Willingham, Field F

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop consensus recommendations for the safe and appropriate use of liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer. METHODS: Statements were initially formulated and grouped into categories of indications, training, preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure recommendations, frequency/timing of repeat procedures, and contraindications. Two investigators assessed the strength of the evidence for each statement using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Nineteen experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. For statements that received >80% agreement, minor iterative edits were performed until there was unanimous consensus. If a threshold of 80% agreement was not reached, the statement was modified based on feedback and included in the next Delphi round. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after 3 rounds. RESULTS: After 3 Delphi rounds, 41 of 42 statements were accepted either in their original version (n = 11) or after modification based on expert input (n = 30). DISCUSSION: Through a modified Delphi process, we developed expert and evidence-based consensus recommendations to guide safe and appropriate use of liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Objectives: Brush cytology has a low sensitivity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. This study aimed to compare the standard approach (brush cytology) with a triple modality approach utilizing brush cytology, forceps biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridization in terms of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: In a retrospective study at a single academic center, 50 patients underwent triple modality testing. Additionally, 61 patients underwent brush cytology alone. Intervention was endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with brush cytology, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and forceps biopsy. The main outcome measures included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Results: Overall, 50 patients underwent triple tissue sampling, and 61 patients underwent brush cytology alone. Twenty-two patients were eventually diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma. Brush cytology had a sensitivity of 42%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 88%. Triple tissue sampling had an overall sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 87%. Within the triple test group, brush cytology had a sensitivity of 27%, forceps biopsy had a sensitivity of 50%, and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis had a sensitivity of 59%. Conclusions: A triple modality approach results in a marked increase in sensitivity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma compared with single modality testing such as brush cytology and should be considered in the evaluation of indeterminate or suspicious biliary strictures.