Pedro Bastos

Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline – Updated January 2017

For pancreatic solid lesions, ESGE recommends performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling as first-line procedure when a pathological diagnosis is required. Alternatively, percutaneous sampling may be considered in metastatic disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of negative or inconclusive results and a high degree of suspicion of malignant disease, ESGE suggests re-evaluating the pathology slides, repeating EUS-guided sampling, or surgery.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.In patients with chronic pancreatitis associated with a pancreatic mass, EUS-guided sampling results that do not confirm cancer should be interpreted with caution.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), ESGE recommends EUS-guided sampling for biochemical analyses plus cytopathological examination if a precise diagnosis may change patient management, except for lesions ≤ 10 mm in diameter with no high risk stigmata. If the volume of PCL aspirate is small, it is recommended that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level determination be done as the first analysis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For esophageal cancer, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling for the assessment of regional lymph nodes (LNs) in T1 (and, depending on local treatment policy, T2) adenocarcinoma and of lesions suspicious for metastasis such as distant LNs, left liver lobe lesions, and suspected peritoneal carcinomatosis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.For lymphadenopathy of unknown origin, ESGE recommends performing EUS-guided (or alternatively endobronchial ultrasound [EBUS]-guided) sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management and no superficial lymphadenopathy is easily accessible.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of solid liver masses suspicious for metastasis, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management, and (i) the lesion is poorly accessible/not detected at percutaneous imaging, or (ii) a sample obtained via the percutaneous route repeatedly yielded an inconclusive result.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic assessment and grading of Barrett's esophagus using magnification endoscopy and narrow band imaging: impact of structured learning and experience on the accuracy of the Amsterdam classification system.

Abstract Objective. Several classification systems have been launched to characterize Barretts esophagus (BE) mucosa using magnification endoscopy with narrow band imaging (ME-NBI). The good accuracy and interobserver agreement described in the early reports were not reproduced subsequently. Recently, we reported somewhat higher accuracy of the classification developed by the Amsterdam group. The critical question then formulated was whether a structured learning program and the level of experience would affect the clinical usefulness of this classification. Material & methods: Two hundred and nine videos were prospectively captured from patients with BE using ME-NBI. From these, 70 were randomly selected and evaluated by six endoscopists with different levels of expertise, using a dedicated software application. First, an educational set was studied. Thereafter, the 70 test videos were evaluated. After classification of each video, the respective histological feedback was automatically given. Results. Within the learning process, there was a decrease in the time needed for evaluation and an increase in the certainty of prediction. The accuracy did not increase with the learning process. The sensitivity for detection of intestinal metaplasia ranged between 39% and 57%, and for neoplasia between 62% and 90%, irrespective of assessors expertise. The kappa coefficient for the interobserver agreement ranged from 0.25 to 0.30 for intestinal metaplasia, and from 0.39 to 0.48 for neoplasia. Conclusion: Using a dedicated learning program, the ME-NBI Amsterdam classification system is suboptimal in terms of accuracy and inter- and intraobserver agreements. These results reiterate the questionable utility of corresponding classification system in clinical routine practice.

Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline – March 2017

For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

A comparative study between fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance in palliative esophageal stent placement.

Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are the treatment of choice for incurable obstructive malignant esophageal strictures. Although the placement of SEMS is usually performed with fluoroscopic control (FC), recently several authors have shown the feasibility of placing SEMS under endoscopic control alone (EC). However, studies comparing the two techniques are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare the feasibility and safety of SEMS insertion under fluoroscopic control and endoscopic control. The study was performed through the retrospective analysis of patients who underwent SEMS insertion for malignant dysphagia between January 2005 and January 2010. Data concerning early and late complications and survival were retrieved. Early complications were defined as pain, vomiting, bleeding, malposition/migration, perforation, and/or dysphagia occurring until 30 days of SEMS insertion; and late complications as tumor ingrowth and overgrowth, migration, hemorrhage, fistulae, food impaction, and/or esophagitis occurring after 30 days. We placed 126 SEMS of which 87% for esophageal stricture, 8% for esophagus-respiratory fistula, and 5% for extrinsic compression. The mean age of the patients was 62 years, and 93 were male. SEMS insertion was performed with FC in 66 patients and EC in 60. Early complications occurred in 34 patients (52%) in the FC group and 28 (47%) in the EC group (P=0.71), including: pain in 22 patients of the FC group and 15 of the EC group (P=0.31); vomiting in 15 of the FC group and nine of the EC group (P=0.27); malposition/migration in three of the FC group and four of the EC group (P=0.60); hemorrhage in one of the FC group and two of the EC group (P=0.27); and dysphagia in two of the FC group and three of the EC group (P=0.57). Late complications occurred in 20 patients (30%) in the FC group and 22 (37%) in the EC group (P=0.44), including: tumor in/overgrowth in 13 patients of the FC group and 10 of the EC group (P=0.66); prostheses migration in five of the FC group and eight of the EC group (P=0.28); hemorrhage in two of the FC group and two of the EC group (P=0.54); appearance of esophageal fistulae in seven of the FC group and four of the EC group (P=0.43); food impaction in nine of the FC group and eight of the EC group (P=0.96); esophagitis in 12 of the FC group and 15 of the EC group (P=0.35). Median survival was 107 days (95% confidence interval [CI]=6-369 days) with no difference between the two groups. There were no statistical significant differences in the incidence of complications and in survival between patients undergoing SEMS placement under fluoroscopic control or endoscopic control.

Interobserver agreement of EUS elastography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and Objectives: Previous reports assessing the reproducibility of endoscopic ultrasound elastography (EUS-E) in evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions (SPL) involved only experienced endosonographers. We aimed to assess the interobserver agreement (IOA) of EUS-E in the evaluation of SPL by endoscopists with different levels of experience in EUS and EUS-E. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational multicenter study was designed and included 11 endoscopists who were divided into four groups: Group A (long experience in EUS and EUS-E); Group B (short experience in EUS and EUS-E); Group C (long experience in EUS and no experience in EUS-E); and Group D (no experience in EUS or EUS-E). The observers independently classified the patterns of 60 video sequences of EUS-E, after a 20-min training session. For each group, we calculated IOA (kappa statistic, κ) of EUS-E and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-E for pancreatic malignancy, by comparing the pattern of EUS-E indicative of malignancy (heterogeneous or homogenous blue) with the final diagnosis. Results: The overall IOA was moderate (κ = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.52). The IOA of Group A (κ = 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-1.00) was significantly higher than that of Groups B (κ = 0.54; 95%CI 0.40-0.71), C (κ = 0.54; 95%CI 0.39-0.68), and D (κ = 0.28; 95%CI 0.14-0.40). IOA of Groups B and C was not significantly different, but it was significantly higher than that of Group D. The diagnostic accuracy of Group A (area under the curve under summary receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) = 0.83; 95%CI 0.75-0.90) was not significantly different from that of Group B (AUROC = 0.77; 95%CI 0.71-0.83), but it was significantly higher than that of Groups C (AUROC = 0.74; 95%CI 0.67-0.81) and D (AUROC = 0.74; 95%CI 0.67-0.81). No significant difference was seen between Groups B, C, and D for diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: EUS-E is reproducible in the evaluation of SPL, even between endoscopists with no or limited experience in EUS and/or EUS-E. Reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy increase with experience in EUS and EUS-E.

Interobserver agreement of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims: Previous reports assessing the reproducibility of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CH-EUS) in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) involved mainly experienced endosonographers. We aimed to assess the interobserver agreement (IOA) of CH-EUS in the evaluation of SPLs by endoscopists with different levels of experience in EUS and CH-EUS. Participants and methods: A cross-sectional observational multicenter study was designed and included 11 endoscopists who were divided into four groups according to their experience in EUS and CH-EUS: group A (long experience in EUS and CH-EUS); group B (short experience in EUS and CH-EUS); group C (long experience in EUS and no experience in CH-EUS); and group D (no experience in EUS or CH-EUS). The observers independently classified the patterns of 60 CH-EUS video sequences of 60 SPLs after a 20-minute training session. For each group, we calculated the IOA (kappa statistic, κ) of CH-EUS and the accuracy of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by comparing the pattern of CH-EUS indicative of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (hypo-enhanced contrast pattern) with the final diagnosis. Results: The overall IOA for CH-EUS was fair (κ = 0.32; 95 %CI 0.22 – 0.41). Group A (κ = 0.63; 95 %CI 0.45 – 0.85) had the highest IOA, followed by group C (κ = 0.54; 95 %CI 0.39 – 0.71), group B (κ = 0.38; 95 %CI 0.22 – 0.55), and group D (κ = 0.21; 95 %CI 0.07 – 0.36). The IOA of groups A and C was significantly higher than that of group D. No significant difference was seen between groups A, B, and C or between groups B and D in terms of IOA. Group A (area under the curve under summary receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] = 0.67; 95 %CI 0.58 – 0.75) had the highest accuracy for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, followed by group C (AUROC = 0.58; 95 %CI 0.50 – 0.65), group B (AUROC = 0.55; 95 %CI 0.48 – 0.63), and group D (AUROC = 0.51; 95 %CI 0.43 – 0.58). The diagnostic accuracy of group A was not significantly different from that of group C, but it was significantly higher than that of groups B and D. No significant difference was seen between groups B, C, and D in terms of diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: CH-EUS is reproducible in the evaluation of SPLs, even between endoscopists with no or limited experience in EUS and/or CH-EUS. Long experience in EUS is a major contributor to the IOA and diagnostic accuracy of CH-EUS.

Acute Treatment of Malignant Colorectal Occlusion: Real Life Practice

Introduction Colorectal cancer presents itself as acute bowel occlusion in 10–40% of patients. There are two main therapeutic approaches: urgent surgery and endoluminal placement self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS). Aims and Methods This study intended to better clarify the risk/benefit ratio of the above-mentioned approaches. We conducted a retrospective longitudinal multicenter study, including 189 patients with acute malignant colorectal occlusion, diagnosed between January 2005 and March 2013. Results Globally (85 patients – 35 bridge-to-surgery and 50 palliative), SEMSs technical success was of 94%. Palliative SEMS had limited clinical success (60%) and were associated with 40% of complications. SEMS occlusion (19%) was the most frequent complication, followed by migration (9%) and bowel perforation (7%). Elective surgery after stenting was associated with a higher frequency of primary anastomosis (94% vs. 76%; p = 0.038), and a lower rate of colostomy (26% vs. 55%; p = 0.004) and overall mortality (31% vs. 57%; p = 0.02). However, no significant differences were identified concerning postoperative complications. Regarding palliative treatment, no difference was found in the complications rate and overall mortality between SEMS and decompressive colostomy/ileostomy. In this SEMS subgroup, we found a higher rate of reinterventions (40% vs. 5%; p = 0.004) and a longer hospital stay (14, nine vs. seven, three days; p = 0.004). Conclusion SEMS placement as a bridge-to-surgery should be considered in the acute treatment of colorectal malignant occlusion, since it displays advantages regarding primary anastomosis, colostomy rate and overall mortality. In contrast, in this study, palliative SEMS did not appear to present significant advantages when compared to decompressive colostomy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the digestive cancers with the poorest prognosis, so an early and correct diagnosis is of utmost importance. With the development of new therapeutic options an accurate staging is essential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has a major role in all stages of the management of these patients. EUS has a high accuracy in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the possibility to perform fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/FNB) increases the diagnostic yield of EUS. There is still no consensus on the several technical aspects of FNA, namely on the rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), the diameter and type of needle, the number of passes and the use of stylet and suction. Contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and EUS elastography (EUS-E) have been used in recent years as an adjunct to EUS-FNA. Given the higher sensitivity of these techniques a negative cytology by EUS-FNA should not exclude malignancy when CE-EUS and/or EUS-E are suggestive of pancreatic neoplasia. EUS remains one of the main methods in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, namely to further evaluate patients with non-metastatic disease that appears resectable on initial imaging. EUS is crucial for an accurate preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer which is essential to choose the correct management strategy. The possibility to obtain samples from suspicious lesions or lymph nodes, by means of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as well as the use of contrast-enhanced and elastography, makes EUS an ideal modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.Pancreatic cancer is one of the digestive cancers with the poorest prognosis, so an early and correct diagnosis is of utmost importance. With the development of new therapeutic options an accurate staging is essential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has a major role in all stages of the management of these patients. EUS has a high accuracy in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the possibility to perform fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/FNB) increases the diagnostic yield of EUS. There is still no consensus on the several technical aspects of FNA, namely on the rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), the diameter and type of needle, the number of passes and the use of stylet and suction. Contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and EUS elastography (EUS-E) have been used in recent years as an adjunct to EUS-FNA. Given the higher sensitivity of these techniques a negative cytology by EUS-FNA should not exclude malignancy when CE-EUS and/or EUS-E are suggestive of pancreatic neoplasia. EUS remains one of the main methods in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, namely to further evaluate patients with non-metastatic disease that appears resectable on initial imaging. EUS is crucial for an accurate preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer which is essential to choose the correct management strategy. The possibility to obtain samples from suspicious lesions or lymph nodes, by means of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as well as the use of contrast-enhanced and elastography, makes EUS an ideal modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

Review ArticleEndoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic CancerA Ecoendoscopia no Diagnóstico e Estadiamento do Cancro do Pâncreas

Pancreatic cancer is one of the digestive cancers with the poorest prognosis, so an early and correct diagnosis is of utmost importance. With the development of new therapeutic options an accurate staging is essential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has a major role in all stages of the management of these patients. EUS has a high accuracy in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the possibility to perform fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/FNB) increases the diagnostic yield of EUS. There is still no consensus on the several technical aspects of FNA, namely on the rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), the diameter and type of needle, the number of passes and the use of stylet and suction. Contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and EUS elastography (EUS-E) have been used in recent years as an adjunct to EUS-FNA. Given the higher sensitivity of these techniques a negative cytology by EUS-FNA should not exclude malignancy when CE-EUS and/or EUS-E are suggestive of pancreatic neoplasia. EUS remains one of the main methods in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, namely to further evaluate patients with non-metastatic disease that appears resectable on initial imaging. EUS is crucial for an accurate preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer which is essential to choose the correct management strategy. The possibility to obtain samples from suspicious lesions or lymph nodes, by means of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as well as the use of contrast-enhanced and elastography, makes EUS an ideal modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.Pancreatic cancer is one of the digestive cancers with the poorest prognosis, so an early and correct diagnosis is of utmost importance. With the development of new therapeutic options an accurate staging is essential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has a major role in all stages of the management of these patients. EUS has a high accuracy in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the possibility to perform fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/FNB) increases the diagnostic yield of EUS. There is still no consensus on the several technical aspects of FNA, namely on the rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), the diameter and type of needle, the number of passes and the use of stylet and suction. Contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and EUS elastography (EUS-E) have been used in recent years as an adjunct to EUS-FNA. Given the higher sensitivity of these techniques a negative cytology by EUS-FNA should not exclude malignancy when CE-EUS and/or EUS-E are suggestive of pancreatic neoplasia. EUS remains one of the main methods in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, namely to further evaluate patients with non-metastatic disease that appears resectable on initial imaging. EUS is crucial for an accurate preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer which is essential to choose the correct management strategy. The possibility to obtain samples from suspicious lesions or lymph nodes, by means of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration as well as the use of contrast-enhanced and elastography, makes EUS an ideal modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

LAMS to the SEMS Rescue

We present the case of an 80-year-old woman with gastric outlet obstruction syndrome due to colorectal cancer metastasis in the distal duodenum. A 9-cm luminal uncovered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) (Wallstent®, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) was inserted, with the proximal flange located in D2. The obstructive symptoms resolved but the patient was admitted a week later due to jaundice (total bilirubin 4.07 mg/dL, direct 2.84 mg/dL). Abdominal computerized tomography revealed marked dilation of the common bile duct (CBD) up to the level of the papilla (Fig. 1). An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was scheduled. Anticipating difficulties in accessing the duodenal papilla, an endoscopic ultrasoundguided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was also planned in advance. As suspected, the metal mesh in the duodenum hindered duodenoscope progression, precluding any attempt at biliary cannulation. Since the duodenal bulb was free, we decided to perform a choledochoduodenostomy using a 6 × 8 mm lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) (Hot AXIOS®, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA). A therapeutic echoendoscope was advanced to the duodenal bulb and a 19-gauge needle was used to puncture the dilated CBD and aspirate bile. A 0.035-inch guidewire was then inserted into the CBD and the LAMS was deployed following the manufacturer’s instructions (Fig. 2). After the procedure, jaundice resolved and the patient was able to resume the palliative chemotherapy prescribed, with no recurrence of obstructive symptoms or jaundice in 4 months of follow-up. Figure 3 shows a predischarge gastroduodenography, revealing patency of the duodenal stents and oral contrast opacifying the biliary tree through the LAMS. This case highlights biliary obstruction as an uncommon adverse effect of endoscopic SEMS placement. We attributed jaundice to the procedure and not to malig-