Therapeutic anticoagulation for splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis: A national survey and case-vignette study

BACKGROUND

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is a major complication of moderate and severe acute pancreatitis. There is no consensus on whether therapeutic anticoagulation should be started in patients with acute pancreatitis and SVT.

AIM

To gain insight into current opinions and clinical decision making of pancreatologists regarding SVT in acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

A total of 139 pancreatologists of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group were approached to complete an online survey and case vignette survey. The threshold to assume group agreement was set at 75%.

RESULTS

The response rate was 67% (n = 93). Seventy-one pancreatologists (77%) regularly prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation in case of SVT, and 12 pancreatologists (13%) for narrowing of splanchnic vein lumen. The most common reason to treat SVT was to avoid complications (87%). Acute thrombosis was the most important factor to prescribe therapeutic anticoagulation (90%). Portal vein thrombosis was chosen as the most preferred location to initiate therapeutic anticoagulation (76%) and splenic vein thrombosis as the least preferred location (86%). The preferred initial agent was low molecular weight heparin (LMWH; 87%). In the case vignettes, therapeutic anticoagulation was prescribed for acute portal vein thrombosis, with or without suspected infected necrosis (82% and 90%), and thrombus progression (88%). Agreement was lacking regarding the selection and duration of long-term anticoagulation, the indication for thrombophilia testing and upper endoscopy, and about whether risk of bleeding is a major barrier for therapeutic anticoagulation.

CONCLUSION

In this national survey, the pancreatologists seemed to agree on the use of therapeutic anticoagulation, using LMWH in the acute phase, for acute portal thrombosis and in the case of thrombus progression, irrespective of the presence of infected necrosis.

Intraductal fully covered self-expandable metal stent versus multiple plastic stents for treating biliary anastomotic strictures after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Fully covered metal stents (FCSEMSs) are increasingly used for treatment of biliary anastomotic strictures (ASs) after liver transplantation (LT), requiring fewer endoscopic interventions than does treatment with multiple plastic stents (MPSs). Previous studies, however, have reported adverse events such as stent migration and pancreatitis. The intraductal FCSEMS (ID-FCSEMS) potentially avoids these disadvantages. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ID-FCSEMSs compared with MPSs for AS.

METHODS

The cohorts of LT patients treated for AS with endoscopic stenting between 2010 and 2019 from 2 Dutch liver transplantation centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patients treated with ID-FCSEMSs or MPSs were included.

RESULTS

80 patients (44 with ID-FCSEMSs vs 36 with MPSs) were included, with a median follow-up time of 52 versus 64 months (P = .183). Stricture resolution was 93% in the ID-FCSEMS versus 97% in the MPS group (P = 1.000) after a median of 19 and 26 weeks, respectively (P = .031). The median number of ERCPs was 2 in the ID-FCSEMS group versus 4 in the MPS group (P < .001). Stricture recurrence occurred in 33% of ID-FCSEMS versus 29% of MPS patients (P = .653) after a median of 24 and 55 weeks (P = .403). Stent migration occurred in 16% of ID-FCSEMS versus 39% of MPS patients (P = .020). Post-ERCP fever was observed in 34% of ID-FCSEMS patients compared with 14% of MPS patients (P = .038). No significant differences were found in pancreatitis rate between the groups, being 6.8% for ID-FCSEMSs and 5.6% for MPSs (P = .816).

CONCLUSION

ID-FCSEMSs for the treatment of AS after LT provides similar stricture resolution and recurrence rates as MPSs, though with a significant reduction of procedures needed.

Intensive endoscopic therapy for untreated cervical anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Cervical anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy cause significant disease burden. We aimed to study the technical feasibility and safety of intensive endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

In this pilot study, we included 15 patients with an untreated benign cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. Intensive endoscopic therapy comprised three endoscopic modalities: in- and excision using a needle-knife, intralesional steroid injections and bougie dilation. In two endoscopic procedures, the stricture was dilated up to a luminal diameter of 18 mm. Patients were followed up to 6 months.

RESULTS

A luminal diameter of 18 mm was achieved in 13 of 15 patients (87%) after two endoscopic procedures. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment occurred. Median dysphagia scores significantly improved from 2 (IQR, interquartile range, 2-3) at baseline to 0 (IQR 0-1) after 14 days (p < 0.001). Eleven (73%) patients developed recurrent symptoms of dysphagia requiring a median of 1 (IQR 0-3) additional endoscopic dilation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving a luminal diameter of 18 mm in two procedures with intensive endoscopic therapy was technically feasible and effective in reducing dysphagia rapidly in patients with a cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment were observed.

Comparison of two intraductal brush cytology devices for suspected malignant biliary strictures: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary brush cytology is commonly used to diagnose malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. This trial compared the sensitivity of two intraductal brush cytology devices.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial in which consecutive patients with suspected malignant, extrahepatic biliary strictures were randomized (1:1) to a dense or conventional brush cytology device. Primary endpoint was sensitivity. Interim analysis was conducted after 50% of the patients completed follow-up. Results were interpreted by a data safety monitoring board.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and June 2021, 64 patients were randomized to the dense (27 patients, 42%) or conventional brush (37 patients, 58%). Malignancy was diagnosed in 60 patients (94%) and benign disease in 4 patients (6%). Diagnoses were confirmed by histopathology in 34 patients (53%), cytopathology in 24 patients (38%), and clinical or radiological follow up in 6 patients (9%). Sensitivity of the dense brush was 50%, compared to 44% for the conventional brush (p = 0·785).

DISCUSSION

The results of this randomized controlled trial showed that the sensitivity of a dense brush is not superior to a conventional brush for diagnosing malignant extrahepatic pancreatobiliary strictures. This trial was prematurely ended for reasons of futility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register number; NTR5458.

Diagnostic accuracy of the AGA, IAP, and European guidelines for detecting advanced neoplasia in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm/neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Follow-up in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) aims to detect advanced neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia/cancer) in an early stage. The 2015 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP), and the 2018 European Study Group on Cystic tumours of the Pancreas (European) guidelines differ in their recommendations on indications for surgery. However, it remains unclear which guideline is most accurate in predicting advanced neoplasia in IPMN.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery were extracted from a prospective database (January 2006-January 2021). In patients with IPMN, final pathology was compared with the indication for surgery according to the guidelines. ROC-curves were calculated to determine the diagnostic accuracy for each guideline.

RESULTS

Overall, 247 patients underwent surgery for cystic lesions. In 145 patients with IPMN, 52 had advanced neoplasia, of which the AGA guideline would have advised surgery in 14 (27%), the IAP and European guideline in 49 (94%) and 50 (96%). In 93 patients without advanced neoplasia, the AGA, IAP, and European guidelines would incorrectly have advised surgery in 8 (8.6%), 77 (83%) and 71 (76%).

CONCLUSION

The European and IAP guidelines are clearly superior in detecting advanced neoplasia in IPMN as compared to the AGA, albeit at the cost of a higher rate of unnecessary surgery. To harmonize care and to avoid confusion caused by conflicting statements, a global evidence-based guideline for PCN in collaboration with the various guidelines groups is required once the current guidelines require an update.

Comparison of pancreatic cancer outcomes diagnosed in surveillance and the general population: A propensity score-matched analysis

690

Background: Recent pancreatic cancer surveillance programs of high-risk individuals have reported improved outcomes. This study assessed to what extent outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in patients with a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant (PV) diagnosed during surveillance are better as compared to PDAC patients diagnosed outside surveillance. Methods: In a propensity score matched cohort using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we compared resectability, stage and survival between patients diagnosed in surveillance with non-surveillance PDAC patients. Survival analysis were repeated after adjustment for lead-time bias. Results: Between January 2000 and December 2020, 43 762 patients with PDAC were identified from the NCR. Thirty-one patients with PDAC in surveillance were matched in a 1:5 ratio with 155 non-surveillance patients based on age at diagnosis, sex, and year of diagnosis. In total, 71% of patients in surveillance, as compared to 16% of non-surveillance patients underwent a surgical resection (OR 14.03; 95% CI, 5.92 – 35.85). In surveillance, 39% of patients was diagnosed with stage I cancer, as compared to 6% of non-surveillance PDAC patients (OR 0.10; 95% CI, 0.04 – 0.21). Patients in surveillance had a better prognosis, reflected by a 3-year survival of 32.4% and a median overall survival (OS) of 26.8 months vs. 1.4% 3-year survival and 5.3 months median OS in non-surveillance patients (HR 0.22; 95% 0.14 – 0.36). After adjustment for lead time, PDAC diagnosis in surveillance remained strongly associated with improved survival. Conclusions: Surveillance for PDAC in carriers of a CDKN2A/p16 PV results in earlier detection, increased resectability and improved survival as compared to non-surveillance PDAC patients.[Table: see text]

Validation of combined carcinoembryonic antigen and glucose testing in pancreatic cyst fluid to differentiate mucinous from non-mucinous cysts

BACKGROUND

More accurate diagnosis of mucinous cysts will reduce the risk of unnecessary pancreatic surgery. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and glucose in pancreatic cyst fluid (PCF) can differentiate mucinous from non-mucinous pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN). The current study assessed the value of combined CEA and glucose testing in PCF.

METHODS

Cross-sectional validation study including prospectively collected PCF from patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and pancreatic surgery. We performed laboratory measurements for CEA and glucose and measured glucose levels by a hand glucometer. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy evaluated by receiver operator curves (ROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV).

RESULTS

Overall, PCF was collected from 63 patients, including 33 (52%) with mucinous and 30 (48%) with non-mucinous PCN. Histopathology (n = 36; 57%), cytopathology (n = 2; 3%), or clinical and/or radiological diagnosis (n = 25; 40%) was used as reference standard. Combined CEA (cut-off ≥ 192 ng/ml) and laboratory glucose testing (cut-off ≤ 50 mg/dL) reached 92% specificity and 48% sensitivity, whereas either positive CEA (cut-off ≥ 20 ng/ml) or glucose testing (cut-off ≤ 50 mg/dL) showed 97% sensitivity and 50% specificity. Sensitivity and specificity were 80% and 68% for CEA ≥ 20 ng/mL versus 50% and 93% for CEA ≥ 192 ng/mL (the conventional cut-off level). Laboratory and glucometer glucose both reached 100% sensitivity and 60% and 45% specificity, respectively. None of the biomarkers and cut-offs reached a PPV exceeding 90%, whereas both glucose measurements had a NPV of 100% (i.e., high glucose excludes a mucinous cyst).

CONCLUSION

Combined CEA and glucose testing in PCF reached high specificity and sensitivity for differentiating mucinous from non-mucinous PCN. Glucose testing, whether alone or combined with the new CEA cut-off (≥ 20 ng/mL), reached > 95% sensitivity for mucinous cysts, whereas only glucose reached a NPV > 95%.

Implementation of an evidence-based management algorithm for patients with chronic pancreatitis (COMBO trial): study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an inflammatory disease that may be complicated by abdominal pain, pancreatic dysfunction, nutritional deficiencies, and diminished bone density. Importantly, it is also associated with a substantially impaired quality of life and reduced life expectancy. This may partly be explained by suboptimal treatment, in particular the long-term management of this chronic condition, despite several national and international guidelines. Standardization of care through a structured implementation of guideline recommendations may improve the level of care and lower the complication rate of these patients. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to evaluate to what extent patient education and standardization of care, through the implementation of an evidence-based integrated management algorithm, improve quality of life and reduce pain severity in patients with CP.

METHODS

The COMBO trial is a nationwide stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. In a stepwise manner, 26 centers, clustered in 6 health regions, cross-over from current practice to care according to an evidence-based integrated management algorithm. During the current practice phase, study participants are recruited and followed longitudinally through questionnaires. Individual patients contribute data to both study periods. Co-primary study endpoints consist of quality of life (assessed by the PANQOLI score) and level of pain (assessed by the Izbicki questionnaire). Secondary outcomes include process measure outcomes, clinical outcomes (e.g., pancreatic function, nutritional status, bone health, interventions, medication use), utilization of healthcare resources, (in) direct costs, and the level of social participation. Standard follow-up is 35 months from the start of the trial.

DISCUSSION

This is the first stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial to investigate whether an evidence-based integrated therapeutic approach improves quality of life and pain severity in patients with CP as compared with current practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN13042622. Registered on 5 September 2020.

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited.

DESIGN

Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121).

CONCLUSION

Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.

Success, complication, and mortality rates of initial biliary drainage in patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma require biliary drainage to relieve symptoms and allow for palliative systemic chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to establish the success, complication, and mortality rates of the initial biliary drainage in patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at presentation.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter study, patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who underwent initial endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage between 2002 and 2014 were included. The success of drainage was defined as a successful biliary stent or drain placement, no unscheduled reintervention within 14 days, and serum bilirubin levels <50 μmol/L (ie, 2.9 mg/dL) or a >50% decrease in serum bilirubin after 14 days. Severe complications, and 90-day mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

Included were 186 patients: 161 (87%) underwent initial endoscopic biliary drainage and 25 (13%) underwent initial percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. The success of initial drainage was observed in 73 patients (45%) after endoscopic biliary drainage and 6 (24%) after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. The reasons for an unsuccessful initial drainage were: the failure to place a drain or stent in 39 patients (21%), an unplanned reintervention within 14 days in 52 patients (28%), and the bilirubin level >50 μmol/L (or not halved) after 14 days of initial drainage in 16 patients (9%). Severe drainage-related complications occurred in 19 patients (12%) after endoscopic biliary drainage and in 3 (12%) after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Overall, 66 patients (36%) died within 90 days after initial biliary drainage.

CONCLUSION

Initial biliary drainage in patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma had a success rate of 45% and a 90-day mortality rate of 36%. Future studies for patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma should focus on improving biliary drainage.

Risk of recurrence after local resection of T1 rectal cancer: a meta-analysis with meta-regression

BACKGROUND

T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner.

RESULTS

In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3-11.4%; I2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19-39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p < 0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7-16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2-11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1-4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7-49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2-6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9-51.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status.

Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance in Carriers of a Germline CDKN2A Pathogenic Variant: Yield and Outcomes of a 20-Year Prospective Follow-Up

PURPOSE

Pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study evaluated the yield and outcomes of 20 years of prospective surveillance in a large cohort of individuals with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in CDKN2A.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were analyzed from individuals participating in pancreatic cancer surveillance. Surveillance consisted of annual magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and optional endoscopic ultrasound.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-seven germline PV carriers participated in surveillance and were followed for a median of 5.6 (interquartile range 2.3-9.9) years. A total of 36 cases of PDAC were diagnosed in 31 (8.9%) patients at a median age of 60.4 (interquartile range 51.3-64.1) years. The cumulative incidence of primary PDAC was 20.7% by age 70 years. Five carriers (5 of 31; 16.1%) were diagnosed with a second primary PDAC. Thirty (83.3%) of 36 PDACs were considered resectable at the time of imaging. Twelve cases (12 of 36; 33.3%) presented with stage I disease. The median survival after diagnosis of primary PDAC was 26.8 months, and the 5-year survival rate was 32.4% (95% CI, 19.1 to 54.8). Individuals with primary PDAC who underwent resection (22 of 31; 71.0%) had an overall 5-year survival rate of 44.1% (95% CI, 27.2 to 71.3). Nine (2.6%; 9 of 347) individuals underwent surgery for a suspected malignant lesion, which proved to not be PDAC, and this included five lesions with low-grade dysplasia.

CONCLUSION

This long-term surveillance study demonstrates a high incidence of PDAC in carriers of a PV in CDKN2A. This provides evidence that surveillance in such a high-risk population leads to detection of early-stage PDAC with improved resectability and survival.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years.

METHODS

In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Comparing Survival after Resection of Pancreatic Cancer with and without Pancreatic Cysts: Nationwide Registry-Based Study

Background: Outcome after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma associated with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN-PDAC) might differ from PDAC not associated with PCN. This nationwide, registry-based study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS) in these patients. Methods: Data from consecutive patients after pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2013 and 2018 were matched with the corresponding pathology reports. Primary outcome was OS for PCN-PDAC and PDAC including 1-year and 5-year OS. Cox regression analysis was used to correct for prognostic factors (e.g., pT-stage, pN-stage, and vascular invasion). Results: In total, 1994 patients underwent resection for PDAC including 233 (12%) with PCN-PDAC. Median estimated OS was better in patients with PCN-PDAC (34.5 months [95%CI 25.6 to 43.5]) as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN (18.2 months [95%CI 17.3 to 19.2]; hazard ratio 0.53 [95%CI 0.44−0.63]; p < 0.001). The difference in OS remained after correction for prognostic factors (adjusted hazard ratio 1.58 [95%CI 1.32−1.90]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This nationwide registry-based study showed that 12% of resected PDAC were PCN-associated. Patients with PCN-PDAC had better OS as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN.

Endoscopic ultrasonography as additional preoperative workup is valuable in half of the patients with a pancreatic body or tail lesion

BACKGROUND

The management of pancreatic body and tail lesions is underexposed. It remains unclear whether endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) increases the accuracy of the preoperative workup. This study assessed the diagnostic value and safety of EUS in addition to cross-sectional imaging in a surgical cohort of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. The composite primary outcome was the additional value of EUS, defined as: (a) EUS confirmed an uncertain diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging, (b) EUS was correct in case of discrepancy with cross-sectional imaging, or (c) EUS provided tissue diagnosis for neoadjuvant treatment. Furthermore, serious adverse events and needle tract seeding were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 181 patients were included, of whom 123 (68%) underwent EUS besides cross-sectional imaging. Postoperative pathology was heterogeneous: 91 was malignant, 49 premalignant, 41 benign. Most lesions were solid (n = 117). EUS had additional value in 59/123 (48%) patients; 27/50 (54%) of cystic and 32/73 (44%) of solid lesions. No serious adverse event or needle tract seeding following EUS occurred.

CONCLUSION

EUS had additional value besides cross-sectional imaging in half of the patients and showed low associated risks.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in hereditary predisposed high-risk individuals.

DESIGN

From 2006 to 2019, we prospectively enrolled asymptomatic individuals with an estimated 10% or greater lifetime risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after obligatory evaluation by a clinical geneticist and genetic testing, and subjected them to annual surveillance with both endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and MRI/cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP) at each visit.

RESULTS

366 individuals (201 mutation-negative familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) kindreds and 165 PDAC susceptibility gene mutation carriers; mean age 54 years, SD 9.9) were followed for 63 months on average (SD 43.2). Ten individuals developed PDAC, of which four presented with a symptomatic interval carcinoma and six underwent resection. The cumulative PDAC incidence was 9.3% in the mutation carriers and 0% in the FPC kindreds (p<0.001). Median PDAC survival was 18 months (range 1-32). Surgery was performed in 17 individuals (4.6%), whose pathology revealed 6 PDACs (3 T1N0M0), 7 low-grade precursor lesions, 2 neuroendocrine tumours <2 cm, 1 autoimmune pancreatitis and in 1 individual no abnormality. There was no surgery-related mortality. EUS detected more solid lesions than MRI/MRCP (100% vs 22%, p<0.001), but less cystic lesions (42% vs 83%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of PDAC was substantial in established high-risk mutation carriers, but non-existent in the mutation-negative proven FPC kindreds. Nevertheless, timely identification of resectable lesions proved challenging despite the concurrent use of two imaging modalities, with EUS outperforming MRI/MRCP. Overall, surveillance by imaging yields suboptimal results with a clear need for more sensitive diagnostic markers, including biomarkers.

Diagnosis and treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in chronic pancreatitis: An international expert survey and case vignette study

INTRODUCTION

Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.

METHODS

An online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years.

RESULTS

Overall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had ≥ 15 years of experience and 35% treated ≥ 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

This survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Long-Term Results of the Dutch Randomized PREOPANC Trial

PURPOSE

The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported.

METHODS

In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial.

RESULTS

Between April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Optimal timing of rectal diclofenac in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background and study aims  Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis reduces incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparisons to the optimal timing of administration, before or after ERCP, are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether timing of rectal NSAID prophylaxis affects the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients and methods  We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial. We included patients with a moderate to high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, all of whom received rectal diclofenac monotherapy 100-mg prophylaxis. Administration was within 30 minutes before or after the ERCP at the discretion of the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admittance. Results  We included 346 patients who received the rectal NSAID before ERCP and 63 patients who received it after ERCP. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence was lower in the group that received pre-procedure rectal NSAIDs (8 %), compared to post-procedure (18 %) (relative risk: 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 4.46, P  = 0.02). Hospital stays were significantly longer with post-procedure prophylaxis (1 day; interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days vs. 1 day; IQR 1-4 days; P  = 0.02). Patients from the post-procedure group were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (1 patient [0.3 %] vs. 4 patients [6 %]; P  = 0.002). Conclusions  Pre-procedure administration of rectal diclofenac is associated with a significant reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence compared to post-procedure use.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

1:  ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Therapeutic anticoagulation for splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The optimal management of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) and splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) remains unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to see if therapeutic anticoagulation (AC) improves outcomes in patients with AP and SVT.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Main outcomes were recanalization, recurrent venous thromboembolism, development of varices, collaterals or cavernoma, haemorrhage and mortality. Meta-analysis were performed with the Mantel-Haenszel random effect models.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective cohort studies (3495 patients) were included. SVT occurred in 233 (7%) patients and involved most frequently the splenic vein (44%). Therapeutic AC was administered to 109 (47%) patients, most frequently to those with triple vessel thrombosis (72%) and least to those with isolated splenic vein (22%) or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (0%). Most studies administered (low molecular weight) heparin followed by warfarin (duration ranged between 1.5 and 12 months). This meta-analysis showed an absolute risk difference of 9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -11-28%) for recanalization, -3% (95% CI = -19-12%) for the development of varices, collaterals or cavernoma, 3% (95% CI = -6-12%) for haemorrhage and 2% (95% CI = -8-12%) for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the currently available data, it remains unclear if therapeutic anticoagulation provides benefit to acute pancreatitis patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis. These results are based on low quality data underlining the need for further higher quality studies.

Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and Implications for Successful Early Detection in High-Risk Individuals

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To successfully implement imaging-based pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance, understanding the timeline and morphologic features of neoplastic progression is key. We aimed to investigate the progression to neoplasia from serial prediagnostic pancreatic imaging tests in high-risk individuals and identify factors associated with successful early detection.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the development of pancreatic abnormalities in high-risk individuals who were diagnosed with PC or underwent pancreatic surgery, or both, in 16 international surveillance programs.

RESULTS

Of 2552 high-risk individuals under surveillance, 28 (1%) developed neoplastic progression to PC or high-grade dysplasia during a median follow-up of 29 months after baseline (interquartile range [IQR], 40 months). Of these, 13 of 28 (46%) presented with a new lesion (median size, 15 mm; range 7-57 mm), a median of 11 months (IQR, 8; range 3-17 months) after a prior examination, by which time 10 of 13 (77%) had progressed beyond the pancreas. The remaining 15 of 28 (54%) had neoplastic progression in a previously detected lesion (12 originally cystic, 2 indeterminate, 1 solid), and 11 (73%) had PC progressed beyond the pancreas. The 12 patients with cysts had been monitored for 21 months (IQR, 15 months) and had a median growth of 5 mm/y (IQR, 8 mm/y). Successful early detection (as high-grade dysplasia or PC confined to the pancreas) was associated with resection of cystic lesions (vs solid or indeterminate lesions (odds ratio, 5.388; 95% confidence interval, 1.525-19.029) and small lesions (odds ratio, 0.890/mm; 95% confidence interval 0.812-0.976/mm).

CONCLUSIONS

In nearly half of high-risk individuals developing high-grade dysplasia or PC, no prior lesions are detected by imaging, yet they present at an advanced stage. Progression can occur before the next scheduled annual examination. More sensitive diagnostic tools or a different management strategy for rapidly growing cysts are needed.