Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: predictors of malignant and invasive pathology

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether size and other preoperative parameters predict malignant or invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

From 1991 to 2006, 150 patients underwent 156 operations for IPMN.

METHODS

Prospectively collected, retrospective review of a single academic institution's experience. All preoperative parameters including a detailed radiologic-based classification of IPMN type, location, distribution, size, number, cytology, and mural nodularity were correlated with IPMN pathology.

RESULTS

Malignant IPMN was present in 32% of cases, whereas 19% of cases were invasive. IPMN type and main pancreatic duct diameter were significant predictors of malignant IPMN (P<0.001). Side-branch lesion number was negatively associated with invasive IPMN (P=0.03). Side-branch size, location, and distribution did not predict IPMN pathology. The presence of mural nodules was associated with malignant and invasive IPMN (P<0.001; P<0.02). Atypical cytopathology was significantly associated with malignant and invasive IPMN (P<0.001; P<0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated mural nodularity and atypical cytopathology were predictive of malignancy and/or invasion in branch-type IPMN.

CONCLUSIONS

To lower the rate of invasive pathology, surgery should be recommended for fit patients with main-duct IPMN and for branch-duct IPMN with mural nodularity or positive cytology irrespective of location, distribution, or size.

Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). This Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 Prophylactic colonic stent placement is not recommended. Colonic stenting should be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and imaging evidence of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 Colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery is not recommended as a standard treatment of symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 3 For patients with potentially curable but obstructing left-sided colonic cancer, stent placement may be considered as an alternative to emergency surgery in those who have an increased risk of postoperative mortality, I. e. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status ≥ III and/or age > 70 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 SEMS placement is recommended as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence), except in patients treated or considered for treatment with antiangiogenic drugs (e. g. bevacizumab) (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Role of EUS for preoperative evaluation of cholangiocarcinoma: a large single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Accurate preoperative diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) remain difficult.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the utility of EUS in the diagnosis and preoperative evaluation of CCA.

DESIGN

Observational study of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

Single tertiary referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with CCA from January 2003 through October 2009.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sensitivity of EUS for the detection of a tumor and prediction of unresectability compared with CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); sensitivity of EUS-FNA to provide tissue diagnosis, by using surgical pathology as a reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients with biliary strictures undergoing EUS were identified. Of these, 81 (mean age 70 years, 45 men) had CCA. Fifty-one patients (63%) had distal and 30 (37%) had proximal CCA. For those with available imaging, tumor detection was superior with EUS compared with triphasic CT (76 of 81 [94%] vs 23 of 75 [30%], respectively; P < .001). MRI identified the tumor in 11 of 26 patients (42%; P = .07 vs EUS). EUS identified CCA in all 51 (100%) distal and 25 (83%) of 30 proximal tumors (P < .01). EUS-FNA (median, 5 passes; range, 1-12 passes) was performed in 74 patients (91%). The overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of CCA was 73% (95% confidence interval, 62%-82%) and was significantly higher in distal compared with proximal CCA (81% vs 59%, respectively; P = .04). Fifteen tumors were definitely unresectable. EUS correctly identified unresectability in 8 of 15 and correctly identified the 38 of 39 patients with resectable tumors (53% sensitivity and 97% specificity for unresectability). CT and/or MRI failed to detect unresectability in 6 of these 8 patients.

LIMITATION

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

EUS and EUS-FNA are sensitive for the diagnosis of CCA and very specific in predicting unresectability. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA is significantly higher in distal than in proximal CCA.

ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.

The role of endoscopy in the management of GERD

We recommend that uncomplicated GERD be diagnosed on the basis of typical symptoms without the use of diagnostic testing, including EGD. We recommend EGD for patients who have symptoms suggesting complicated GERD or alarm symptoms. We recommend that EGD not be routinely performed solely for the assessment of extraesophageal GERD symptoms. We recommend that endoscopic findings of reflux esophagitis be classified according to an accepted grading scale or described in detail. We suggest that repeat EGD be performed in patients with severe erosive esophagitis after at least an 8-week course of PPI therapy to exclude underlying BE or dysplasia. 44BB We recommend against obtaining tissue samples from endoscopically normal tissue to diagnose GERD or exclude BE in adults. We suggest that endoscopy be considered in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus. We recommend that tissue samples be obtained to confirm endoscopically suspected Barrett’s esophagus. We suggest that endoscopic antireflux therapy be considered for selected patients with uncomplicated GERD after careful discussion with the patient regarding potential adverse effects, benefits, and other available therapeutic options.

Treatment of esophageal leaks, fistulae, and perforations with temporary stents: evaluation of efficacy, adverse events, and factors associated with successful outcomes

BACKGROUND

Factors associated with successful endoscopic therapy with temporary stents for esophageal leaks, fistulae, and perforations (L/F/P) are not well known.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of esophageal stenting in these patients and identify factors associated with successful closure.

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Academic tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

All patients with attempted stent placement for esophageal L/F/P between January 2003 and May 2012.

INTERVENTION

Esophageal stent placement and removal.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Factors predictive of therapeutic success defined as complete closure after index stent removal (primary closure) or after further endoscopic stenting (secondary closure).

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients with 132 attempted stents for esophageal L/F/P were considered; 13 patients were excluded. Among the remaining 54 patients, 117 stents were placed for leaks (29 patients; 64 stents), fistulae (15 patients; 36 stents), and perforations (10 patients; 17 stents). Procedural technical success was achieved in all patients (100%). Primary closure was successful in 40 patients (74%) and secondary closure in an additional 5 (83% overall). On short-term (<3 months) follow-up, 27 patients (50%) were asymptomatic, whereas 22 (41%) had technical adverse events, including stent migration in 15 patients (28%). Factors associated with successful primary closure include a shorter time between diagnosis of esophageal L/F/P and initial stent insertion (9.03 vs 22.54 days; P = .003), and a smaller luminal opening size (P = .002).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary stents are safe and effective in treating esophageal L/F/P. Defect opening size and time from diagnosis to stent placement appear to be candidate predictors for successful closure.

EUS for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center, 11-year experience

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNTs) are rare tumors with malignant potential. EUS and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) have been shown to be superior to other imaging methods in the preoperative localization and diagnosis of PNTs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical presentation, EUS morphology, and sensitivity of EUS-FNA cytology in a large consecutive cohort with histologically and/or cytologically confirmed PNTs.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of all consecutive patients from July 1995 to November 2006 who underwent EUS for a known or suspected PNT and had a subsequently histologically confirmed PNT.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Ninety-two patients with suspected PNT.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS evaluation with or without EUS-FNA of PNTs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Clinical and EUS features of PNTs and sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PNTs.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients underwent EUS; 76 patients had confirmed histopathology, of whom 69 (91%) were symptomatic. Patients with functional PNTs presented with diarrhea, peptic ulcer disease, and hypoglycemia. Tumor locations and echogenic features were similar except that nonfunctional PNTs tended to be larger and have cystic features. Patients with malignant PNTs were older (P = .03), presented with abdominal pain, and had larger tumors (P = .0006) with irregular margins. Eighty-nine percent of patients underwent EUS-FNA. Sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of a PNT was 87%. Sensitivity of EUS-FNA was similar in functional and nonfunctional PNTs. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA was higher for malignant PNTs (P = .008).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective single tertiary center.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS and EUS-FNA are sensitive tools, especially in cases of suspected symptomatic PNTs in which other imaging modalities have failed.

Transpapillary drainage has no added benefit on treatment outcomes in patients undergoing EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The need for transpapillary drainage (TPD) in patients undergoing transmural drainage (TMD) of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains unclear. The aims of this study were to compare treatment outcomes between patients with pancreatic pseudocysts undergoing TMD versus combined (TMD and TPD) drainage (CD) and to identify predictors of symptomatic and radiologic resolution.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 375 consecutive patients with PFCs who underwent EUS-guided TMD from 2008 to 2014 at 15 academic centers in the United States. Main outcome measures included TMD and CD technical success, treatment outcomes (symptomatic and radiologic resolution) at follow-up, and predictors of treatment outcomes on logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 375 patients underwent EUS-guided TMD of PFCs, of which 174 were pseudocysts. TMD alone was performed in 95 (55%) and CD in 79 (45%) pseudocysts. Technical success was as follows: TMD, 92 (97%) versus CD, 35 (44%) (P = .0001). There was no difference in adverse events between the TMD (15%) and CD (14%) cohorts (P = .23). Median long-term (LT) follow-up after transmural stent removal was 324 days (interquartile range, 72-493 days) for TMD and 201 days (interquartile range, 150-493 days) (P = .37). There was no difference in LT symptomatic resolution (TMD, 69% vs CD, 62%; P = .61) or LT radiologic resolution (TMD, 71% vs CD, 67%; P = .79). TPD attempt was negatively associated with LT radiologic resolution of pseudocyst (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.8; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

TPD has no benefit on treatment outcomes in patients undergoing EUS-guided TMD of pancreatic pseudocysts and negatively affects LT resolution of PFCs.

Phase 1 study of EUS-guided photodynamic therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) has a poor prognosis. There are limited data describing the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for pancreatic cancer in humans. We hypothesized that EUS-guided PDT for LAPC is safe, technically feasible, and produces a dose- and time-dependent increasing degree of image-defined tumor necrosis.

METHODS

In a single-center, prospective, dose-escalation phase 1 study, patients with treatment-naïve LAPC received intravenous porfimer sodium (Concordia Laboratories Inc, St Michael, Barbados) followed 2 days later by EUS-PDT. EUS-PDT was performed by puncture with a 19-gauge needle and insertion of a 1.0-cm light diffuser (Pioneer Optics, Bloomfield, Conn) and illumination with a 630-nm light (Diomed Inc, Andover, Mass). A CT scan 18 days after PDT was done to assess for change in pancreatic necrosis. Nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/ m² intravenously) and gemcitabine (1000 mg /m² intravenously) were initiated 7 days after CT and given weekly for 3 of 4 weeks (1 cycle) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (mean age, 67 ± 6 years; 8 male) with tumors (mean diameter, 45.2 ± 12.9 mm) in the head and/or neck (8) or body and/or tail (4) underwent EUS-PDT. Compared with baseline imaging, increased volume and percentage of tumor necrosis were observed in 6 of 12 patients (50%) after EUS-PDT. The mean overall increases in volume and percentage necrosis were 10 ± 26 cm³ (P = .20) and 18% ± 22% (P = .016), respectively. After a median follow-up of 10.5 months (range, 1.0-37.4 months), median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.6 months (95% confidence interval, 0.7, not estimable) and 11.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.1, 16.9), respectively. Surgical resection was attempted in 2 patients, and pathology showed a complete response (n = 1) and residual 2-mm tumor (n = 1). There were 8 serious adverse events and none related to EUS or EUS-PDT.

CONCLUSION

EUS-PDT for LAPC appears to be safe and produces measurable imaged-defined tumor necrosis. Phase 2 studies are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01770132.).

Alterations in cyst fluid genetics following endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic cyst ablation with ethanol and paclitaxel

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided ethanol lavage with paclitaxel injection has been shown to be effective for the treatment of pancreatic cystic neoplasms; however, the evidence for effectiveness is based primarily on cyst resolution on imaging. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in pancreatic cyst fluid DNA following EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation (PCA) with ethanol and paclitaxel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a single-center, prospective study, patients with suspected benign pancreatic cysts (15 - 50 mm in diameter; ≤ 5 compartments) underwent EUS-PCA with ethanol and paclitaxel followed 3 months later by repeat EUS-FNA, cyst aspiration for repeat DNA analysis, and possible repeat EUS-PCA. Abdominal imaging was repeated 3 - 4 months and 12 months after the second EUS. Changes in baseline pancreatic cyst fluid DNA, procedural complications, and radiographic changes in cyst volume were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients (median age 67 years; 15 women) with cysts in the head or uncinate (n = 10), body or neck (n = 8), and tail (n = 4), measuring a median diameter of 25 mm (range 15 - 43 mm), underwent one (n = 22) or two (n = 9) EUS-PCA procedures. Baseline cyst DNA included mutations in 11 patients (50 %). Postablation cyst fluid (n = 19) showed elimination of all baseline mutations in eight patients, new mutations in three, and no changes in eight without a baseline mutation. The largest per-protocol postablation image-defined volume change (n = 20) from either of the follow-up abdominal imaging studies (n = 20) demonstrated complete response ( < 5 % original volume) in 10 patients (50 %), partial response (5 % - 25 % original volume) in 5 (25 %), and a persistent cyst (> 25 % original volume) in 5 (25 %). During a median follow-up of 27 months (range 17 - 42 months), adverse events from all EUS-PCAs (n = 31) included abdominal pain alone in four patients (13 %), pancreatitis in three (10 %), peritonitis in one (3 %), and gastric wall cyst in one (3 %). The adverse events were classified as moderately severe in four patients (three with pancreatitis, one with peritonitis).

CONCLUSION

EUS-PCA with ethanol and paclitaxel may possibly eliminate mutant DNA in neoplastic pancreatic cysts. This technique leads to complete or partial image-defined resolution in 75 % of cysts but may lead to rare adverse events.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01643460).

Management of branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: a large single-center study to assess predictors of malignancy and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Management of branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) remains challenging. We determined factors associated with malignancy in BD-IPMNs and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all patients with established BD-IPMNs by the International Consensus Guidelines (ICG) 2012 and/or pathologically confirmed BD-IPMNs in a tertiary care referral center between 2001 and 2013. Main outcome measures were the association between high-risk stigmata (HRS)/worrisome features (WFs) of the ICG 2012 and malignant BD-IPMNs, performance characteristics of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of malignant BD-IPMNs, and recurrence and long-term outcomes of BD-IPMN patients undergoing surgery or imaging surveillance.

RESULTS

Of 364 BD-IPMN patients, 229 underwent imaging surveillance and 135 underwent surgery. Among the 135 resected BD-IPMNs, HRS/WFs on CT/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were similar between the benign and malignant groups, but main pancreatic duct (MPD) dilation (5-9 mm) was more frequently identified in malignant lesions. On EUS-FNA, mural nodules, MPD features suspicious for involvement, and suspicious/positive malignant cytology were more frequently detected in the malignant group with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 33%, 94%, and 86%; 42%, 91%, and 83%; and 33% 91%, and 82%, respectively. Mural nodules identified by EUS were missed by CT/MRI in 28% in the malignant group. Patients with malignant lesions had a higher risk of any IPMN recurrence during a mean follow-up period of 131 months (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among HRS and WFs of the ICG 2012, an MPD size of 5 to 9 mm on CT/MRI was associated with malignant BD-IPMNs. EUS features including mural nodules, MPD features suspicious for involvement, and suspicious/malignant cytology were accurate and highly specific for malignant BD-IPMNs. Our study highlights the incremental value of EUS-FNA over imaging in identifying malignant BD-IPMNs, particularly in patients without WFs and those with smaller cysts. Benign IPMN recurrence was observed in some patients up to 8 years after resection.

EUS-guided fine needle injection is superior to direct endoscopic injection of 2-octyl cyanoacrylate for the treatment of gastric variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate into gastric varices may be performed by EUS-guided fine needle injection (EUS-FNI) or direct endoscopic injection (DEI). The aim of this study is to compare the rate of recurrent GV bleeding and adverse events between DEI and EUS-FNI for treatment of GV.

METHODS

In a single-center study, a retrospective cohort of patients with actively/recently bleeding or high-risk GV treated with DEI were compared with a prospective cohort of similar patients treated with EUS-FNI. Repeat endoscopy after index treatment was performed 3 months later or earlier if rebleeding occurred. The main outcomes assessed were rates of GV or overall rebleeding and adverse events.

RESULTS

Forty patients (mean age 57.2 ± 9.1 years, 73% male) and 64 patients (mean age 58.0 ± 12.5 years, 52% male) underwent DEI and EUS-FNI, respectively. Compared to the DEI group, the frequency of isolated gastric varices type 1 (IGV1) were higher (p < 0.001) but MELD scores were lower (p = 0.004) in the EUS-FNI group. At index endoscopy, EUS-FNI utilized a lower mean volume of cyanoacrylate (2.0 ± 0.8 mL vs. 3.3 ± 1.3 mL; p < 0.001) and injected a greater number of varices (1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 1.1 ± 0.4; p < 0.001) compared to DEI. Overall, GV rebleeding [5/57 (8.8%) vs. 9/38 (23.7%); p = 0.045] and non-GV-related gastrointestinal bleeding [7/64 (10.9%) vs. 11/40 (27.5%); p = 0.030] were less frequent in the EUS-FNI group compared to the DEI group, respectively. Adverse event rates were similar (20.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.723).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided CYA injection of active or recently bleeding GV in patients with portal hypertension appears to decrease the rate of GV rebleeding despite injection of more varices and less CYA volume during the initial endoscopic procedure. Adverse events are similar between the two groups. EUS-FNI appears to be the preferred strategy for treatment of these patients.