Explore the vast range of titles available.

After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer, roughly half of the patients with squamous cell carcinoma and a quarter of those with adenocarcinoma have a pathological complete response of the primary tumour before surgery. Thus, the necessity of standard oesophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy should be reconsidered for patients who respond sufficiently to neoadjuvant treatment. In this study, we aimed to establish the accuracy of detection of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with different diagnostic approaches, and the optimal combination of diagnostic techniques for clinical response evaluations. The preSANO trial was a prospective, multicentre, diagnostic cohort study at six centres in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had histologically proven, resectable, squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction, and were eligible for potential curative therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (five weekly cycles of carboplatin [area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min] plus paclitaxel [50 mg/m2 of body-surface area] combined with 41·4 Gy radiotherapy in 23 fractions) followed by oesophagectomy. 4–6 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, patients had oesophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies and endoscopic ultrasonography with measurement of maximum tumour thickness. Patients with histologically proven locoregional residual disease or no-pass during endoscopy and without distant metastases underwent immediate surgical resection. In the remaining patients a second clinical response evaluation was done (PET–CT, oesophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography with measurement of maximum tumour thickness, and fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes), followed by surgery 12–14 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the correlation between clinical response during clinical response evaluations and the final pathological response in resection specimens, as shown by the proportion of tumour regression grade (TRG) 3 or 4 (>10% residual carcinoma in the resection specimen) residual tumours that was missed during clinical response evaluations. This study was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4834), and has been completed. Between July 22, 2013, and Dec 28, 2016, 219 patients were included, 207 of whom were included in the analyses. Eight of 26 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (31% [95% CI 17–50]) were missed by endoscopy with regular biopsies and fine-needle aspiration. Four of 41 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (10% [95% CI 4–23]) were missed with bite-on-bite biopsies and fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopic ultrasonography with maximum tumour thickness measurement missed TRG3 or TRG4 residual tumours in 11 of 39 patients (28% [95% CI 17–44]). PET–CT missed six of 41 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (15% [95% CI 7–28]). PET–CT detected interval distant histologically proven metastases in 18 (9%) of 190 patients (one squamous cell carcinoma, 17 adenocarcinomas). After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer, clinical response evaluation with endoscopic ultrasonography, bite-on-bite biopsies, and fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes was adequate for detection of locoregional residual disease, with PET–CT for detection of interval metastases. Active surveillance with this combination of diagnostic modalities is now being assessed in a phase 3 randomised controlled trial (SANO trial; Netherlands Trial Register NTR6803). Dutch Cancer Society.

Sedation is required to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) given the duration and complexity of these advanced procedures. Sedation options include anesthetist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS). Although ADS has been shown to shorten induction and recovery times, it is not established whether it impacts likelihood of procedure completion. Our aim was to assess whether ADS impacts the success of advanced endoscopy procedures. We prospectively assessed the sedation strategy for patients undergoing ERCP and EUS between October 2010 and October 2013. Although assignment to ADS vs. GDS was not randomized, it was determined by day of the week. A sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching was used to model a randomized trial. The main outcome, procedure failure, was defined as an inability to satisfactorily complete the ERCP or EUS such that an additional endoscopic, radiographic, or surgical procedure was required. Failure was further categorized as failure due to inadequate sedation vs. technical problems. During the 3-year study period, 60% of the 1,171 procedures were carried out with GDS and 40% were carried out with ADS. Failed procedures occurred in 13.0% of GDS cases compared with 8.9% of ADS procedures (multivariate odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.6)).This was driven by a higher rate of sedation failures in the GDS group, 7.0%, than in the ADS group, 1.3% (multivariate OR: 7.8 (95% CI: 3.3-18.8)). There was no difference in technical success between the GDS and ADS groups (multivariate OR: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9)). We were able to match 417 GDS cases to 417 ADS cases based on procedure type, indication, and propensity score. Analysis of the propensity score-matched patients confirmed our findings of increased sedation failure (multivariate OR: 8.9 (95% CI: 2.5-32.1)) but not technical failure (multivariate OR: 1.2 (0.7-2.2)) in GDS compared with ADS procedures. Adverse events of sedation were rare in both groups. Failed ERCP in the GDS group resulted in a total of 93 additional days of hospitalization. We estimate that $67,891 would have been saved if ADS had been used for all ERCP procedures. No statistically significant difference in EUS success was identified, although this sub-analysis was limited by sample size. ADS improves the success of advanced endoscopic procedures. Its routine use may increase the quality and efficiency of these services.

Abstract Rationale The combination of an ultrathin bronchoscope, navigational technology, and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) seems to combine the best of mutual abilities for evaluating peripheral pulmonary lesions, but ultrathin bronchoscopes that allow the use of EBUS have not been developed so far. Objectives To compare the diagnostic yield of transbronchial biopsy under EBUS, fluoroscopy, and virtual bronchoscopic navigation guidance using a novel ultrathin bronchoscope with that using a thin bronchoscope with a guide sheath for peripheral pulmonary lesions. Methods In four centers, patients with suspected peripheral pulmonary lesions less than or equal to 30 mm in the longest diameter were included and randomized to undergo transbronchial biopsy with EBUS, fluoroscopy, and virtual bronchoscopic navigation guidance using a 3.0-mm ultrathin bronchoscope (UTB group) or a 4.0-mm thin bronchoscope with a guide sheath (TB-GS group). Measurements and Main Results A total of 310 patients were enrolled and randomized, among whom 305 patients (150, UTB group; 155, TB-GS group) were analyzed. The ultrathin bronchoscope could reach more distal bronchi than the thin bronchoscope (median fifth- vs. fourth-generation bronchi; P < 0.001). Diagnostic histologic specimens were obtained in 74% (42% for benign and 81% for malignant lesions) of the UTB group and 59% (36% for benign and 70% for malignant lesions) of the TB-GS group (P = 0.044, Mantel-Haenszel test). Complications including pneumothorax, bleeding, chest pain, and pneumonia occurred in 3% and 5% in the respective groups. Conclusions The diagnostic yield of the UTB method is higher than that of the TB-GS method. Clinical trial registered with www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ (UMIN 000003177)

BackgroundLumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have displaced double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) as the standard treatment for walled-off necrosis (WON),β but evidence for exclusively using LAMS is limited. We aimed to assess whether the theoretical benefit of LAMS was superior to DPS.MethodsThis multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was carried out in 9 tertiary hospitals. Between June 2017, and Oct 2020, we screened 99 patients with symptomatic WON, of whom 64 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the DPS group (n = 31) or the LAMS group (n = 33). The primary outcome was short-term (4-weeks) clinical success determined by the reduction of collection. Secondary endpoints included long-term clinical success, hospitalization, procedure duration, recurrence, safety, and costs. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03100578.ResultsA similar clinical success rate in the short term (RR, 1.41; 95% CI 0.88–2.25; p = 0.218) and in the long term (RR, 1.2; 95% CI 0.92–1.58; p = 0.291) was observed between both groups. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LAMS group (35 vs. 45-min, p = 0.003). The hospital admission after the index procedure (median difference, − 10 [95% CI − 17.5, − 1]; p = 0.077) and global hospitalization (median difference − 4 [95% CI − 33, 25.51]; p = 0.82) were similar between both groups. Reported stent-related adverse events were similar for the two groups (36 vs.45% in LAMS vs. DPS), except for de novo fever, which was significantly 26% lower in LAMS (RR, 0.26 [0.08–0.83], p = 0.015).ConclusionsThe clinical superiority of LAMS over DPS for WON therapy was not proved, with similar clinical success, hospital stay and similar safety profile between both groups, yet a significant reduction in procedure time was observed.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03100578.

ObjectiveRoutine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings.DesignA multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013–2017) applying the same study design.ResultsOverall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17–23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23–41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92).ConclusionIn patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group.Trial registration number ISRCTN15545919.

BackgroundAlthough surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) is the standard method for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), an endoscopic method—endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE)—has been proposed as a novel, less invasive approach.ObjectiveWe compared both methods to determine whether clinical outcomes for EUS-GE are superior to surgery.DesignWe conducted a multicentre, randomised superiority trial of patients with malignant GOO to receive either EUS-GE or SGJ. Primary endpoint was composite measure, consisting of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Scoring System (GOOSS) score of 0 or 1 at hospital discharge, need for reinterventions or supplemental nutrition, or procedure-related adverse events during 6-month follow-up or until death. Secondary endpoints were time to solid diet, length of hospitalisation, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment costs.Results74 patients were randomly assigned to EUS-GE (38 patients) or SGJ (36 patients). Primary endpoint occurred in 7.9% of patients who received EUS-GE and 38.9% in SGJ (risk difference −31.0%, 95% CI −47.6% to −11.4%, p=0.002). EUS-GE was associated with more rapid advancement to solid diet (median 2 days (P25–P75, 2–3) vs 5 days (P25–P75, 3.5–9)), shorter hospitalisation (median 3 days (P25–P75, 3–6) vs 9 days (P25–P75, 6–12.5)), better HRQoL for physical (p=0.0016) and social functioning (p=0.011) and lower treatment costs (US $33 934 vs US$ 51 437, difference −US $17 503 (95% CI −US$ 27 807 to −US$7920)).ConclusionIn this randomised trial, EUS-GE was superior to SGJ with regards to oral intake, need for reinterventions or supplemental nutrition, length of hospitalisation, quality of life and treatment costs.Trial registration numberNCT05548114.

BackgroundEndoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate into gastric varices may be performed by EUS-guided fine needle injection (EUS-FNI) or direct endoscopic injection (DEI). The aim of this study is to compare the rate of recurrent GV bleeding and adverse events between DEI and EUS-FNI for treatment of GV.MethodsIn a single-center study, a retrospective cohort of patients with actively/recently bleeding or high-risk GV treated with DEI were compared with a prospective cohort of similar patients treated with EUS-FNI. Repeat endoscopy after index treatment was performed 3 months later or earlier if rebleeding occurred. The main outcomes assessed were rates of GV or overall rebleeding and adverse events.ResultsForty patients (mean age 57.2 ± 9.1 years, 73% male) and 64 patients (mean age 58.0 ± 12.5 years, 52% male) underwent DEI and EUS-FNI, respectively. Compared to the DEI group, the frequency of isolated gastric varices type 1 (IGV1) were higher (p < 0.001) but MELD scores were lower (p = 0.004) in the EUS-FNI group. At index endoscopy, EUS-FNI utilized a lower mean volume of cyanoacrylate (2.0 ± 0.8 mL vs. 3.3 ± 1.3 mL; p < 0.001) and injected a greater number of varices (1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 1.1 ± 0.4; p < 0.001) compared to DEI. Overall, GV rebleeding [5/57 (8.8%) vs. 9/38 (23.7%); p = 0.045] and non-GV-related gastrointestinal bleeding [7/64 (10.9%) vs. 11/40 (27.5%); p = 0.030] were less frequent in the EUS-FNI group compared to the DEI group, respectively. Adverse event rates were similar (20.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.723).ConclusionsEUS-guided CYA injection of active or recently bleeding GV in patients with portal hypertension appears to decrease the rate of GV rebleeding despite injection of more varices and less CYA volume during the initial endoscopic procedure. Adverse events are similar between the two groups. EUS-FNI appears to be the preferred strategy for treatment of these patients.

BackgroundBronchoscopy using endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) can help to diagnose small peripheral pulmonary lesions. However, although biopsy sites can be confirmed, a bronchoscope cannot be guided in EBUS. Virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN) can guide a bronchoscope with virtual images, but its value has not been confirmed.MethodsThis prospective multicentre study examines the value of VBN-assisted EBUS for diagnosing small peripheral pulmonary lesions. 199 patients with small peripheral pulmonary lesions (diameter ≤30 mm) were randomly assigned to VBN-assisted (VBNA) or non-VBN-assisted (NVBNA) groups. A bronchoscope was introduced into the target bronchus of the VBNA group using the VBN system. Sites of specimen sampling were verified using EBUS with a guide sheath under fluoroscopy.ResultsThe diagnostic yield was higher for the VBNA than for the NVBNA group (80.4% vs 67.0%; p=0.032). The duration of the examination and time elapsed until the start of sample collection were reduced in the VBNA compared with the NVBNA group (median (range), 24.0 (8.7–47.0) vs 26.2 (11.6–58.6) min, p=0.016) and 8.1 (2.8–39.2) vs 9.8 (2.3–42.3) min, p=0.045, respectively). The only adverse event was mild pneumothorax in a patient from the NVBNA group.ConclusionsThe diagnostic yield for small peripheral pulmonary lesions is increased when VBN is combined with EBUS.Clinical trial numberUMIN000000569.

Accumulated evidence has revealed that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has had a great impact on the clinical evaluation of pancreatic cancers. EUS can provide high-resolution images of the pancreas with a quality regarded as far surpassing that achieved on transabdominal ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). EUS is particularly useful for the detection of small pancreatic lesions, while EUS and its related techniques such as contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are also useful in the differential diagnosis of solid or cystic pancreatic lesions and the staging (T-staging, N-staging, and M-staging) of pancreatic cancers. In the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, CE-EUS and EUS elastography play a complementary role to conventional EUS. When sampling is performed using EUS-FNA, CE-EUS and EUS elastography provide information on the target lesions. Thus, conventional EUS, CE-EUS, EUS elastography, and EUS-FNA are essential in the clinical investigation of pancreatic cancer.

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided ethanol injection and 125 I seed brachytherapy for malignant left-sided liver tumors which were difficult for trans-abdominal intervention. The study protocol was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02816944). Twenty-six patients were consecutively and prospectively hospitalized for EUS-guided interventional treatment of refractory malignant left-sided liver tumors between June 2014 and June 2016. Liver masses were detected using EUS in 25 of 26 (96.2%) patients. EUS-guided interventional treatment was completed uneventfully in 23 of 26 (88.5%) patients using anhydrous ethanol injection (n = 10) or iodine-125 seed implantation (n = 13). Six months later, complete response was achieved in 15 of 23 (65.2%) patients and partial response in 8 of 23 (34.8%) patients. Patients with tumor residual have second-look EUS-guided interventional treatment (n = 5), radiotherapy (n = 2) or surgical resection (n = 1). Complete response was achieved after repeated interventional treatment in 3 of 5 patients who underwent second EUS-guided intervention; 2 patients required additional surgical resection but one succeed. No significant complications occurred. Therefore EUS-guided 125 I seed brachytherapy is an effective and safe treatment modality for radical operation or promising palliative control of malignant left-sided liver tumors refractory to trans-abdominal intervention.