Endoscopic Ultrasound最新文献

Background and objectives: Gastric varices (GVs) are associated with a higher risk of uncontrolled bleeding and death when compared with esophageal varices. While endoscopic glue injection therapy has been traditionally used for secondary prophylaxis in GV, data regarding primary prophylaxis continue to emerge. Recently, EUS-guided therapies have been used in GV bleeding.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several major databases from inception to June 2022. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, GV obliteration, GV recurrence, and rebleeding with EUS-guided therapy in primary and secondary prophylaxis. Overall adverse events and technical failures were assessed. Random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² % statistics.

Results: Eighteen studies with 604 patients were included. In primary prophylaxis, pooled rate of GV obliteration was 90.2% (confidence interval [CI], 81.1-95.2; I² = 0). With combination EUS-glue and coil therapy, the rate was 95.4% (CI, 86.7%-98.5%; I² = 0). Pooled rate of posttherapy GV bleeding was 4.9% (CI, 1.8%-12.4%; I² = 0). In secondary prophylaxis, pooled rate of treatment efficacy was 91.9% (CI, 86.8%-95.2%; I² = 12). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 94.3% (CI, 88.9%-97.1%; I² = 0), 95.5% (CI, 80.3%-99.1%; I² = 0), and 88.7% (CI, 76%-95.1%; I² = 14), respectively. Pooled rate of GV obliteration was 83.6% (CI, 71.5%-91.2%; I² = 74). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 84.6% (CI, 75.9%-90.6%; I² = 31), 92.3% (CI, 81.1%-97.1%; I² = 0), and 84.5% (CI, 50.8%-96.7%; I² = 75), respectively. Pooled rates of GV rebleeding and recurrence were 18.1% (CI, 13.1%-24.3%; I² = 16) and 20.6% (CI, 9.3%-39.5%; I² = 66), respectively.

Conclusion: Our analysis shows that EUS-guided therapy for GVs is technically feasible and clinically successful in both primary and secondary prophylaxis of GV.

Objectives: The objective of this pilot study was to compare the performance of contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with EUS-FNA for lymph node (LN) staging in esophageal cancer.

Methods: Thirty-seven subjects with esophageal cancer undergoing EUS staging were enrolled, and 30 completed this institutional review board-approved study. A Prosound F75 US system (Hitachi Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) with harmonic contrast imaging software and GF-UCT180 curvilinear endoscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was utilized. All LNs identified by standard EUS were first noted. Sonazoid (dose: 1 mL; GE Healthcare, Oslo, Norway) was administered peritumorally, and all enhanced LNs were recorded. Fine-needle aspiration was performed on LNs considered suspicious by EUS alone, as well as LNs enhanced on CE-EUS. Performance of each modality was compared using FNA cytology as reference standard.

Results: A total of 132 LNs were detected with EUS, of which 59 showed enhancement on CE-EUS. Fifty-three LNs underwent FNA, and 22 LNs were determined to be malignant. Among the latter, 10 were considered suspicious by EUS, whereas the other 12 LNs underwent FNA only because of CE-EUS enhancement. Contrast-enhanced EUS showed enhancement in 19 of the 22 malignant LNs. The rate of metastatic node identification from EUS was 45% (10/22), and it was 86% (19/22; P = 0.008) for CE-EUS. Eight subjects (8/30 [27% of study total]) had nodal status upgraded by the addition of CE-EUS, which influenced LN staging and clinical management.

Conclusions: Fine-needle aspiration of LNs identified by CE-EUS may increase metastasis positive rate by ruling out LNs not associated with the tumor drainage pattern. In addition, CE-EUS seems to identify more metastatic LNs that would not be biopsied under the standard EUS criteria.

Background and objectives: EUS-derived maximum tumor thickness (MTT) pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (LA-ESCC) indicates treatment response. However, the accuracy of predicting long-term survival remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the association between EUS-derived MTT pre- and post-NCRT and tumor shrinkage rate as well as long-term survival in patients with LA-ESCC receiving NCRT.

Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients with LA-ESCC who underwent EUS examination from 2017 to 2021. Tumor shrinkage rate was the ratio of the difference between pre- and post-MTT to pre-MTT. The most fitted cutoff values were determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to calculate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. Data from another center were also used for external validation testing.

Results: Two hundred thirty patients were enrolled. Of the patients, 178 completed the first EUS pre-NCRT and obtained pre-MTT, 200 completed the reexamined EUS post-NCRT and obtained post-MTT, and 148 completed both EUS and achieved tumor shrinkage. For all the patients, the 1- and 3-year OS rates were 93.9% and 67.9%, and progression-free survival rates were 77.7% and 54.1%, respectively. The median follow-up period was 30.6 months. Thinner post-MTT (≤8.8 mm) and EUS responder (tumor shrinkage rate ≥52%) were independently associated with better OS.

Conclusions: EUS-derived MTT and tumor shrinkage post-NCRT are independent prognostic factors for long-term survival and may be an alternative method for evaluating tumor response in patients with LA-ESCC after NCRT.

Background and objectives: Pancreatic cyst fluid level of glucose is a promising marker to identify mucinous from nonmucinous tumors, but the glucose assay has not yet been recommended. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic performances of pancreatic cyst fluid level of glucose and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

Methods: In this French multicenter study, data of consecutive patients who underwent fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cyst with intracyst glucose assay between 2018 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of glucose and corresponding sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), accuracy (Acc), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated and compared with those of CEA. The best threshold of glucose was identified using the Youden index.

Results: Of the 121 patients identified, 81 had a definitive diagnosis (46 mucinous, 35 nonmucinous tumors) and were included for analysis. An intracystic glucose level <41.8 mg/dL allowed identification of mucinous tumors with better diagnostic performances (AUROC, 93.6%; 95% confidence interval, 87.2%-100%; Se, 95.3%; Sp, 91.2%; Acc, 93.5%; PPV, 93.2%; NPV, 93.9%) compared with CEA level >192 ng/mL (AUROC, 81.2%; 95% confidence interval, 71.3%-91.1%; Se, 41.7%; Sp, 96.9%; Acc, 67.6%; PPV, 93.8%; NPV, 59.6%) (P = 0.035). Combining values of glucose and CEA did not offer additional benefit in terms of diagnosis.

Conclusion: Our results confirm previously published data and support the use of pancreatic cyst fluid glucose for the identification of mucinous tumors when the definitive diagnosis remains uncertain.

Background and objectives: Prospective studies comparing EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) to percutaneous LB (PC-LB) are scarce. We compared the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB with those of PC-LB in a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Methods: Between 2020 and 2021, patients were enrolled and randomized (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with ≥11 complete portal tracts (CPTs). The sample size (n = 80) was calculated based on the assumption that 60% of those in the EUS-LB and 90% of those in the PC-LB group will have LB with ≥11 CPTs. The secondary outcomes included proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established, number of CPTs, pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity), duration of hospital stay, and adverse events.

Results: Eighty patients were enrolled (median age, 53 years); 67.5% were female. Sixty percent of those in the EUS-LB and 75.0% of those in the PC-LB group met the primary outcome (P = 0.232). The median number of CPTs was higher in the PC-LB (17 vs 13; P = 0.031). The proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established was similar between the groups (92.5% [EUS-LB] vs 95.0% [PC-LB]; P = 1.0). Patients in the EUS-LB group had less pain severity (median Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, 2.0 vs 3.0; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (2.0 vs 4.0 hours; P < 0.0001) compared with the PC-LB group. No patient experienced a serious adverse event.

Conclusions: EUS-guided liver biopsy was safe, effective, better tolerated, and associated with a shorter hospital stay.

Background and objectives: EUS is a potential alternative for the drainage of abscesses. The aim of this study was to determine if EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and a valid option for abscess resolution.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review from 2002 to 2020 at a single quaternary institution. EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage via the transrectal route was performed in all patients with or without drain/stent placement. Technical and clinical success of EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage was analyzed. Descriptive analyses and Fisher exact test were performed.

Results: Sixty consecutive patients were included in the study (53.5% male; mean age, 53.8 ± 17.9 years). Pelvic abscesses occurred mainly postoperatively (33 cases; 60.0%) and from complicated diverticulitis (14 cases; 23.3%). Mean diameter was 6.5 ± 2.4 cm (80% unilocular). Drainage was performed with EUS-guided stent placement (double-pigtail plastic or lumen-apposing metal) in 74.5% of cases and with aspiration alone for the remainder. Technical success occurred in 58 cases (97%). Of those with long-term follow-up after EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (n = 55; 91.7%), complete abscess resolution occurred in 72.7% of all cases. Recurrence occurred in 8 cases (14.5%) and persisted in 7 patients (12.5%), 7 of which were successfully retreated with EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage. Accounting for these successful reinterventions, the overall rate of abscess resolution was 85.5%. Abscess resolution rate improved with drain placement (83%). Accounting for 7 repeat EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainages, overall abscess resolution improved. Two deaths occurred (3.4%) because of sepsis from failed source control in patients who had previously failed medical, radiological, and surgical treatment.

Conclusions: EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and an effective alternative to radiological or open surgical drainage. It also offers favorable clinical outcomes in different clinical situations.