Lymph Node Characterization in Vivo Using Endoscopic Ultrasound Spectrum Analysis With Electronic Array Echo Endoscopes

Our purpose was to demonstrate the use of radiofrequency spectral analysis to distinguish between benign and malignant lymph nodes with data obtained using electronic array echo endoscopes, as we have done previously using mechanical echo endoscopes. In a prospective study, images were obtained from eight patients with benign-appearing lymph nodes and 11 with malignant lymph nodes, as verified by fine-needle aspiration. Midband fit, slope, intercept, correlation coefficient, and root-mean-square (RMS) deviation from a linear regression of the calibrated power spectra were determined and compared between the groups. Significant differences were observable for mean midband fit, intercept, and RMS deviation (t test P \u3c 0.05). For benign (n = 16) vs. malignant (n = 12) lymph nodes, midband fit and RMS deviation provided classification with 89 % accuracy and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.95 based on linear discriminant analysis. We concluded that the mean spectral parameters of the backscattered signals from electronic array echo endoscopy can provide a noninvasive method to quantitatively discriminate between benign and malignant lymph nodes

Linkage and related analyses of Barrett's esophagus and its associated adenocarcinomas

BACKGROUND: Familial aggregation and segregation analysis studies have provided evidence of a genetic basis for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its premalignant precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aim to demonstrate the utility of linkage analysis to identify the genomic regions that might contain the genetic variants that predispose individuals to this complex trait (BE and EAC). METHODS: We genotyped 144 individuals in 42 multiplex pedigrees chosen from 1000 singly ascertained BE/EAC pedigrees, and performed both model‐based and model‐free linkage analyses, using S.A.G.E. and other software. Segregation models were fitted, from the data on both the 42 pedigrees and the 1000 pedigrees, to determine parameters for performing model‐based linkage analysis. Model‐based and model‐free linkage analyses were conducted in two sets of pedigrees: the 42 pedigrees and a subset of 18 pedigrees with female affected members that are expected to be more genetically homogeneous. Genome‐wide associations were also tested in these families. RESULTS: Linkage analyses on the 42 pedigrees identified several regions consistently suggestive of linkage by different linkage analysis methods on chromosomes 2q31, 12q23, and 4p14. A linkage on 15q26 is the only consistent linkage region identified in the 18 female‐affected pedigrees, in which the linkage signal is higher than in the 42 pedigrees. Other tentative linkage signals are also reported. CONCLUSION: Our linkage study of BE/EAC pedigrees identified linkage regions on chromosomes 2, 4, 12, and 15, with some reported associations located within our linkage peaks. Our linkage results can help prioritize association tests to delineate the genetic determinants underlying susceptibility to BE and EAC

Predicting Barrett's Esophagus in Families: An Esophagus Translational Research Network (BETRNet) Model Fitting Clinical Data to a Familial Paradigm

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is often asymptomatic and only a small portion of BE patients are currently diagnosed and under surveillance. Therefore, it is important to develop risk prediction models to identify high-risk individuals with BE. Familial aggregation of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and the increased risk of EAC for individuals with a family history, raise the necessity of including genetic factors in the prediction model. Methods to determine risk prediction models using both risk covariates and ascertained family data are not well-developed

Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video)

Endoscopic screening for esophageal neoplasia can identify patients eligible for early intervention for pre-cancerous lesions. Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy may provide an efficient and accurate endoscopic assessment with fewer risks and less cost compared to conventional upper endoscopy

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. Trial registration NCT02476279, registered June 2015

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough

International cancer of the pancreas screening (CAPS) consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer

Background Screening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia. Objective To develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC. Methods A 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Results There was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome; and p16, BRCA2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screeni

A Molecular Clock Infers Heterogeneous Tissue Age Among Patients with Barrett's Esophagus

National Institutes of Health (www.nih.gov) and the National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov) under grants U01CA182940 (BG-U01) (to EGL, CJW, WDH, WMG, and KC), 5P30CA015704 (to WMG and CJW), 5U01CA152756 (to WMG and CJW), 5U54CA163060 (to AC), and NIH1P50CA150964-01A1 (to JEW

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 (RATES) Study

Background and aims Based on 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) 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 using a validated competency assessment tool that assesses technical and cognitive competence in a continuous fashion. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system and a comprehensive data collection and reporting system was built to create learning curves 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). Overall, 3786 exams were graded (EUS:1137; ERCP–biliary 2280, pancreatic 369). Learning curves for individual endpoints, 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

Quality Indicators for the Management of Barrett’s Esophagus, Dysplasia, and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: International Consensus Recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association Symposium

The development of and adherence to quality indicators in gastroenterology, as in all of medicine, is increasing in importance to ensure that patients receive consistent high-quality care. In addition, government-based and private insurers will be expecting documentation of the parameters by which we measure quality, which will likely affect reimbursements. Barrett’s esophagus remains a particularly important disease entity for which we should maintain up-to-date guidelines, given its commonality, potentially lethal outcomes, and controversies regarding screening and surveillance. To achieve this goal, a relatively large group of international experts was assembled and, using the modified Delphi method, evaluated the validity of multiple candidate quality indicators for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Several candidate quality indicators achieved >80% agreement. These statements are intended to serve as a consensus on candidate quality indicators for those who treat patients with Barrett’s esophagus