Regional differences in use of endoscopic ultrasonography in Ontario: a population-based retrospective cohort study

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2 trials

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has increased, necessitating histopathologic confirmation of cancer. This study evaluates the performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition (TA) procedures for borderline resectable and resectable PDAC.

METHODS

Pathology reports of patients included in two nationwide randomized controlled trials (PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2) were reviewed. The primary outcome was sensitivity for malignancy (SFM), considering both "suspicious for" and "malignant" as positive. Secondary outcomes were rate of adequate sampling (RAS) and diagnoses other than PDAC.

RESULTS

Overall, 892 endoscopic procedures were performed in 617 patients, including endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided TA in 550 (89.1%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided brush cytology in 188 (30.5%), and periampullary biopsies in 61 patients (9.9%). The SFM was 85.2% for EUS, 88.2% for repeat EUS, 52.7% for ERCP, and 37.7% for periampullary biopsies. The RAS ranged 94-100%. Diagnoses other than PDAC were other periampullary cancers in 24 (5.4%), premalignant disease in five (1.1%), and pancreatitis in three patients (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided TA of patients with borderline resectable and resectable PDAC included in RCTs had an SFM above 85% for both first and repeat procedures, meeting international standards. Two percent had false positive result for malignancy and 5% had other (non-PDAC) periampullary cancers.

EUS development in China: Results from national surveys in 2013 and 2020

Background and Objectives

EUS has recently gained attraction in mainland China. This study aimed to evaluate the development of EUS from results of two national surveys.

Methods

EUS-related information, including infrastructure, personnel, volume, and quality indicator, was extracted from the Chinese Digestive Endoscopy Census. Data from 2012 and 2019 were compared, and differences among various hospitals and regions were analyzed. The EUS rates (EUS annual volume per 100,000 inhabitants) between China and developed countries were also compared.

Results

The number of hospitals performing EUS in mainland China increased from 531 to 1236 (2.33-fold), and 4025 endoscopists performed EUS in 2019. The volumes of all EUS and interventional EUS increased from 207,166 to 464,182 (2.24-fold) and 10,737 to 15,334 (1.43-fold), respectively. The EUS rate in China was lower than that in developed countries but showed a higher growth rate. EUS rate varied substantially among different provincial regions (in 2019: 4.9-152.0 per 100,000 inhabitants) and showed significant positive association with gross domestic product per capita (in 2019: r = 0.559, P = 0.001). The EUS-FNA-positive rate in 2019 was comparable between hospitals in terms of annual volume (≥50 or < 50: 79.9% vs. 71.6%, P = 0.704) and practice duration (starting EUS-FNA before or after 2012: 78.7% vs. 72.6%, P = 0.565).

Conclusion

EUS has developed considerably in China in recent years but still needs substantial improvement. More resources are in demand for hospitals in less-developed regions and with low EUS volume.

Analysis of Decreasing Adverse Events with Endoscopic Ultrasound in a New Advanced Endoscopy Program Over Time

OBJECTIVE

New innovations and increasing utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are associated with rare but serious risks. We investigate the rates and risk factors for post-procedural complications over a four-year period at a new advanced endoscopy program.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent upper EUS at an academic level-1 trauma center between April 2015 and November 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events within 1 week of EUS. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits and mortality within 30 days after EUS. Chi-square test, t test, and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess risk factors for post-procedural complications.

RESULTS

A total of 968 EUS procedures were performed on 864 patients (54% female; 79% Caucasian; mean age 61 years). The overall incidence of post-procedural adverse event with EUS was 5.6%. The probability of an adverse event decreased by an average of 22% per year (p =0.01, OR 0.78). The risk for adverse events were 3.3% acute pancreatitis, 1.9% clinically significant bleeding, 0.3% bacteremia, 0.2% perforation, and 2.4% 30-day mortality. The adverse event rate was highest among low volume proceduralists (p =0.04). The 30-day mortality was more than threefolds among patients who had an adverse event within 7 days after EUS.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of post-procedural adverse events at a new EUS program was 5.6%, with an average of 22% relative decrease in adverse events per year in the first 4 years.

Pancreaticobiliary endoscopic ultrasound in England 2007 to 2016: Changing practice and outcomes

Background and study aims  Population-level data on the outcomes of pancreaticobiliary endoscopic ultrasound (PB-EUS) are limited. We examined national PB-EUS and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) activity, its relation to pancreatic cancer therapy, associated mortality and adverse events. Patients and methods  Adults undergoing PB-EUS in England from 2007-2016 were identified in Hospital Episode Statistics. A pancreatic cancer cohort diagnosed within 6 months of PB-EUS were studied separately. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations with 30-day mortality and therapies for pancreatic cancer. Results  79,269 PB-EUS in 68,908 subjects were identified. Annual numbers increased from 2,874 (28 % FNA) to 12,752 (35 % FNA) from 2007 to 2016. 8,840 subjects (13 %) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Sedation related adverse events were coded in 0.5 % and emergency admission with acute pancreatitis in 0.2 % within 48 hours of PB-EUS. 1.5 % of subjects died within 30 days of PB-EUS. Factors associated with 30-day mortality included increasing age (odds ratio 1.03 [95 % CI 1.03-1.04]); male sex (1.38 [1.24-1.56]); increasing comorbidity (1.49 [1.27-1.74]); EUS-FNA (2.26 [1.98-2.57]); pancreatic cancer (1.39 [1.19-1.62]); increasing deprivation (least deprived quintile 0.76 [0.62-0.93]) and lower provider PB-EUS volume (2.83 [2.15-3.73]). Factors associated with surgical resection in the pancreatic cancer cohort included lower provider PB-EUS volume (0.44 [0.26-0.74]) and the least deprived subjects (1.33 [1.12-1.57]). 33 % of pancreatic cancer subjects who underwent EUS, did not subsequently receive active cancer treatment. Conclusions  Lower provider PB-EUS volume was associated with higher 30-day mortality and reduced rates of both pancreatic cancer surgery and chemotherapy. These results suggest potential issues with case selection in lower-volume EUS providers.

Prevalence of intellectual and developmental disabilities among first generation adult newcomers, and the health and health service use of this group: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Attention to research and planning are increasingly being devoted to newcomer health, but the needs of newcomers with disabilities remain largely unknown. This information is difficult to determine since population-level data are rarely available on newcomers or on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), although in Ontario, Canada these databases are accessible. This study compared the prevalence of IDD among first generation adult newcomers to adult non-newcomers in Ontario, and assessed how having IDD affected the health profile and health service use of newcomers.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective cohort study of adults aged 19-65 in 2010 used linked health and social services administrative data. Prevalence of IDD among newcomers (n = 1,649,633) and non-newcomers (n = 6,880,196) was compared. Among newcomers, those with IDD (n = 2,830) and without IDD (n = 1,646,803) were compared in terms of health conditions, and community and hospital service use.

RESULTS

Prevalence of IDD was lower in newcomers than non-newcomers (171.6 versus 898.3 per 100,000 adults, p<0.0001). Among newcomers, those with IDD were more likely than those without IDD to have comorbid physical health disorders, non-psychotic, psychotic and substance use disorders. Newcomers with IDD were also more likely to have psychiatry visits, and frequent emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

First generation adult newcomers have lower rates of IDD than non-newcomers. How much of this difference is attributable to admission policies that exclude people expected to be high health service users versus how much is attributable to our methodological approach is unknown. Finding more medical and psychiatric comorbidity, and more health service use among newcomers with IDD compared to newcomers without IDD is consistent with patterns observed in adults with IDD more generally. To inform polices that support newcomers with IDD future research should investigate reasons for the prevalence finding, barriers and facilitators to timely health care access, and pathways to care.

Collaboration of community hospital endosonographers improves diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is the method of choice for establishing a pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Data on quality and yield of EUS-guided TA performed in community hospitals are lacking. A study was performed to determine and improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided TA in a group of community hospitals. Methods  Following analysis of the last 20 EUS-guided TA procedures of solid pancreatic lesions performed in each of four community hospitals, a collaborative EUS interest group was formed and a prospective registry was started. During meetings of the interest group, feedback on results per center were provided and strategies for improvement were discussed. Results  In the BEFORE team formation cohort, 80 procedures were performed in 66 patients. In the AFTER team formation cohort, 133 procedures were performed in 125 patients. After team formation, the rate of adequate sample increased from 80 % (95 %CI [0.7 - 0.9]) to 95 % (95 %CI [0.9 - 1.0]) , diagnostic yield of malignancy improved from 28 % (95 %CI [0.2 - 0.4]) to 64 % (95 % CI [0.6 - 0.7]), and sensitivity of malignancy improved from 63 % (95 %CI [0.4 - 0.8]) to 84 % (95 %CI [0.8 - 0.9]). Multivariate regression analysis revealed team formation to be the only variable significantly associated with an increased rate of adequate sample. Conclusions  Formation of a regional EUS interest group with regular feedback on results per center, and discussions on methods and techniques used, significantly improved the outcome of EUS-guided TA procedures in patients with solid pancreatic lesions in community hospitals.

What should be known prior to performing EUS?

Direct referral of patients for EUS – instead of preprocedural consultation with the endosonographer – has become standard practice (like for other endoscopic procedures) as it is time- and cost-effective. To ensure appropriate indications and safe examinations, the endosonographer should carefully consider what information is needed before accepting the referral. This includes important clinical data regarding relevant comorbidities, the fitness of the patient to consent and undergo the procedure, and the anticoagulation status. In addition, relevant findings from other imaging methods to clarify the clinical question may be necessary. Appropriate knowledge and management of the patients’ anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antibiotic prophylaxis, and sedation issues can avoid unnecessary delays and unsafe procedures. Insisting on optimal preparation, appropriate indications, and clear clinical referral questions will increase the quality of the outcomes of EUS. In this paper, important practical issues regarding EUS preparations are raised and discussed from different points of view.