John R. Saltzman

Frequent Detection of Pancreatic Lesions in Asymptomatic High-Risk Individuals

BACKGROUND & AIMS The risk of pancreatic cancer is increased in patients with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer or a predisposing germline mutation. Screening can detect curable, noninvasive pancreatic neoplasms, but the optimal imaging approach is not known. We determined the baseline prevalence and characteristics of pancreatic abnormalities using 3 imaging tests to screen asymptomatic, high-risk individuals (HRIs). METHODS We screened 225 asymptomatic adult HRIs at 5 academic US medical centers once, using computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). We compared results in a blinded, independent fashion. RESULTS Ninety-two of 216 HRIs (42%) were found to have at least 1 pancreatic mass (84 cystic, 3 solid) or a dilated pancreatic duct (n = 5) by any of the imaging modalities. Fifty-one of the 84 HRIs with a cyst (60.7%) had multiple lesions, typically small (mean, 0.55 cm; range, 2-39 mm), in multiple locations. The prevalence of pancreatic lesions increased with age; they were detected in 14% of subjects younger than 50 years old, 34% of subjects 50-59 years old, and 53% of subjects 60-69 years old (P < .0001). CT, MRI, and EUS detected a pancreatic abnormality in 11%, 33.3%, and 42.6% of the HRIs, respectively. Among these abnormalities, proven or suspected neoplasms were identified in 85 HRIs (82 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and 3 pancreatic endocrine tumors). Three of 5 HRIs who underwent pancreatic resection had high-grade dysplasia in less than 3 cm intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and in multiple intraepithelial neoplasias. CONCLUSIONS Screening of asymptomatic HRIs frequently detects small pancreatic cysts, including curable, noninvasive high-grade neoplasms. EUS and MRI detect pancreatic lesions better than CT.

The role of endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus

i ( n d m e This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “we recommend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

Clinical outcome of the use of enteral stents for palliation of patients with malignant upper GI obstruction

BACKGROUND The endoscopically placed enteral stent has emerged as a reasonable alternative to palliative surgery for malignant intestinal obstruction. This is a report of our experience with the use of enteral stents for nonesophageal malignant upper GI obstruction. METHODS Data on all patients who had undergone enteral stent placement were reviewed. Those with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were compared with another similar cohort of patients who underwent palliative gastrojejunostomy. RESULTS Thirty-one procedures were performed on 29 patients (mean age 67.7 years). Thirteen (45%) were men and 16 (55%) women. The diagnoses were gastric (13.8%), duodenal (10.3%), pancreatic (41.4%), metastatic (27.6%), and other malignancies (6.9%). Malignant obstruction occurred at the pylorus (20.7%), first part of duodenum (37.9%), second part of duodenum (27.6%), third part of duodenum (3.5%), and anastomotic sites (10.3%). Twenty-nine (93.5%) procedures were successful and good clinical outcome was achieved in 25 (80.6%). Re-obstruction by tumor ingrowth occurred in 2 patients after a mean of 183 days. The median survival time for patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent enteral stent placement compared with those who underwent surgical gastrojejunostomy was 94 and 92 days, charges were

A randomized trial comparing uncovered and partially covered self- expandable metal stents in the palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction

9921 and

Five-Year Efficacy and Safety Analysis of the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib Trial

28,173, and duration of hospitalization was 4 and 14 days, respectively (latter 2 differences with p value < 0.005). CONCLUSION Endoscopic enteral stent placement of nonesophageal malignant upper GI obstruction is a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective procedure with good clinical outcome, lower charges, and shorter hospitalization period than the surgical alternative.

EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts: A retrospective analysis of complications and their predictors

BACKGROUND The most common complication of uncovered biliary self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) is tumor ingrowth. The addition of an impenetrable covering may prolong stent patency. OBJECTIVE To compare stent patency between uncovered and partially covered SEMSs in malignant biliary obstruction. DESIGN Multicenter randomized trial. SETTING Four teaching hospitals. PATIENTS Adults with inoperable distal malignant biliary obstruction. INTERVENTIONS Uncovered or partially covered SEMS insertion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Time to recurrent biliary obstruction, patient survival, serious adverse events, and mechanism of recurrent biliary obstruction. RESULTS From October 2002 to May 2008, 129 patients were randomized. Recurrent biliary obstruction was observed in 11 of 61 uncovered SEMSs (18%) and 20 of 68 partially covered SEMSs (29%). The median times to recurrent biliary obstruction were 711 days and 357 days for the uncovered and partially covered SEMS groups, respectively (P = .530). Median patient survival was 239 days for the uncovered SEMS and 227 days for the partially covered SEMS groups (P = .997). Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (44%) and 42 (62%) patients in the uncovered and partially covered SEMS groups, respectively (P = .046). None of the uncovered and 8 (12%) of the partially covered SEMSs migrated (P = .0061). LIMITATIONS Intended sample size was not reached. Allocation to treatment groups was unequal. CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference in time to recurrent biliary obstruction or patient survival between the partially covered and uncovered SEMS groups. Partially covered SEMSs were associated with more serious adverse events, particularly migration.

The role of endoscopy in the management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding

The Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib Trial examined the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase (Cox)-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, for sporadic colorectal adenoma prevention in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer. The trial randomized 2,035 subjects to receive either placebo, celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, or celecoxib 400 mg twice daily. The primary study safety and efficacy analyses involved 3 years of treatment. The results showed significant antitumor effect but also indicated increased cardiovascular adverse events in patients treated with celecoxib compared with placebo. A total of 933 patients participated in an extension of the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib Trial, with a planned total treatment and surveillance duration of 5 years. Study medication was stopped early, resulting in a median treatment duration of 3.1 years for those with a year 5 colonoscopy. Patients treated on the placebo arm had a cumulative adenoma incidence of 68.4% over 5 years of observation. This figure was 59.0% (P < 0.0001) for those receiving low-dose celecoxib, and 60.1% (P < 0.0001) for those receiving high-dose celecoxib. The cumulative incidence of advanced adenomas over 5 years was 21.3% of those taking placebo, 12.5% (P < 0.0001) of those taking low dose celecoxib and 15.8% (P < 0.0001) of those taking high-dose celecoxib. Investigator reported treatment emergent adverse events were similar across all treatment groups for categories including renal and hypertensive events and gastrointestinal ulceration and hemorrhage events. For a category composed of cardiovascular and thrombotic events, the risk relative to placebo was 1.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.0, 2.5) for those using 200 mg twice daily celecoxib and 1.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.2, 3.1) for those using 400 mg twice daily celecoxib. Secondary analysis showed an interaction between a baseline history of atherosclerotic heart disease and study drug use with respect to cardiovascular and thrombotic adverse events (P = 0.004). These results confirm the inhibitory effect of celecoxib on colorectal adenoma formation, and provide additional safety data indicating an elevated risk for cardiovascular and thrombotic adverse events, particularly for patients with preexisting atherosclerotic heart disease.

Bacterial overgrowth without clinical malabsorption in elderly hypochlorhydric subjects

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) of pancreatic cysts is considered safe, however, data are conflicting regarding complication rates. The aim of this study was to determine the complication rate of EUS-guided pancreatic cyst aspiration and predictors of these complications. METHODS Results of pancreatic cyst EUS FNA at 2 academic institutions from March 1996 to October 2003 were reviewed. A total of 603 patients with 651 pancreatic cysts were evaluated. Complications were identified from clinic, emergency department, and discharge notes, and laboratory and radiologic data. Data collected were as follows: cyst size, location, septations, diagnosis, number of passes, needle size, status as inpatient or outpatient, performance of same-day endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and use of prophylactic antibiotics. RESULTS Complications were identified in 13 patients (2.2%, 13 of 603): 6 patients had pancreatitis, 4 patients had abdominal pain, 1 patient had a retroperitoneal bleed, 1 patient had an infection, and 1 patient had bradycardia. Twelve patients required hospitalization, with an average length of stay of 3.8 +/- 1.1 days. Type of cyst, size, presence of septations or mass, and same-day ERCP were not predictors of complications. CONCLUSIONS EUS-guided pancreatic cyst aspiration carries a low complication rate similar to that reported for solid pancreatic lesions. No patient or cyst characteristics appear to be predictive of adverse events.

A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding

d c p B s i R This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence1 (Table 1). he strength of individual recommendations is based on oth the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the nticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations re indicated by phrases such as “We suggest . . . ,” whereas tronger recommendations are typically stated as “We recmmend . . . .” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

Hypochlorhydria from short-term omeprazole treatment does not inhibit intestinal absorption of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium or zinc from food in humans.

BACKGROUND/AIMS Bacterial overgrowth of the small intestine commonly occurs in association with hypochlorhydria caused by atrophic gastritis or during treatment with omeprazole. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical significance of bacterial overgrowth on small intestinal absorption and permeability and to evaluate the reliability of noninvasive breath tests to detect bacterial overgrowth in subjects with hypochlorhydria. METHODS Seventeen healthy, elderly subjects with atrophic gastritis or omeprazole treatment (40 mg/day) and documented bacterial overgrowth were studied. RESULTS There was no evidence of fat malabsorption (72-hour fecal fat) or clinically significant carbohydrate malabsorption (25 g D-xylose and fecal pH) in any subject. The ratio of lactulose to mannitol excreted was normal in both atrophic gastritis and omeprazole-treated groups. Three subjects in each group had abnormally high alpha 1-antitrypsin clearances. Lactulose (10 g) and glucose (80 g) hydrogen breath tests were only abnormal in 1 out of 17 subjects, whereas the 1 g [14C]D-xylose test was abnormal in 6 out of 17 subjects. CONCLUSIONS Bacterial overgrowth caused by atrophic gastritis or omeprazole treatment is typically not associated with clinically significant fat or carbohydrate malabsorption. Noninvasive breath tests for bacterial overgrowth are not reliable in subjects with hypochlorhydria.