Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography at a county hospital

Endoscopic Ultrasound Quality Metrics in Clinical Practice

Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), particularly EUS-guided tissue acquisition, may have affected EUS procedural performance as measured by current American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)/American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) quality indicators. Our study aims to assess how these quality metrics are met in clinical practice. We retrospectively analyzed 732 EUS procedures; data collected were procedural indications, technical aspects and outcomes, completeness of documentation, and malignancy staging. EUS was performed in 660 patients for a variety of indications. All ASGE/ACG EUS procedural quality metrics were met or exceeded. Intervention was successful in 97.7% (715/732) of cases, with complication rate of 0.4% (3/732). EUS outcomes changed clinical management in 58.7% of all cases and in 91.2% of malignancy work-up cases; in 26.0% of suspected choledocholithiasis cases, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was avoided after EUS. Locoregional EUS staging was accurate in 61/65 (93.8%) cases of non-metastatic disease and in 15/22 (68.2%) cases of metastatic disease. Pancreatic mass malignancy detection rate with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) or fine needle biopsy (FNB) was 75.8%, with a sensitivity of 96.2%; a significant increase in detection rate from 46.2% (6/13) to 95.0% (19/20) (p = 0.0026) was observed with a transition to the predominant use of FNB for tissue acquisition. All ASGE/ACG EUS quality metrics were met or exceeded for EUS procedures performed for a wide variety of indications in a diverse patient population. EUS was instrumental in changing clinical management, with a low complication rate. The malignancy detection rate in pancreatic masses significantly increased with FNB use.

Current utilization and performance status of endoscopic ultrasound in a community hospital

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an essential tool for cancer staging and investigating gastrointestinal diseases. Although it is not a widespread skill, as its expanded indications became much more advanced so did its popularity and hospital acceptance. We aimed to study the utilization and indications of upper EUS in a Hong Kong community hospital. The secondary aim was to assess our accuracy in staging of esophageal and gastric cancer and in evaluating submucosal tumors.

METHODS

All patients who had undergone upper EUS in Tuen Mun Hospital from January 2002 to December 2006 were recruited. Their background data, indications, radiological investigations, upper endoscopy and operation records and histopathologic results were retrieved for analysis. The accuracy of EUS in esophageal cancer staging, gastric cancer staging and evaluating submucosal tumors was assessed by comparing surgical and histopathologic findings.

RESULTS

A total of 645 upper EUS examinations were performed and there has been a steady increase in EUS utilization in our hospital. The most common indications were evaluating submucosal tumors and staging esophageal and gastric cancer. The accuracy of T and N staging of esophageal cancer was 71.2 and 79.7%, respectively and for gastric cancer was 64.0 and 74.7%, respectively. Endoscopic ultrasound was 70% accurate in identifying lesions arising from the submucosal layer and 100% accurate in identifying lesions from the muscularis propria.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound is an accurate method and its demand is increasing. The performance in a community hospital can be further improved and its utilization should expand to other indications.

Endosonography- vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-based strategies in the evaluation of suspected common bile duct stones in patients with normal transabdominal imaging

BACKGROUND

Endosonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are highly accurate techniques for evaluating common bile duct stones.

AIM

To compare the clinical impact and costs of EUS- and ERCP-based strategies for evaluating patients with suspected common bile duct stones but normal transabdominal imaging.

METHODS

The costs of EUS- vs. ERCP-based strategies were compared in patients with suspected acute biliary obstruction from common bile duct stones but normal transabdominal imaging.

RESULTS

Over a 15-month period, 110 patients were recruited. EUS detected a common bile duct lesion in 73% (common bile duct stones: 68%; pancreatic cancer: 2%; ampulla tumour: 2%; cholangiocarcinoma: 1%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of EUS were 98%, 100%, 100% and 93%, respectively. EUS prevented 30% unnecessary ERCP. The mean difference in cost per patient between EUS- and ERCP-based strategies was US$166. When stratified according to clinical indications, an EUS-based strategy was costlier only in suspected biliary sepsis. Costs were similar when the indications were cholestatic jaundice, acute pancreatitis and cholestasis.

CONCLUSION

EUS prior to biliary interventions in patients with suspected common bile duct stones prevented unnecessary ERCP. It allowed a definitive diagnosis to be made prior to more invasive procedures.

CURRENT CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been developed since the early 1980s. Its clinical role in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal wall lesions and staging of gastrointestinal and lung cancer has evolved over the last two decades. Initially, it was either used as an imaging tool for gastrointestinal wall lesions or for staging of gastrointestinal tumours. However, in combination with fine-needle aspiration under real-time scanning, EUS is now being used in tissue sampling for diagnosis. In addition, EUS may be used therapeutically in coeliac plexus neurolysis or pseudocyst drainage. This review concentrates on the current applications of EUS.

Does the Advent of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) Sound the Death Knell for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)?

Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been the premier diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedure in the management of pancreatic and biliary diseases (PBD). The use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), including EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA), of pancreatic and biliary tumours has become more widely available in the last decade and has gradually replaced diagnostic ERCP. Together with EUS, other imaging modalities like magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) have resulted in a decrease in the number of ERCPs. With the advent of interventional EUS, ERCP is at risk of being completely eclipsed. Methods: A search of all relevant articles on EUS and ERCP from Medline and peer-reviewed journals. Results: This review article examines the exact place of ERCP and EUS and their relative contributions in the management algorithm of PBD. Conclusion: Although diagnostic EUS, including EUS-guided FNA, is well established in the evaluation of PBD, interventional EUS is still in its infancy and its true potential is unknown. Therefore, therapeutic ERCP still has a vital, albeit smaller role to play in the treatment of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Key words: Biliary diseases, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Endosonography, Pancreatic

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the staging and follow-up of esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the initial staging and follow-up of esophageal cancer on the basis of a review of the published literature.

METHODS

Articles published from 1985 to 2005 were searched and reviewed using the following keywords: "esophageal cancer staging," "endoscopic ultrasound," and "endoscopic ultrasonography."

RESULTS

For initial anatomic staging, EUS results have consistently shown more than 80% accuracy compared with surgical pathology for depth of tumor invasion (T). Accuracy increased with higher stage, and was >90% for T3 cancer. EUS results have shown accuracy in the range of 75% for initial staging of regional lymph nodes (N). EUS has been invariably more accurate than computed tomography for T and N staging. EUS is limited for staging distant metastases (M), and therefore EUS is usually performed after a body imaging modality such as computed tomography or positron emission tomography. Pathologic staging can be achieved at EUS using fine-needle aspiration (FNA) to obtain cytology from suspect Ns. FNA has had greatest efficacy in confirming celiac axis lymph node metastases with more than 90% accuracy. EUS is inaccurate for staging after radiation and chemotherapy because of inability to distinguish inflammation and fibrosis from residual cancer, but a more than 50% decrease in tumor cross-sectional area or diameter has been found to correlate with treatment response.

CONCLUSION

EUS has a central role in the initial anatomic staging of esophageal cancer because of its high accuracy in determining the extent of locoregional disease. EUS is inaccurate for staging after radiation therapy and chemotherapy, but can be useful in assessing treatment response.

Clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on the management of malignancies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are limited data evaluating the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). We assessed the impact of EUS on management of known or suspected malignancies.

METHODS

Physicians requesting EUS were contacted before the examination and asked: "How would you manage this patient if EUS were not available?" Pre-EUS responses were recorded on standardized forms, and compared with management recommendations as determined by the same requesting physician after EUS. Endosonographers performing the study were blinded to the pre-EUS responses.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from requesting physicians before and after EUS in 90 patients. Requesting physicians were composed of surgeons (33%), non-EUS-performing gastroenterologists (58%), oncologists (3%), internists (4%), and a pulmonologist (1%). After EUS, referring clinicians altered management plans in 46 of 90 patients (51%). By anatomic site, management changes occurred in 12 of 22 patients (56%) undergoing esophageal EUS, 9 of 15 (60%) undergoing gastric EUS, 21 of 43 (49%) undergoing pancreatic EUS, and 4 of 10 (40%) undergoing rectal EUS. There were no significant differences in the frequency of post-EUS management changes with respect to examination site (P = .76). EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) altered management in 9 of 20 (45%) patients. Management changes involved less complex or decreased risk-associated approaches in the majority (70%), and included 14 of 50 (28%) patients in whom surgical procedures were no longer planned.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on EUS examination findings, clinicians requesting EUS alter patient management in one half of cases, and more often pursue a less-complicated approach. EUS substantially impacts clinical care, and should be used in appropriate settings to guide patient management.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of submucosal tumors of gastrointestinal tract

AIM: To improve the diagnoses and treatment for submucosal tumors of gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS: Endoscopic ultrasonograpy (EUS) was conducted in 136 patients with submucosal tumors (SMT) in gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic therapy or surgical operation was taken according to the different layers of SMT.

RESULTS: A total of 33 cases of stromal tumors derived from mucosa; 2 cysts, 8 lipomas, 12 etopic pancreases in stomach and 5 varics in gastric fundus from submucosa; 60 benign stromal tumors and 16 malignant stromal tumors from muscularis; 24 benign stromal tumors from mucosa, 6 benign stromal tumors from muscularis, 4 gastric lipomas, 2 cysts, 6 etopic pancreas in stomach were resected by endoscopy; 28 cases of benign stromal tumors derived from muscularis, 15 malignant stromal tumors, 2 lipoma and 2 etopic pancreas were removed by surgery. 97.7% of SMTs diagnosed by EUS were confirmed further by pathology.

CONCLUSION: Different layers of gastrointestinal tract with SMTs can be distinguished clearly by EUS, leading to definite diagnosis of SMTs. EUS is important to select treating methods of SMTs in gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic therapy is an effective method for submucosal tumor of gastrointestinal tract.