Strategy Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage to Percutaneous Transhepatic Gallbladder Drainage, Following Failed Emergent Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is recommended for patients with acute cholecystitis at high risk for surgery/percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has higher success and mortality rates than ETGBD. Optimal endoscopic drainage remains controversial. Patients with moderate/severe acute cholecystitis and high risk for surgery/PTGBD who underwent ETGBD were enrolled. In the new-ETGBD (N-ETGBD)/traditional-ETGBD (T-ETGBD) strategy, patients in whom the initial ETGBD failed underwent rescue-EUS-GBD in the same endoscopic session/rescue-PTGBD, respectively. Therapeutic outcomes were compared. Patients who could not undergo rescue-EUS-GBD/PTGBD owing to poor general conditions received conservative treatment. Technical success was defined as successful ETGBD or successful rescue-EUS-GBD/PTGBD. Forty-one/forty patients were enrolled in the N-ETGBD/T-ETGBD groups, respectively. The N-ETGBD group had a higher, though non-significant, technical success rate compared to the T-ETGBD group (97.6 vs. 90.0%, p = 0.157). The endoscopic technical success rate was significantly higher in the N-ETGBD than in the T-ETGBD group (97.6 vs. 82.5%, p = 0.023). The clinical success/adverse event rates were similar between both groups. The hospitalization duration was significantly shorter in the N-ETGBD than in the T-ETGBD group (6.6 ± 3.9 vs. 10.1 ± 6.4 days, p < 0.001). ETGBD with EUS-GBD as a rescue backup may be an ideal hybrid drainage for emergency endoscopic gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients

Pre-Operative Imaging and Pathological Diagnosis of Localized High-Grade Pancreatic Intra-Epithelial Neoplasia without Invasive Carcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) arises from precursor lesions, such as pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (PanIN) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). The prognosis of high-grade precancerous lesions, including high-grade PanIN and high-grade IPMN, without invasive carcinoma is good, despite the overall poor prognosis of PDAC. High-grade PanIN, as a lesion preceding invasive PDAC, is therefore a primary target for intervention. However, detection of localized high-grade PanIN is difficult when using standard radiological approaches. Therefore, most studies of high-grade PanIN have been conducted using specimens that harbor invasive PDAC. Recently, imaging characteristics of high-grade PanIN have been revealed. Obstruction of the pancreatic duct due to high-grade PanIN may induce a loss of acinar cells replaced by fibrosis and lobular parenchymal atrophy. These changes and additional inflammation around the branch pancreatic ducts (BPDs) result in main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenosis, dilation, retention cysts (BPD dilation), focal pancreatic parenchymal atrophy, and/or hypoechoic changes around the MPD. These indirect imaging findings have become important clues for localized, high-grade PanIN detection. To obtain pre-operative histopathological confirmation of suspected cases, serial pancreatic-juice aspiration cytologic examination is effective. In this review, we outline current knowledge on imaging characteristics of high-grade PanIN

Diagnostic Strategy of Early Stage Pancreatic Cancer via Clinical Predictor Assessment: Clinical Indicators, Risk Factors and Imaging Findings

Early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in the general population is difficult due to unknown clinical characteristics. This study was conducted to clarify the factors associated with early stage PDAC. Well-known symptoms and factors associated with PDAC were classified into clinical indicators, risk factors, and imaging findings concomitant with early stage PDAC. To analyze these factors for the detection of patients with early stage PDAC compared to patients without PDAC, we constructed new diagnostic strategies. The factors of 35 patients with early stage PDAC (stage 0 and IA) and 801 patients without PDAC were compared retrospectively. Clinical indicators; presence and number of indicators, elevated pancreatic enzyme level, tumor biomarker level, acute pancreatitis history, risk factors; familial pancreatic cancer, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, imaging findings; presence and number of findings, and main pancreatic duct dilation were significant factors for early stage PDAC detection. A new screening strategy to select patients who should be examined by imaging modalities from evaluating clinical indicators and risk factors and approaching a definitive diagnosis by evaluating imaging findings had a relatively high sensitivity, specificity, and areas under the curve of 80.0%, 80.8%, and 0.80, respectively. Diagnosis based on the new category and strategy may be reasonable for early stage PDAC detection