Active surveillance of oesophageal cancer after response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy:dysphagia is uncommon

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance is being investigated as an alternative to standard surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. It is unknown whether dysphagia persists or develops when the oesophagus is preserved after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and severity of dysphagia during active surveillance in patients with an ongoing response. METHODS: Patients who underwent active surveillance were identified from the Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer ('SANO') trial. Patients without evidence of residual oesophageal cancer until at least 6 months after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included. Study endpoints were assessed at time points that patients were cancer-free and remained cancer-free for the next 4 months. Dysphagia scores were evaluated at 6, 9, 12, and 16 months after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Scores were based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer oesophago-gastric quality-of-life questionnaire 25 (EORTC QLQ-OG25) (range 0-100; no to severe dysphagia). The rate of patients with a (non-)traversable stenosis was determined based on all available endoscopy reports. RESULTS: In total, 131 patients were included, of whom 93 (71.0 per cent) had adenocarcinoma, 93 (71.0 per cent) had a cT3-4a tumour, and 33 (25.2 per cent) had a tumour circumference of greater than 75 per cent at endoscopy; 60.8 to 71.0 per cent of patients completed questionnaires per time point after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. At all time points after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, median dysphagia scores were 0 (interquartile range 0-0). Two patients (1.5 per cent) underwent an intervention for a stenosis: one underwent successful endoscopic dilatation; and the other patient required temporary tube feeding. Notably, these patients did not participate in questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Dysphagia and clinically relevant stenosis are uncommon during active surveillance.</p

Active surveillance of oesophageal cancer after response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy:dysphagia is uncommon

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance is being investigated as an alternative to standard surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. It is unknown whether dysphagia persists or develops when the oesophagus is preserved after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and severity of dysphagia during active surveillance in patients with an ongoing response. METHODS: Patients who underwent active surveillance were identified from the Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer ('SANO') trial. Patients without evidence of residual oesophageal cancer until at least 6 months after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included. Study endpoints were assessed at time points that patients were cancer-free and remained cancer-free for the next 4 months. Dysphagia scores were evaluated at 6, 9, 12, and 16 months after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Scores were based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer oesophago-gastric quality-of-life questionnaire 25 (EORTC QLQ-OG25) (range 0-100; no to severe dysphagia). The rate of patients with a (non-)traversable stenosis was determined based on all available endoscopy reports. RESULTS: In total, 131 patients were included, of whom 93 (71.0 per cent) had adenocarcinoma, 93 (71.0 per cent) had a cT3-4a tumour, and 33 (25.2 per cent) had a tumour circumference of greater than 75 per cent at endoscopy; 60.8 to 71.0 per cent of patients completed questionnaires per time point after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. At all time points after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, median dysphagia scores were 0 (interquartile range 0-0). Two patients (1.5 per cent) underwent an intervention for a stenosis: one underwent successful endoscopic dilatation; and the other patient required temporary tube feeding. Notably, these patients did not participate in questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Dysphagia and clinically relevant stenosis are uncommon during active surveillance.</p

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

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION):Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Electromagnetic guided bedside or endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients (CORE trial) : Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Gastroparesis is common in surgical patients and frequently leads to the need for enteral tube feeding. Nasoenteral feeding tubes are usually placed endoscopically by gastroenterologists, but this procedure is relatively cumbersome for patients and labor-intensive for hospital staff. Electromagnetic (EM) guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may reduce patient discomfort, workload and costs, but randomized studies are lacking, especially in surgical patients. We hypothesize that EM guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes is at least as effective as endoscopic placement in surgical patients, at lower costs. Methods/Design: The CORE trial is an investigator-initiated, parallel-group, pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. A total of 154 patients admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five hospitals, requiring nasoenteral feeding, will be randomly allocated to undergo EM guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. Primary outcome is reinsertion of the feeding tube, defined as the insertion of an endoscope or tube in the nose/mouth and esophagus for (re)placement of the feeding tube (e.g. after failed initial placement or dislodgement or blockage of the tube). Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes, costs and tube (placement) related complications. Discussion: The CORE trial is designed to generate evidence on the effectiveness of EM guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients and the impact on costs as compared to endoscopic placement. The trial potentially offers a strong argument for wider implementation of this technique as method of choice for placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register: NTR4420 ,date registered 5-feb-201

Electromagnetic-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses is non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists : A multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: Electromagnetic (EM)-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may improve efficiency and reduce patient discomfort and costs compared with endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists. However, evidence supporting this task shift from gastroenterologists to nurses is limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in 154 adult patients who required nasoenteral feeding and were admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. The primary end point was the need for reinsertion of the feeding tube (e.g., after failed initial placement or owing to tube-related complications) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%. RESULTS: Reinsertion was required in 29 (36%) of the 80 patients in the EM-guided group and 31 (42%) of the 74 patients in the endoscopy group (absolute risk difference -6%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval 7%; P for non-inferiority=0.022). No differences were noted in success and complication rates. In the EM-guided group, there was a reduced time to start of feeding (424 vs. 535 min, P=0.001). Although the level of discomfort was higher in the EM-guided group (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 3.9 vs. 2.0, P=0.009), EM-guided placement received higher recommendation scores (VAS 8.2 vs. 5.5, P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: EM-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses was non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists in surgical patients and may be considered the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement

Correction : Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. (American Journal of Gastroenterology 2019 (114) (1012) DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.224)

In the August 2016 issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology, in Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial the authors report a misspelling of an author's name in the author list. Author Elisabeth M. Mathus- Vliegent should have been written as Elisabeth M. Mathus-Vliegen

Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Electromagnetic (EM)-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may improve efficiency and reduce patient discomfort and costs compared with endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists. However, evidence supporting this task shift from gastroenterologists to nurses is limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in 154 adult patients who required nasoenteral feeding and were admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. The primary end point was the need for reinsertion of the feeding tube (e.g., after failed initial placement or owing to tube-related complications) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%. Reinsertion was required in 29 (36%) of the 80 patients in the EM-guided group and 31 (42%) of the 74 patients in the endoscopy group (absolute risk difference -6%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval 7%; P for non-inferiority=0.022). No differences were noted in success and complication rates. In the EM-guided group, there was a reduced time to start of feeding (424 vs. 535 min, P=0.001). Although the level of discomfort was higher in the EM-guided group (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 3.9 vs. 2.0, P=0.009), EM-guided placement received higher recommendation scores (VAS 8.2 vs. 5.5, P=0.008). EM-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses was non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists in surgical patients and may be considered the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placemen