Portable inhaled methoxyflurane is feasible and safe for colonoscopy in subjects with morbid obesity and/or obstructive sleep apnea.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Colonoscopy with inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) is well tolerated in unselected subjects and is not associated with respiratory depression. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the feasibility, safety, and post-procedural outcomes of portable methoxyflurane used as an analgesic agent during colonoscopy with those of anesthesia-assisted deep sedation (AADS) in subjects with morbid obesity and/or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The outcomes of 140 patients with morbid obesity/OSA who underwent colonoscopy with either Penthrox inhalation (n = 85; 46 men, 39 women; mean age 57.2 ±â€Š1.1 years) or AADS (n = 55; 27 men, 28 women; mean age, 54.9 ±â€Š1.1 years) were prospectively assessed. RESULTS: All Penthrox-assisted colonoscopies were successful, without any requirement for additional intravenous sedation. Compared with AADS, Penthrox was associated with a shorter total procedural time (24 ±â€Š1 vs. 52 ±â€Š1 minutes, P < 0.001), a lower incidence of hypotension (3 /85 vs. 23 /55, P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of respiratory desaturation (0 /85 vs. 14 /55, P < 0.001). The patients in the Penthrox group recovered more rapidly and were discharged much earlier than those in the AADS group (27 ±â€Š2 vs. 97 ±â€Š5 minutes, P < 0.0001). Of those who underwent colonoscopy with Penthrox, 90 % were willing to receive Penthrox again for colonoscopy. More importantly, of the patients who underwent colonoscopy with Penthrox and had had AADS for previous colonoscopy, 82 % (28 /34) preferred to receive Penthrox for future colonoscopies. Penthrox-assisted colonoscopy cost significantly less than colonoscopy with AADS ($ 332 vs. $ 725, P < 0.001), with a cost saving of approximately $ 400 for each additional complication avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with AADS, Penthrox is highly feasible and safe in patients with morbid obesity/OSA undergoing colonoscopy and is associated with fewer cardiorespiratory complications. Because of the advantages of this approach in regard to procedural time, recovery time, and cost benefit in comparison with AADS, further evaluation in a randomized trial is warranted.

A dedicated inflammatory bowel disease service quantitatively and qualitatively improves outcomes in less than 18 months: a prospective cohort study in a large metropolitan centre.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining high efficacy and quality of care in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management is a priority. The authors examined whether the introduction of a formal IBD Service (IBDS) positively influenced outcomes for their patients. METHODS: In 2007-2008, all IBD patients attending the Royal Adelaide Hospital were surveyed regarding clinical/demographic data, IBD knowledge, quality of life, mental health and satisfaction. Survey responders were re-surveyed ≥15 months later. RESULTS: 162 responded to survey 1 and 81 again responded to survey 2. Within the responders, 61% had Crohn's disease and 48% were men. Compared with survey 1, the proportions of patients with improved knowledge, adherence, satisfaction with care, QoL (≥5 points), anxiety and depression scores were 63% (95% CI 51 to 73), 62% (95% CI 50 to 72), 65% (95% CI 54 to 76), 42% (95% CI 31 to 54), 52% (95% CI 40 to 63) and 43% (95% CI 32 to 55), respectively. When comparing survey 2 with survey 1, reductions in hospitalisation (48% vs 30%, p=0.02), courses of corticosteroids and opiates (mean 1.63 vs 0.91 and 1.00 vs 0.61, both p<0.05) and overall medications (5.63 vs 4.65, p<0.05), were seen. Fewer 2009 non-responders required hospitalisation (53% vs 21%, p<0.001), suggesting a `cohort' rather than `responder-specific' effect. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of an IBDS resulted in improved patient outcomes with significant reductions in negative markers for IBD morbidity including: hospitalisations, polypharmacy, steroid and opiate use. Despite increased costs in additional staff, these measures are likely to be cost effective.