Natalie Cosgrove

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle injection for oncological therapy

The minimal invasiveness and precision of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has lead to both its widespread use as a diagnostic and staging modality for gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary malignancies, and to its expanding role as a therapeutic modality. EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis is now a well-accepted modality for palliation of pain in patients with pancreatic cancer. EUS-guided ablation, brachytherapy, fiducial marker placement, and antitumor agent injection have been described as methods of performing minimally invasive oncological therapy. EUS-fine needle injection may be performed as adjunctive, alternative, or palliative treatment. This review summarizes the studies to date that have described these methods. A literature search using the PubMed/MEDLINE databases was performed. While most published studies to date are limited with disappointing outcomes, the concept of a role of EUS in oncological therapy seems promising.

Preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in potentially resectable patients: Is this safe?

10.4103/2303-9027.156708 Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become the preferred method for tissue acquisition in patients with pancreatic cancer and plays an important role in several proposed diagnostic and staging algorithms.[1,2] Although the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic cancers is variable, a recent meta-analysis reported pooled sensitivity and specifi city of 85% and 98%, respectively. When atypical or suspicious cytology were included to determine true neoplasms, the sensitivity increased to 91% with 94% specificity.[3] EUS-FNA is a relatively safe procedure with an overall complication rate of 1-2%.[2] However, some have suggested that EUS-FNA should not be performed on patients with potentially resectable pancreatic neoplasms due to concerns of needle tract tumor seeding, especially if the area of surgical resection does not include the needle tract site. EUS-FNA is typically performed with a transduodenal approach for pancreatic head masses, with the sampled duodenal region resected along with the entire pancreatic head during curative intent surgery. For pancreatic body and tail masses, EUS-FNA is performed transgastrically at an area that is not typically resected during surgery, raising concern that FNA by this method could result in an even higher risk of tumor seeding and gastric or peritoneal implantation.

A Comparison of Bilateral Side-by-Side Metal Stents Deployed Above and Across the Sphincter of Oddi in the Management of Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.

Background and Aims: The optimal method for endoscopic placement of bilateral self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) for the management of malignant hilar biliary obstruction has not been determined. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies and complication rates between SEMS placed above and across the sphincter of Oddi (SO) in patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of patients with malignant hilar strictures who underwent bilateral SEMS placement at 3 centers was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (above SO, n=52) or B (across SO, n=120). Patient demographics, technical success (successful SEMS placement across the stricture), functional success (decrease in pretreatment bilirubin level), complications, stent occlusion, and patient survival in the 2 groups were evaluated. Results: We identified 172 patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction (106 males, mean age 67 y). Significantly more early complications (1.9% vs. 11.7%, P=0.04) were seen in group B, mainly post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography pancreatitis. Mean SEMS patency periods were 33 weeks for group A and 29.6 weeks for group B (P=0.3). Occlusion rates were 50% and 45% for groups A and B (P=0.61); occlusion was due to tumor in-growth or overgrowth in all patients. SEMS occlusion was successfully treated endoscopically in 85% (22/26) patients in group A and 96% (52/54) in group B (P=0.24). The median survival time was 26 weeks in the group A and 29 weeks in group B (P=0.49). Discussion: Bilateral side-by-side SEMS placement above or below the SO results in similar success rates, stent patency duration, and stent occlusion rates. Significantly fewer complications, with a trend toward lower rates of pancreatitis, were observed for SEMS placed above the SO.

Long-term outcomes of palliative colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute proximal malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter trial

Background and study aims Long-term data are limited regarding clinical outcomes of self-expanding metal stents as an alternative for surgery in the treatment of acute proximal MBO. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of stenting to surgery for palliation in patients with incurable obstructive CRC for lesions proximal to the splenic flexure. Patients and methods Retrospective multicenter cohort study of obstructing proximal CRC patients with who underwent insertion of a SEMS (n = 69) or surgery (n = 36) from 1999 to 2014. The primary endpoint was relief of obstruction. Secondary endpoints included technical success, duration of hospital stay, early and late adverse events (AEs) and survival. Results Technical success was achieved in 62/69 (89.8 %) patients in the SEMS group and in 36 /36 (100 %) patients who underwent surgery (P = 0.09). In the SEMS group, 10 patients underwent stenting as a bridge to surgery and 59 underwent stent placement for palliation. Clinical relief was achieved in 78 % of patients with stenting and in 100 % of patients who underwent surgery (P < 0.001). Patients with SEMS had significantly less acute AEs compared to the surgery group (7.2 % vs. 30.5 %, P = 0.003). Hospital mortality for the SEMS group was 0 % compared to 5.6 % in the surgery group (P = 0.11). Patients in the SEMS group had a significantly shorter median hospital stay (4 days) as compared to the surgery group (8 days) (P < 0.01). Maintenance of decompression without the recurrence of bowel obstruction until death or last follow-up was lower in the SEMS group (73.9 %) than the surgery group (97.3 %; P = 0.003). SEMS placement was associated with higher long-term complication rates compared to surgery (21 % and 11 % P = 0.27). Late SEMS AEs included occlusion (10 %), migration (5 %), and colonic ulcer (6 %). At 120 weeks, survival in the SEMS group was 5.6 % vs. 0 % in the surgery group (P = 0.8). Conclusions Technical and clinical success associated with proximal colonic obstruction are higher with surgery when compared to SEMS, but surgery is associated with longer hospital stays and more early AEs. SEMS should be considered the initial mode of therapy in patients with acute proximal MBO and surgery should be reserved for SEMS failure, as surgery involves a high morbidity and mortality.

Endoscopic Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Pancreatic fluid collections are fluid-filled cavities that develop and evolve in the setting of acute and chronic pancreatitis as well as pancreatic necrosis. While most fluid collections resolve spontaneously, many will mature over several weeks into organized collections with a radiologically visualized non-epithelial lined capsule. These collections are referred to as pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis, depending on their internal components. Pseudocysts contain primarily liquid contents while walled-off necrosis contains variable amounts of both solid and liquid debris. Symptomatic and infected collections are indications for intervention. The primary management was previously surgical, but has become less invasive over the past several decades with endoscopic drainage and debridement, now the favored approach in most centers. This chapter discusses how and when endoscopic drainage should be performed and the role of ERCP and EUS in performing these procedures.