Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare radiofrequency ablation with surgical resection for treatment of pancreatic insulinoma

Background: Insulinoma is the most common functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and treatment is required to address symptoms associated with insulin hypersecretion. Surgical resection is effective but burdened by high rate of adverse events (AEs). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) demonstrated encouraging results in terms of safety and efficacy for the management of these tumors. However, studies comparing surgery and EUS-RFA are lacking. Aims: The primary aim is to compare EUS-RFA with surgery in term of safety (overall rate of AEs). Secondary endpoints include: (a) severe AEs rate; (b) clinical effectiveness; (c) patient's quality of life; (d) length of hospital stay; (e) rate of local/distance recurrence; (f) need of reintervention; (g) rate of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency; (h) factors associated with EUS-RFA related AEs and clinical effectiveness. Methods: ERASIN-RCT is an international randomized superiority ongoing trial in four countries. Sixty patients will be randomized in two arms (EUS-RFA vs surgery) and outcomes compared. Two EUS-RFA sessions will be allowed to achieve symptoms resolution. Randomization and data collection will be performed online. Discussion: This study will ascertain if EUS-RFA can become the first-line therapy for management of small, sporadic, pancreatic insulinoma and be included in a step-up approach in case of clinical failure. & COPY; 2023 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

EUS-derived criteria for distinguishing benign from malignant metastatic solid hepatic masses

Background Detection of hepatic metastases during EUS is an important component of tumor staging. Objective To describe our experience with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of solid hepatic masses and derive and validate criteria to help distinguish between benign and malignant hepatic masses. Design Retrospective study, survey. Setting Single, tertiary-care referral center. Patients Medical records were reviewed for all patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid hepatic masses over a 12-year period. Interventions EUS-FNA of solid hepatic masses. Main Outcome Measurements Masses were deemed benign or malignant according to predetermined criteria. EUS images from 200 patients were used to create derivation and validation cohorts of 100 cases each, matched by cytopathologic diagnosis. Ten expert endosonographers blindly rated 15 initial endosonographic features of each of the 100 images in the derivation cohort. These data were used to derive an EUS scoring system that was then validated by using the validation cohort by the expert endosonographer with the highest diagnostic accuracy. Results A total of 332 patients underwent EUS-FNA of a hepatic mass. Interobserver agreement regarding the initial endosonographic features among the expert endosonographers was fair to moderate, with a mean diagnostic accuracy of 73% (standard deviation 5.6). A scoring system incorporating 7 EUS features was developed to distinguish benign from malignant hepatic masses by using the derivation cohort with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.92; when applied to the validation cohort, performance was similar (AUC 0.86). The combined positive predictive value of both cohorts was 88%. Limitations Single center, retrospective, only one expert endosonographer deriving and validating the EUS criteria. Conclusion An EUS scoring system was developed that helps distinguish benign from malignant hepatic masses. Further study is required to determine the impact of these EUS criteria among endosonographers of all experience