Comparison of functional lumen imaging probe and high-resolution manometry to assess response after peroral endoscopic myotomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Outcomes after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are assessed clinically by the Eckardt score (ES) or objectively by high-resolution manometry (HRM) and functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP). This study compared HRM and FLIP to evaluate clinical response after POEM. METHODS: This was a single tertiary center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent POEM for treatment-naive achalasia and with ≥6 months of follow-up. Baseline and follow-up testing in all patients included ES, HRM, and FLIP of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). A normal post-POEM (or normalized) EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) >2.8 mm2/mm Hg, maximum EGJ diameter (MxEGJD) ≥14 mm, and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg were compared with a clinical response, defined as ES ≤3. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients (58% men, mean age 51 ± 17 years) were included. Overall clinical response by ES, IRP, MxEGJD, and EGJ-DI were 97.7%, 86.2%, 75.9%, and 92.0%, respectively. The sensitivity of a normal IRP (87.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 78.0-93.4]) was similar to the sensitivity of a normal MxEGJD (75.3% [95% CI, 64.7-84.0], P = .053) and normal EGJ-DI (91.8% [95% CI, 83.8%-96.6%], P = .39) after POEM to predict clinical response. However, the sensitivity of a normal post-POEM EGJ-DI was superior to a normal post-POEM MxEGJD (P = .001) to predict clinical response. There was no difference in the area under the curve of a normal MxEGJD or EGJ-DI to predict a normal IRP (P = .956) after POEM. CONCLUSIONS: Normal FLIP metrics ≥6 months after POEM for achalasia show good to excellent sensitivity but are equivalent to a normalized IRP by HRM to predict clinical response by ESs. FLIP may be used as an alternative to HRM to assess lower esophageal sphincter response to POEM in these patients. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02770859.).

Utility of EUS-guided biopsy of extramural pelvic masses.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic utility of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) of pelvic masses has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of EUS in the diagnosis of pelvic masses. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS evaluation of pelvic mass from January 2002 to July 2009. Patients with newly diagnosed rectal cancer or a known/suspected intramural mass were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: EUS-FNA and/or EUS-TCB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Endosonographic features and cytological and pathological findings were evaluated. The final diagnosis was confirmed by surgical pathology or cytology and clinical follow-up. The sensitivities and specificities of EUS-TCB were calculated in a subset of patients with available surgical pathology. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients were identified, and 40 with intramural lesions (n = 36) or incomplete follow-up (n = 4) were excluded. The remaining 29 patients (15 men, mean age 58.5 ± 10.8 years) with pelvic masses (mean size 40.8 ± 20.1 mm) were evaluated. EUS-FNA or EUS-TCB helped to make the diagnosis in 25 of 29 patients (86%). Compared with surgical pathology (available in 17 patients), EUS-FNA had a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI, 53%-98%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 65%-100%) for malignancy. EUS-TCB alone had a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI, 21%-94%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 34%-100%) for malignancy, but the combination of EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 68%-100%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 68%-100%). Complications after EUS-FNA included a pelvic abscess in 2 patients (7%) with a cystic pelvic mass. LIMITATION: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB are sensitive for the diagnosis of malignancy in pelvic masses. Sampling of cystic masses in this region is discouraged.

Survival in patients with pancreatic cancer after the diagnosis of malignant ascites or liver metastases by EUS-FNA.

BACKGROUND: The expected survival after the EUS-FNA diagnosis of malignant ascites or liver metastases from pancreatic cancer is not known. OBJECTIVE: To report overall and 1-year survival in these patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort series. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive subjects with newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer from June 1998 and March 2008 in whom EUS-FNA of the liver or ascitic fluid confirmed hepatic metastases or malignant ascites. INTERVENTIONS: Calculation of survival after diagnosis by using the Social Security Death Index. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Survival after EUS-FNA diagnosis of stage IV pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: EUS-FNA identified liver metastases and malignant ascites from primary pancreatic cancer in 75 and 13 patients, respectively, and all 88 died during follow-up. For all 88 patients, the 1-year survival rate and median survival were 3.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-10.4%) and 82 days (range 2-754 days), respectively. The 1-year survival rates for those with liver metastases (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-12.1%]) and for those with malignant ascites (0% [95% CI, 0-24.7%]) were similar (P = 1.0). The median survival for patients with liver metastases of 83 days (range 2-754 days) was similar to that for those with malignant ascites (64 days; range 2-153 days) (P = .13). No clinical variable considered predicted survival of more than, less than, or 3 months. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective series with variable treatment for malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pancreatic cancer, identification of malignant ascites or liver metastases by EUS-FNA is associated with a very poor prognosis.