Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnostic work-up of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (PICUS):study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered

Does delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients affect tumor stage and survival? A population-based observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) at an early stage improves survival. To what extent any delay affects outcome once patients are symptomatic is still unclear.</p> <p>Our objectives were to evaluate the association between diagnostic delay and survival in symptomatic patients with early stage CRC and late stage CRC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective population-based observational study evaluating daily clinical practice in Northern Holland. Diagnostic delay was determined through questionnaire-interviews. Dukes' stage was classified into two groups: early stage (Dukes A or B) and late stage (Dukes C or D) cancer. Patients were followed up for 3.5 years after diagnosis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 272 patients were available for analysis. Early stage CRC was present in 136 patients while 136 patients had late stage CRC. The mean total diagnostic delay (SE) was 31 (1.5) weeks in all CRC patients. No significant difference was observed in the mean total diagnostic delay in early versus late stage CRC (<it>p </it>= 0.27).</p> <p>In early stage CRC, no difference in survival was observed between patients with total diagnostic delay shorter and longer than the median (Kaplan-Meier, log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.93).</p> <p>In late stage CRC, patients with a diagnostic delay shorter than the median had a shorter survival than patients with a diagnostic delay longer than the median (log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.01). In the multivariate Cox regression model with survival as dependent variable and median delay, age, open access endoscopy, number and type of symptoms as independent variables, the odd's ratio for survival in patients with long delay (>median) versus short delay (≤median) was 1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 3.0; <it>p </it>= 0.01). Tumor-site was not associated with patient survival. When separating late stage CRC in Dukes C and Dukes D tumors, a shorter delay was associated with a shorter survival in Dukes D tumors only and not in Dukes C tumors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In symptomatic CRC patients, a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay in routine clinical practice was not associated with an adverse effect on survival. The time to CRC diagnosis and initiation of treatment did not differ between early stage and late stage colorectal cancer.</p

Laparoscopic versus EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: an international multicenter propensity score-matched comparison (with video)

Background and Aims: In the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) seems to be safe and more effective than enteral stent placement. However, comparisons with laparoscopic GE (L-GE) are scarce. Our aim was to perform a propensity score–matched comparison between EUS-GE and L-GE. Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive EUS-GE and L-GE procedures in 3 academic centers (January 2015 to May 2020) using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. A standard maximum propensity score difference of .1 was applied, also considering underlying disease and oncologic staging. Results: Overall, 77 patients were treated with EUS-GE and 48 patients with L-GE. By means of propensity score matching, 37 patients were allocated to both groups, resulting in 74 (1:1) matched patients. Technical success was achieved in 35 of 37 EUS-GE–treated patients (94.6%) versus 100% in the L-GE group (P = .493). Clinical success, defined as eating without vomiting or GOO Scoring System ≥2, was achieved in 97.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P = .358). Median time to oral intake (1 [interquartile range {IQR}, .3-1.0] vs 3 [IQR, 1.0-5.0] days, P < .001) and median hospital stay (4 [IQR, 2-8] vs 8 [IQR, 5.5-20] days, P < .001) were significantly shorter in the EUS-GE group. Overall (2.7% vs 27.0%, P = .007) and severe (.0% vs 16.2%, P = .025) adverse events were identified more frequently in the L-GE group. Conclusions: For patients with GOO, EUS-GE and L-GE showed almost identical technical and clinical success. However, reduced time to oral intake, shorter median hospital stay, and lower rate of adverse events suggest that the EUS-guided approach might be preferable

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention - 5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention - 5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable