Explore the vast range of titles available.

The prevalence of pancreatic cysts has been rising due to the widespread use of cross-sectional imaging (CT scan and MRI) of the abdomen. While most pancreatic cysts are benign and do not require treatment or surveillance, a significant minority are premalignant and rarely malignant. The risk stratification of these lesions is not straightforward, and individual risk assessment, cyst size, distribution, and alarming morphologic features (when present) can guide the next steps in management. Neoplastic pancreatic cysts are mucinous or non-mucinous. Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration is often required to classify pancreatic cysts into mucinous and non-mucinous cysts and to assess the malignant potential. Advances in endoscopic techniques (confocal laser endomicroscopy, microforceps biopsy) can provide a definitive diagnosis of pancreatic cysts in some cases; however, the use of these techniques involves a higher risk of adverse events.

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly fatal malignancy with a global overall 5-year survival of under 10%. Screening of PC is not recommended outside of clinical trials. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a very sensitive test to identify PC but lacks specificity and is operator-dependent, especially in the presence of chronic pancreatitis (CP). Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a growing field with a wide range of applications to augment the currently available modalities. This study was undertaken to study the effectiveness of AI with EUS in the diagnosis of PC. Methods: Studies from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases reporting the AI performance applied to EUS imaging for recognizing PC. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: A total of 11 articles reported the role of EUS in the diagnosis of PC. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of AI in recognizing PC were 80–97.5%, 83–100%, and 50–99%, respectively, with corresponding positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 75–99% and 57–100%, respectively. Types of AI studied were artificial neural networks (ANNs), convolutional neural networks (CNN), and support vector machine (SVM). Seven studies using other than basic ANN reported a sensitivity and specificity of 88–96% and 83–94% to differentiate PC from CP. Two studies using SVM reported a 94–96% sensitivity, 93%–99% specificity, and 94–98% accuracy to diagnose PC from CP. The reported sensitivity and specificity of detection of malignant from benign Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs) was 96% and 92%, respectively. Conclusion: AI reported a high sensitivity with high specificity and accuracy to diagnose PC, differentiate PC from CP, and differentiate benign from malignant IPMN when used with EUS.

INTRODUCTION:Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), which utilizes ESD knife along with snare-based resection, has been developed to overcome the technical complexity of conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic outcomes of H-ESD vs C-ESD for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions ≥20 mm in size.METHODS:We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare H-ESD and C-ESD (Short-ESD trial). Patients with colorectal lesions between 20 and 50 mm in size were randomly assigned (1:1) to H-ESD or C-ESD. Primary outcome was procedure time/speed. Secondary outcomes were en bloc and complete (R0) resection rates and adverse event rates.RESULTS:A total of 89 patients (median age 63 years; 49.3% women) with the median polyp size of 30 mm underwent H-ESD (n = 40) and C-ESD (n = 49). The mean procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (41.1 ± 16.3 vs 54.3 ± 28.2 minutes; P = 0.007). The en bloc and R0 resection rates trended lower in the H-ESD vs C-ESD groups (77.5% vs 87.8%; P = 0.26% and 72.5% vs 79.6%; P = 0.46) without reaching statistical significance. Adverse event rate was similar between H-ESD and C-ESD (10% vs 8.2%; P = 1.00).DISCUSSION:Both H-ESD and C-ESD were safe and effective for resection of large colorectal lesions. H-ESD was associated with a shorter procedure time. H-ESD may represent a viable alternative to C-ESD, with the main advantage being easy applicability of a snare-based technique for colorectal lesions. Future studies are needed to further define the most suitable lesions for H-ESD, as to optimize efficiency and safety without compromising resection outcomes. ClinicaTrials.gov NCT NCT05347446.

BackgroundThe effectiveness of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting (PPDS) in preventing post-ampullectomy pancreatitis (PAP) at the time of endoscopic ampullectomy (EA) has been reported, however, results are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at the use of PPDS in reducing PAP as well as overall post-ampullectomy complications.MethodsMultiple databases were searched through May 2023 for studies reporting on EA. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of PAP, with and without PPDS. Pooled rates of adverse events including perforation, delayed bleeding, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were assessed. Random effects model was used for our meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics.ResultsThirty-four studies (14 case series, 18 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) with 1868 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of PAP was 12.3% (CI 10.3–14.5). We found no statistically significant difference in rates of PAP among patients with PPDS, 11.9% (CI 8.9–15.7) and without PPDS, 16.6% (CI 13.4–20.4), RR 0.8 (CI 0.51–1.28), p = 0.4. In terms of severe PAP, we found no difference between the two groups. The overall pooled rates of successful en-bloc and piecemeal resection were 74.8% (CI 67.3–81.1) and 25.1% (CI 19–32.4). Additionally, pooled rates of ampullary stenosis, post procedural bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were 3.6%, 11.1%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 1.3%, respectively.ConclusionsOur analysis shows that PPDS at the time of EA does not offer a significant protective effect against PAP. While the incidence of PAP was higher among the no PPDS group, it is plausible that this is more likely due to variation among studies in terms of lesion size, length/size of pancreatic stent used and etiology of ampullary lesions. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

BackgroundStudies have suggested higher complication rates after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in pregnancy.AimsWe performed a propensity-matched cohort analysis to assess the risk of ERCP-related complications among pregnant women in the United States.MethodsThe TriNetX database was analyzed to identify pregnant and non-pregnant females between 18 and 50 years of age who underwent ERCP. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed for age and race. Outcomes included risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, perforation within 7 days, and infections within 30 days of ERCP. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the risk of PEP based on indication for ERCP.ResultsThe risk of PEP was higher in the pregnant cohort compared to controls, 10.3% vs 6.08%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–2.61; p = 0.003. We found no difference in the risk of GI bleeding, perforation, and infections between the two cohorts. There was no difference in the risk of PEP in the pregnant cohort compared to controls who underwent ERCP for acute choledocholithiasis (4.2% vs 2.1%, aOR 1.98, 95% CI 0.97–4.03, p = 0.5) or ascending cholangitis (18.6% vs 14.7%, aOR 1.32, 95% CI 0.52–3.39, p = 0.55). There was no difference in the risk of PEP in the pregnant cohort after sensitivity analysis based on age, race, obesity, and indomethacin use.ConclusionPregnant females are at an increased risk of PEP but not GI bleeding, perforation, and infections when compared to non-pregnant controls. Clinicians should be cautious when proceeding with ERCP during pregnancy.