Citations

Background/Objectives: Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy remains challenging, frequently necessitating the use of forward-viewing endoscopes. Given the challenge in endoscope selection based on the type of altered anatomy, the aim of this study was to examine ERCP success rates by specific endoscopes for different anatomy types. Methods: This single-center retrospective study examined ERCPs performed in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy during an 18-year period. Enteroscopy success, cannulation success, and intervention success rates were compared between the different anatomy and endoscope types. Results: This study included a total of 334 adult patients (665 total ERCPs) with altered anatomy. The pediatric colonoscope was most frequently utilized (32.2%), and the majority of procedures were performed for biliary indications. Enteroscopy success was 82.2% in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 97% in Billroth II, 91.5% in Whipple, and 93.2% in Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (RYHJ). Cannulation success was 90.5% in RYGB, 90.5% in Billroth II, 83.6% in Whipple, and 90.6% in RYHJ. Intervention success was 88.2% in Billroth II, 65.1% in RYGB, 81.6% in Whipple, and 87.5% in RYHJ. In patients with RYGB and RYHJ, SBE was utilized most frequently, with rotational enteroscopy having the highest success rates. The overall adverse event rate was 5.1%, with the majority of these being mild in severity. Conclusions: This large retrospective study found ERCP with forward-viewing endoscopes to be safe and effective for a variety of surgically altered anatomy types. Despite recent advances seen with endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage procedures, this study advocates for ERCP as the initial approach for pancreaticobiliary access in surgically altered anatomy.

Background/Aims: Barrett’s esophagus (BE), defined by the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) on histology, is thought to be the only identifiable precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Recent studies have suggested the possibility of an alternate, non-IM associated EAC that is a more aggressive form of EAC with worse survival. Among EAC patients, we aimed to compare survival of patients with and without IM at the time of diagnosis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with histologic confirmed EAC evaluated at a tertiary care center from 2013 to 2019. Cases were categorized according to the presence or absence of IM on histologic specimens (Group I—IM-EAC and Group II—non-IM-EAC). We compared demographic characteristics, clinical stage, therapy, and survival between the 2 groups using the Chi-square and ANOVA tests (for categorical and continuous variables, respectively). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the association of IM with overall survival, adjusting for sex, age at diagnosis, tumor location, histologic grade, and clinical stage. Results: A total of 475 patients were included in this analysis (mean age 64.8 years [SD 10.8], 89% white) and 109 (23.0%) had no evidence of IM. Compared with IM-EAC (Group I), individuals in the non-IM-EAC group were younger ( P = .01) and had a greater proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced disease (49.5 vs 20.2% for stage 4, P < .001). These patients were less likely to undergo endoscopic therapy alone (0.92% vs 29.78%, P < .001) or surgery alone (0 vs 9.84%, P = .001). On multivariable analysis, the presence of IM-EAC was associated with improved overall survival compared to non-IM-EAC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). Additional factors associated with poor survival was increasing stage of diagnosis (HR 6.49: 95% CI 3.77-11.15 for stage 4, HR 2.19: 95% CI 1.25-3.84 for stage 3, HR 2.04: 95% CI 0.98-4.25 for stage 2 compared to stage 1) and more advanced histologic stage (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.26-3.19) for poorly/undifferentiated compared to well differentiated). Conclusions: EAC without the presence of IM on histology was associated with worse survival compared to those with IM. Future prospective studies with detailed molecular sequencing are required to clarify if 2 separate phenotypes of EAC exist (IM-EAC and non-IM-EAC). If confirmed, this may have significant implications for screening and management strategies.

AbstractBackground and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle.Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals.Results Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction.Conclusions In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

INTRODUCTION: Using the National Cancer Database, we assessed the relationship between facility overall esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) case volume and survival. METHODS: We categorized facilities into volume quintiles based on annual EAC patient volume and performed a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression between facility patient volume and survival. RESULTS: In a cohort of 116,675 patients, facilities with higher vs lower (≥25 vs 1–4 cases) annual EAC patient volume demonstrated improved survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.80. 95% confidence interval: 0.70–0.91). DISCUSSION: This robust volume-outcome effect calls for centralization of care for EAC patients at high annual case volume facilities.

Purpose The Next Accreditation System requires training programs to demonstrate competence among trainees. Within gastroenterology (GI), there are limited data describing learning curves and structured assessment of competence in esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. In this study, the authors aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of a centralized feedback system to assess endoscopy learning curves among GI trainees in EGD and colonoscopy. Method During academic year 2016–2017, the authors performed a prospective multicenter cohort study, inviting participants from multiple GI training programs. Trainee technical and cognitive skills were assessed using a validated competence assessment tool. An integrated, comprehensive data collection and reporting system was created to apply cumulative sum analysis to generate learning curves that were shared with program directors and trainees on a quarterly basis. Results Out of 183 fellowships invited, 129 trainees from 12 GI fellowships participated, with an overall trainee participation rate of 72.1% (93/129); the highest participation level was among first-year trainees (90.9%; 80/88), and the lowest was among third-year trainees (51.2%; 27/53). In all, 1,385 EGDs and 1,293 colonoscopies were assessed. On aggregate learning curve analysis, third-year trainees achieved competence in overall technical and cognitive skills, while first- and second-year trainees demonstrated the need for ongoing supervision and training in the majority of technical and cognitive skills. Conclusions This study demonstrated the feasibility of using a centralized feedback system for the evaluation and documentation of trainee performance in EGD and colonoscopy. Furthermore, third-year trainees achieved competence in both endoscopic procedures, validating the effectiveness of current training programs.