Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society最新文献

In recent years, the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been recognized in children. A dedicated pediatric EUS scope has not been developed; in our experience, however, an adult EUS scope can be used. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technical Committee status assessment report on pediatric endoscopy equipment provides some guidance on the feasibility of EUS according to body size. Careful monitoring is required, keeping in mind potential adverse events such as cervical esophageal perforation and unstable breathing due to tracheal compression. Most devices designed for interventional pancreatobiliary endoscopy are also available for children. Sedation or intubated general anesthesia (GA) is mandatory when performing interventional EUS (I-EUS). I-EUS for children is generally performed using GA in the operating room, but sedation in the endoscopy room is also possible under appropriate monitoring by pediatricians. I-EUS in the operating room is sometimes difficult for endoscopists to perform because of the unsuitable fluoroscopic imaging and the lack of familiar equipment and staff. Compared to GA, sedation in the endoscopy room facilitates easier and quicker repetition of procedures when necessary. Adult pancreatobiliary endoscopists perform most I-EUS procedures in the pediatric population because most pediatric endoscopists have few opportunities to perform EUS-related procedures and thus have difficulty maintaining their skills. To popularize I-EUS techniques for children, it will be necessary to establish a training program for developing pediatric endoscopists.

Objectives: Detective flow imaging endoscopic ultrasonography (DFI-EUS) is a recent imaging modality developed for detecting fine vessels without the need for ultrasound contrast agents. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the utility of DFI-EUS for solid pancreatic lesions and to compare the diagnostic ability for pancreatic cancer (PC) between DFI-EUS, directional power Doppler (eFLOW) EUS, and contrast-enhanced harmonic (CH)-EUS.

Methods: Patients with a pancreatic lesion who underwent DFI-EUS, eFLOW-EUS, and CH-EUS between March 2019 and November 2023 were retrospectively enrolled. Final diagnoses were confirmed by pathologic examination of EUS-guided tissue acquisition and/or resected specimens. Lesions were categorized into the three patterns of poor, mild, and rich vascularity on DFI-EUS and eFLOW-EUS, and hypo-, iso-, and hypervascular on CH-EUS. PC was defined as a poor pattern on DFI-EUS and eFLOW-EUS, and a hypovascular pattern on CH-EUS.

Results: The final diagnoses of 90 examined tumors were PC (n = 57), inflammatory mass (n = 6), autoimmune pancreatitis (n = 13), neuroendocrine tumor (n = 9), and others (n = 5). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of PC were 93%, 82%, and 88%, respectively, on DFI-EUS, 97%, 42%, and 77% on eFLOW-EUS, and 95%, 89%, and 92% on CH-EUS. The accuracy of DFI-EUS was significantly superior to eFLOW-EUS (P = 0.005), but no significant difference was found between DFI-EUS and CH-EUS.

Conclusion: DFI-EUS is more sensitive for depicting vasculature than eFLOW-EUS, and has higher diagnostic sensitivity for PC. Evaluation of vascularity on DFI-EUS is useful for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic lesions without the need for intravenous contrast agent.

Objectives: This study investigated the incidence of lymph node metastasis and long-term outcomes in patients with T1 colorectal cancer where endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) resulted in noncurative treatment. It is focused on those with deep submucosal invasion, a factor considered a weak predictor of lymph node metastasis in the absence of other risk factors.

Methods: This nationwide, multicenter, prospective study conducted a post-hoc analysis of 141 patients with T1 colorectal cancer ≥20 mm where ESD of the lesion resulted in noncurative outcomes, characterized by poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion (≥1000 μm), lymphovascular invasion, high-grade tumor budding, or positive vertical margins. Clinicopathologic features and patient prognoses focusing on lesion sites and additional surgery requirements were evaluated. Lymph node metastasis incidence in the low-risk T1 group, identified by deep submucosal invasion as the sole high-risk histological feature, was assessed.

Results: Lymph node metastasis occurred in 14% of patients undergoing additional surgery post-noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection for T1 colorectal cancer. In the low-risk T1 group, in the absence of other risk factors, the frequency was 9.7%. The lymph node metastasis rates in patients with T1 colon and rectal cancers did not differ significantly (14% vs. 16%). Distant recurrence was observed in one patient (2.3%) in the ESD only group and in one (1.0%) in the additional surgery group, both of whom had had rectal cancer removed.

Conclusion: The risk of lymph node metastasis or distant occurrence was not negligible, even in the low-risk T1 group. The findings suggest the need for considering additional surgery, particularly for rectal lesions (Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN000010136).

Objectives: There are no recommendations regarding the optimal puncture site in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). This multicenter randomized prospective study compared the diagnostic accuracy and histological findings according to the sampling site for pancreatic masses larger than 3 cm.

Methods: Consecutive patients with pancreatic masses larger than 3 cm indicated for EUS-FNB were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups for the initial puncture site (central vs. peripheral sampling of the masses). A minimum of four passes were performed, alternating between the center and the periphery. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy.

Results: A total of 100 patients were equally divided into the central group and the peripheral group. The final diagnosis revealed malignancy in 95 patients (pancreatic cancer [n = 89], neuroendocrine tumor [n = 4], lymphoma [n = 1], metastatic carcinoma [n = 1]), and benign conditions in five patients (chronic pancreatitis [n = 4], autoimmune pancreatitis [n = 1]). There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the puncture sites. However, combining samples from both areas resulted in higher diagnostic accuracy (97.0%) compared to either area alone, with corresponding values of 88.0% for the center (P = 0.02) and 85.0% for the periphery (P = 0.006).

Conclusions: Both central sampling and peripheral sampling showed equivalent diagnostic accuracy in detecting malignancy. However, combining samples from both areas generated superior diagnostic yield compared to using either sampling site alone. For pancreatic masses larger than 3 cm, it is advisable to consider sampling from various areas of the masses to maximize the diagnostic yield.