Stephen Kim

Advanced Imaging in Barrett's Esophagus

Barretts esophagus (BE) is present in up to 5.6% of the US population and is the precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Surveillance endoscopy is the primary management approach for BE. However, standard protocol biopsies have been associated with significant miss rates of dysplastic lesions in patients with BE. Thus, a variety of methods to optimize the imaging of BE have been developed to improve the efficiency and diagnostic yield of surveillance endoscopy in detecting early neoplasia. These techniques use changes that occur at macroscopic, microscopic, and subcellular levels in early neoplasia and are the focus of this article.

A Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating Learning Curves and Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Among Advanced Endoscopy Trainees: The Rapid Assessment of Trainee Endoscopy Skills Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS: On the basis of the Next Accreditation System, trainee assessment should occur on a continuous basis with individualized feedback. We aimed to validate endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) learning curves among advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) by using a large national sample of training programs and to develop a centralized database that allows assessment of performance in relation to peers. METHODS: ASGE recognized training programs were invited to participate, and AETs were graded on ERCP and EUS exams by using a validated competency assessment tool that assesses technical and cognitive competence in a continuous fashion. Grading for each skill was done by using a 4‐point scoring system, and a comprehensive data collection and reporting system was built to create learning curves by using cumulative sum analysis. Individual results and benchmarking to peers were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. RESULTS: Of the 62 programs invited, 20 programs and 22 AETs participated in this study. At the end of training, median number of EUS and ERCP performed/AET was 300 (range, 155–650) and 350 (125–500), respectively. Overall, 3786 exams were graded (EUS, 1137; ERCP‐biliary, 2280; ERCP‐pancreatic, 369). Learning curves for individual end points and overall technical/cognitive aspects in EUS and ERCP demonstrated substantial variability and were successfully shared with all programs. The majority of trainees achieved overall technical (EUS, 82%; ERCP, 60%) and cognitive (EUS, 76%; ERCP, 100%) competence at conclusion of training. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the feasibility of establishing a centralized database to report individualized learning curves and confirm the substantial variability in time to achieve competence among AETs in EUS and ERCP. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02509416.

Current Practice of Duodenoscope Reprocessing

Numerous outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multi-drug resistant bacteria have recently been reported. Unlike prior episodes of endoscope-transmitted infections, the latest outbreaks have occurred despite strict adherence to duodenoscope reprocessing guidelines. The current standard for all flexible endoscope reprocessing includes pre-cleaning, leak testing, an additional manual cleaning step, and high-level disinfection. When these steps are strictly followed, the risk of infection transmission during endoscopy is exceedingly rare. However, due to its complex design, the duodenoscope may not be able to be adequately disinfected using the current reprocessing standards. Supplemental measures to enhance scope reprocessing have subsequently been recommended to reduce the infection risk in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. These methods are likely short-term solutions that have yet to be validated regarded their effectiveness. Additional approaches to monitor the quality of duodenoscope reprocessing may also be useful. Ultimately, a definitive, yet logistically feasible, method of duodenoscope reprocessing is required to ensure the safety of our patients.

Evaluation of the 2015 AGA guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms in a large surgically confirmed multicenter cohort

Absract Background and study aims The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) recently published guidelines for the management of asymptomatic pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of the AGA guidelines in appropriately recommending surgery for malignant PCNs. Patients and methods A retrospective multicenter study was performed of patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for evaluation of PCNs who ultimately underwent surgical resection from 2004 – 2014. Demographics, EUS characteristics, fine-needle aspiration (FNA) results, type of resection, and final pathologic diagnosis were recorded. Patients were categorized into 2 groups (surgery or surveillance) based on what the AGA guidelines would have recommended. Performance characteristics for the diagnosis of cancer or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) on surgical pathology were calculated. Results Three hundred patients underwent surgical resection for PCNs, of whom the AGA guidelines would have recommended surgery in 121 (40.3 %) and surveillance in 179 (59.7 %) patients. Among patients recommended for surgery, 45 (37.2 %) had cancer, whereas 76 (62.8 %) had no cancer/HGD. Among patients recommended for surveillance, 170 (95.0 %) had no cancer/HGD; however, 9 (5.0 %) patients had cancer that would have been missed. For the finding of cancer/HGD on surgical pathology, the AGA guidelines had 83.3 % sensitivity (95 % CI 70.7 – 92.1), 69.1 % specificity (95 % CI 62.9 – 74.8), 37.2 % positive predictive value (95 % CI 28.6 – 46.4), 95.0 % negative predictive value (95 % CI 90.7 – 97.7), and 71.7 % accuracy (95 % CI 67.4 – 74.6). Conclusions The 2015 AGA guidelines would have resulted in 60 % fewer patients being referred for surgical resection, and accurately recommended surveillance in 95 % of patients with asymptomatic PCNs. Future prospective studies are required to validate these guidelines. Meeting presentations: Presented in part at Digestive Diseases Week 2016

Assessment of a Revised Management Strategy for Patients With Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms Involving the Main Pancreatic Duct

Importance According to the 2012 International Consensus Guidelines, the diagnostic criterion of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) involving the main duct (MD IPMNs) or the main and branch ducts (mixed IPMNs) of the pancreatic system is a main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter of 5.0 mm or greater on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, surgical resection is recommended for patients with an MPD diameter of 10.0 mm or greater, which is characterized as a high-risk stigma. An MPD diameter of 5.0 to 9.0 mm is not an indication for immediate resection. Objectives To determine an appropriate cutoff (ie, one with high sensitivity and negative predictive value) of the MPD diameter on CT or MRI as a prognostic factor for malignant disease and to propose a new management algorithm for patients with MD or mixed IPMNs. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included 103 patients who underwent surgical resection for a preoperative diagnosis of MD or mixed IPMN and in whom IPMN was confirmed by surgical pathologic findings at a single institution from July 1, 1996, to December 31, 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures Malignant disease was defined as high-grade dysplasia or invasive adenocarcinoma on results of surgical pathologic evaluation. An appropriate MPD diameter on preoperative CT or MRI to predict malignant disease was determined using a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The prognostic value of the new management algorithm that incorporated the new MPD diameter cutoff was evaluated. Results Among the 103 patients undergoing resection for an MD or mixed IPMN (59 men [57.3%]; 44 women [42.7%]; median [range] age, 71 [48-86] years), 64 (62.1%) had malignant disease. Diagnostic accuracy for malignant neoplasms was highest at an MPD diameter cutoff of 7.2 mm (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.81). An MPD diameter of 7.2 mm or greater was also an independent prognostic factor for malignant neoplasms (odds ratio, 12.76; 95% CI, 2.43-66.88; P = .003) on logistic regression analysis after controlling for preoperative variables. The new management algorithm, which included an MPD diameter of 7.2 mm or greater as one of the high-risk stigmata, had a higher sensitivity (100%), negative predictive value (100%), and accuracy (66%) for malignant disease than the 2012 version of the International Consensus Guidelines (95%, 57%, and 63%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance In this single-center, retrospective analysis, an MPD diameter of 7.2 mm was identified as an optimal cutoff for a prognostic factor for malignant disease in MD or mixed IPMN. These data support lowering the accepted criteria for MPD diameter when selecting patients for resection vs surveillance so as not to overlook cancer in IPMN.

Digital PCR Improves Mutation Analysis in Pancreas Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens

Applications of precision oncology strategies rely on accurate tumor genotyping from clinically available specimens. Fine needle aspirations (FNA) are frequently obtained in cancer management and often represent the only source of tumor tissues for patients with metastatic or locally advanced diseases. However, FNAs obtained from pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are often limited in cellularity and/or tumor cell purity, precluding accurate tumor genotyping in many cases. Digital PCR (dPCR) is a technology with exceptional sensitivity and low DNA template requirement, characteristics that are necessary for analyzing PDAC FNA samples. In the current study, we sought to evaluate dPCR as a mutation analysis tool for pancreas FNA specimens. To this end, we analyzed alterations in the KRAS gene in pancreas FNAs using dPCR. The sensitivity of dPCR mutation analysis was first determined using serial dilution cell spiking studies. Single-cell laser-microdissection (LMD) was then utilized to identify the minimal number of tumor cells needed for mutation detection. Lastly, dPCR mutation analysis was performed on 44 pancreas FNAs (34 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and 10 fresh (non-fixed)), including samples highly limited in cellularity (100 cells) and tumor cell purity (1%). We found dPCR to detect mutations with allele frequencies as low as 0.17%. Additionally, a single tumor cell could be detected within an abundance of normal cells. Using clinical FNA samples, dPCR mutation analysis was successful in all preoperative FNA biopsies tested, and its accuracy was confirmed via comparison with resected tumor specimens. Moreover, dPCR revealed additional KRAS mutations representing minor subclones within a tumor that were not detected by the current clinical gold standard method of Sanger sequencing. In conclusion, dPCR performs sensitive and accurate mutation analysis in pancreas FNAs, detecting not only the dominant mutation subtype, but also the additional rare mutation subtypes representing tumor heterogeneity.

Safely reprocessing duodenoscopes: current evidence and future directions

Highly publicised outbreaks of various infections related to the use of duodenoscopes have increased public awareness of the once arcane and largely ignored subject of endoscope reprocessing. Since 2015, national professional societies, multiple federal agencies, and even the US Senate have written reports and guidelines on duodenoscope reprocessing. However, their recommendations are sometimes contradictory and difficult to implement, and new research on the topic is published regularly which further complicates the situation. With this flood of new and sometimes contradictory information, clinicians can feel confused about how to assure the safety of their patients undergoing duodenosocopy. This Review summarises the most salient current research on duodenoscope-associated outbreaks and reprocessing, and aims to provide clinicians with practical information applicable to their practice.

Inspection of endoscope instrument channels after reprocessing using a prototype borescope

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Visual inspection of the instrument channel has been proposed as a quality assurance step during endoscope reprocessing. However, the nature and severity of findings in a broad array of endoscopes (gastroscopes, colonoscopes, duodenoscopes, and echoendoscopes) after systemic implementation of an inspection protocol remain unknown. In addition, a study using borescope inspection in upper endoscopes and colonoscopes raised concerns about persistent simethicone residue despite full reprocessing. METHODS A pilot inspection study using a prototype borescope (SteriCam Inspection Scope; SteriView Inc, San Rafael, Calif) was performed on routinely used endoscopes after high-level disinfection, manual forced-air dry of the instrument channel, and overnight vertical storage. Video recordings 1.5 to 2 minutes in duration were reviewed for visible moisture, debris, discoloration, scratches, channel shredding (scratches that result in strips or filaments of the channel lining protruding into the lumen), and visible evidence of biofilm or simethicone residue. RESULTS A total of 97 inspections of 59 endoscopes were reviewed. The most common finding was scratches, seen in 51 devices (86%). Channel shredding was found in 35 devices (59%). Intrachannel debris was identified in 22 (23%) of the 97 inspections. No moisture was seen (0%) in the 74 inspections performed after forced-air dry and overnight vertical storage compared with moisture in 5 of 18 inspections (28%) performed after storage alone. No visual evidence of biofilm or simethicone residue was discovered despite its frequent use in our unit. CONCLUSION Internal defects of the instrument channel appear to occur frequently. Manual forced-air drying of the channel appears to be highly effective in eliminating moisture compared with overnight hang drying alone. Video inspection of the endoscope channel may be useful to audit reprocessing performance and to identify damaged endoscopes.

Tu1018 Duodenoscope Reprocessing Practice Patterns in U.S. Endoscopy Centers: A Survey Study

Abstract Background and Aims After recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-related infections from multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended implementing one or more of four enhanced reprocessing measures in addition to updated manual cleaning methods and high-level disinfection (HLD). The implementation of these techniques in endoscopy facilities and provider opinions regarding reprocessing priorities remain unknown. Methods Physicians, nurse managers, nurses, and infection control staff at endoscopy units performing ERCP in the United States were surveyed to assess current institutional practices and individual opinions regarding future reprocessing solutions. Results A total of 249 distinct institutions participated in the survey. Of these, 223 (89.6%) implemented at least 1 of the 4 supplemental reprocessing methods after MDRO outbreaks. Overall, 63% of centers used repeat HLD, 53% performed surveillance microbiological culturing, 35% used liquid chemical sterilization, and 12% used ethylene oxide sterilization. Thirty-seven centers (15%) routinely screened patients for MDRO. Forced air drying after reprocessing was used by 47.8% of centers. Fifty percent of individual respondents, including 58.6% of physicians, believed that redesign of the duodenoscope is the best long-term reprocessing solution. The majority (55.1%) identified efficacy to be the single most important factor in selecting a reprocessing technique. Conclusions Although the vast majority of endoscopy centers have implemented enhanced duodenoscope reprocessing techniques, there is a large variation in practice. Most providers believe that duodenoscope redesign and identifying reprocessing techniques with maximal efficacy are the long-term priorities. Improved adherence to forced air drying in duodenoscope reprocessing is needed.

The Clinical Utility of Evaluating the Luminal Upper Gastrointestinal Tract During Linear Endoscopic Ultrasonography.

Background: The clinical utility of performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) before linear endoscopic ultrasonography (L-EUS) to evaluate the luminal upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract is not well established. Goals: The study was aimed to determine the prevalence of clinically meaningful luminal abnormalities (any luminal finding requiring further evaluation with mucosal biopsy or initiation of treatment) in patients undergoing L-EUS. The study also sought to compare the ability of the gastroscope and the linear echoendoscope in identifying these lesions. Study: A prospective, multicenter cohort study enrolled patients undergoing L-EUS for nonluminal indications. All patients underwent EGD followed by L-EUS by 2 different endoscopists. The second endoscopist was blinded to the results of the initial EGD. The identification of clinically meaningful luminal lesions and quality of endoscopic visualization of the upper GI tract were measured. Results: In the cohort of 175 patients, 52 (29.7%) patients had clinically meaningful luminal findings seen in the upper GI tract. There was no significant difference in the number of clinically meaningful lesions identified on EGD and L-EUS (25.1% vs. 22.9%, P=0.39). No significant difference was found in the miss rate of clinically meaningful lesions between the 2 modalities (EGD: 4.5% vs. EUS: 6.9%, P=0.39). Conclusions: A substantial minority of patients undergoing L-EUS for nonluminal indications will have clinically meaningful luminal findings. The endoscopic evaluation of the luminal upper GI tract can be adequately achieved using the linear echoendoscope.