Mohan, Babu P.

There are limited and discordant results on the comparison between microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, based on a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). A computerized bibliographic search was performed on the main databases throughout August 2020. The primary outcome was the complete response rate, while survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), disease-free survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), local and distant recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and number of treatment sessions were the secondary outcomes. Seven RCTs enrolling 921 patients were included. No difference in terms of complete response between the two treatments was observed (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.02). Survival rates were constantly similar, with RRs ranging from 1.05 (0.96–1.15) at 1 year to 0.91 (0.81–1.03) at 5 years. While local recurrence rate was similar between MWA and RFA (RR 0.70, 0.43–1.14), distant recurrence rate was significantly lower with MWA (RR 0.60, 0.39–0.92). Disease-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar between the two groups with RR 1.00 (0.96–1.04), 0.94 (0.84–1.06), and 1.06 (0.93–1.21), respectively. On the other hand, RR for disease-free survival at 5 years was significantly in favor of MWA (3.66, 1.32–42.27). Adverse event rate was similar between the two treatments (RR 1.06, 0.48–2.34), with bleeding and hematoma representing the most frequent complications. Our results indicate a similar efficacy and safety profile between the two techniques. MWA seems to decrease the rate of long-term recurrences, but this finding needs to be confirmed in further trials.

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has limitations of inadequate sampling and false-negative results for malignancy. It has been performed using conventional smear (CS) cytology with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with reasonable diagnostic accuracy. An alternative to ROSE is liquid-based cytology (LBC). Commonly used LBC techniques include precipitation-based (SurePath™) and filtration-based (ThinPrep®, CellPrep®). Data regarding the diagnostic efficacy of LBC compared with CS are limited. Methods Multiple databases were searched through March 2020 to identify studies reporting diagnostic yield of EUS-guided CS and LBC in pancreatic lesions. Pooled diagnostic odds and rates of performance for the cytologic diagnoses of benign, suspicious, and malignant lesions were calculated. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by pooled rates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Results Nine studies with a total of 1308 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled diagnostic odds of CS cytology were 1.69 (CI 1.02–2.79) and 0.39 (CI 0.19–0.8) for malignant lesions when compared to filtration-based and precipitation-based LBC techniques, respectively. For CS, precipitation-based and filtration-based LBC, pooled diagnostic accuracy was 79.7 %, 85.2 %, 77.3 %, sensitivity was 79.2 %, 83.6 %, 68.3 %, and specificity was 99.4 %, 99.5 %, 99.5 %, respectively. Conclusions The precipitation-based LBC technique (SurePath™) had superior diagnostic odds for malignant pancreatic lesions compared with CS cytology in the absence of ROSE. It showed superior accuracy and sensitivity, but comparable specificity and PPV. Diagnostic odds of CS cytology in the absence of ROSE were superior to the filtration-based LBC technique (ThinPrep®, Cellprep®) for diagnosing malignant pancreatic lesions.

Abstract Background and study aims Recently, a growing body of evidence has been amassed on evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) known as deep learning in computer-aided diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions by means of convolutional neural networks (CNN). We conducted this meta-analysis to study pooled rates of performance for CNN-based AI in diagnosis of gastrointestinal neoplasia from endoscopic images. Methods Multiple databases were searched (from inception to November 2019) and studies that reported on the performance of AI by means of CNN in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors were selected. A random effects model was used and pooled accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Pooled rates were categorized based on the gastrointestinal location of lesion (esophagus, stomach and colorectum). Results Nineteen studies were included in our final analysis. The pooled accuracy of CNN in esophageal neoplasia was 87.2 % (76–93.6) and NPV was 92.1 % (85.9–95.7); the accuracy in lesions of stomach was 85.8 % (79.8–90.3) and NPV was 92.1 % (85.9–95.7); and in colorectal neoplasia the accuracy was 89.9 % (82–94.7) and NPV was 94.3 % (86.4–97.7). Conclusions Based on our meta-analysis, CNN-based AI achieved high accuracy in diagnosis of lesions in esophagus, stomach, and colorectum.

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a minimal-invasive therapeutic option to surgery and in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). The aim of this review was to quantitatively appraise the clinical outcomes of EUS-PDD by meta-analysis methods. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2020 to identify studies that reported on EUS-PDD. Pooled rates of technical success, successful drainage of pancreatic duct, clinical success, and adverse events were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % prediction interval. Results A total of 22 studies (714 patients) were included. The pooled rate of technical success in EUS-PDD was 84.8 % (95 % CI 79.1–89.2). The pooled rate of successful PD drained by EUS-PDD was 77.5 % (95 % CI 63.1–87.4). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-PDD was 89.2 % (95 % CI 82.1–93.7). The pooled rate of all adverse events was 18.1 % (95 % CI 14.2–22.9). On sub-group analysis, the pooled technical success and clinical success of EUS-PDD from Japanese data were considerably superior (91.2 %, 83–95.6 & 92.5 %, 83.9–96.7, respectively). The pooled rate of post EUS-PDD acute pancreatitis was 6.6 % (95 % CI 4.5–9.4), bleeding was 4.1 % (95 % CI 2.7–6.2), perforation and/or pneumoperitoneum was 3.1 % (95 % CI 1.9–5), pancreatic leak and/or pancreatic fluid collection was 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.4–4), and infection was 2.8 % (95 % CI 1.7–4.6). Conclusion EUS-PDD demonstrates high technical success and clinical success rates with acceptable adverse events. Technical success was especially high for anastomotic strictures.

Background and AimsColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer worldwide. Studies have shown a strong association between screening colonoscopy and a reduced risk of death from colorectal cancers. The incidence of poor bowel preparation has been reported in up to 25% cases. We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive meta‐analysis to evaluate the effect of patient education using multimedia platforms on adenoma detection rate and adequacy of bowel preparation.MethodsMultiple databases were searched through May 2020 for studies that reported the efficacy of multimedia education (smartphone app and online audio‐visual aids) in improving quality of bowel preparation and its effect on adenoma detection rate (ADR). Meta‐analysis was performed to determine whether multimedia based patient education (MM) helps improve ADR and bowel preparation quality as compared to controls (CT).ResultsWe included 13 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3754 patients. Eight studies reported outcomes on ADR and 12 reported on adequacy of bowel preparation. Overall ADR was higher in patients receiving multimedia based education as compared to CT (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.56, P = 0.04). A higher proportion of patients receiving multimedia based education achieved adequate bowel preparation (RR 1.2, CI 1.1–1.3, P = 0.001). In patients with mean age over 50 years, ADR was better in MM cohort as compared to controls (RR 1.3, CI 1.1–1.6, P = 0.001).ConclusionPre‐colonoscopy patient education using multimedia based platforms seems to improve ADR and the adequacy of bowel preparation.

Abstract Background and study aims Refractory and recurrent esophageal variceal (EV) bleeding can be life threatening. Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) have been used as a “bridge” therapy. However, their role in the treatment protocol is not established due to paucity in data. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through May 2019 to identify studies that reported on SEMS and TIPS in refractory EV hemorrhage. Our primary goals were to analyze and compare the pooled all-cause mortality, immediate bleeding control and rebleeding rates. Results Five hundred forty-seven patients from 21 studies were analyzed (SEMS: 12 studies, 176 patients; TIPS: 9 studies, 398 patients). The pooled rate of all-cause mortality with SEMS was 43.6 % (95 % CI 28.6–59.8, I2 = 38) and with TIPS was 27.9 % (95 % CI 16.3–43.6, I2 = 91). The pooled rate of immediate bleeding control with SEMS was 84.5 % (95 % CI 74–91.2, I2 = 40) and with TIPS was 97.9 % (95 % CI 87.7–99.7, I2 = 0). The pooled rate of rebleeding with SEMS was 19.4 % (95 % CI 11.9–30.4, I2 = 32) and with TIPS was 8.8 % (95 % CI 4.8–15.7, I2 = 40). Conclusion Use of SEMS in refractory EV hemorrhage demonstrates acceptable immediate bleeding control with good technical success rate. Mortality and rebleeding rates were lesser with TIPS, however, its superiority and/ or inferiority cannot be validated due to limitations in the comparison methodology.

Abstract Background Gastric variceal bleeding carries significant mortality in the setting of portal hypertension. Among the endoscopic treatment options, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided glue and/or coil injection is a novel approach, but its role in the treatment of gastric varices is not established due to a lack of robust data. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to June 2019) to identify studies evaluating EUS in the treatment of gastric varices. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, obliteration and recurrence of gastric varices, early and late rebleeding, and adverse events with EUS-guided therapy in gastric varices. We also searched for studies that evaluated direct endoscopic glue (END-glue) injection for treatment of gastric varices, and used the pooled rates as comparators. Results 23 studies (851 patients) evaluating EUS-guided therapy were included. The pooled treatment efficacy was 93.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 89.5 – 96.3, I 2 = 53.7), gastric varices obliteration was 84.4 % (95 %CI 74.8 – 90.9, I 2 = 77), gastric varices recurrence was 9.1 % (95 %CI 5.2 – 15.7, I 2 = 32), early rebleeding was 7.0 % (95 %CI 4.6 – 10.7, I 2 = 0), and late rebleeding was 11.6 % (95 %CI 8.8 – 15.1, I 2 = 22). The rates were comparable to END-glue therapy (28 studies, 3467 patients) except for obliteration, which was significantly better with EUS-guided therapy. On subgroup analysis, EUS-coil/glue combination showed superior outcomes. Conclusions EUS-guided therapy demonstrated clinical efficacy for treatment of gastric varices in terms of obliteration, recurrence, and long-term rebleeding, and may be superior to END-glue.