American Journal of Gastroenterology最新文献

Introduction: To study digestive system cancer risks in individuals with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) in the biologic era.

Methods: We used population-level administrative and cancer registry data from Ontario, Canada, (1994-2020) to compare people with IBD to matched controls (1:10 by sex and birth year) on trends in age-sex standardized cancer incidence and risk ratios of incident cancers and cancer-related deaths.

Results: Among 110,919 people with IBD and 1,109,190 controls, colorectal cancer incidence (per 100,000 person-years) declined similarly in people with ulcerative colitis (average annual percentage change [AAPC] -1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.48 to -1.156) and controls (AAPC -2.79; 95% CI -3.44 to -2.14), while small bowel cancer incidence rose faster in those with Crohn's disease (AAPC 9.68; 95% CI 2.51-17.3) than controls (AAPC 3.64; 95% CI 1.52-5.80). Extraintestinal digestive cancer incidence rose faster in people with IBD (AAPC 3.27; 95% CI 1.83-4.73) than controls (AAPC -1.87; 95% CI -2.33 to -1.42), particularly for liver (IBD AAPC 8.48; 95% CI 4.11-13.1) and bile duct (IBD AAPC 7.22; 95% CI 3.74-10.8) cancers. Beyond 2010, the incidences (and respective mortality rates) of colorectal (1.60; 95% CI 1.46-1.75), small bowel (4.10; 95% CI 3.37-4.99), bile duct (2.33; 95% CI 1.96-2.77), and pancreatic (1.19; 95% CI 1.00-1.40) cancers were higher in people with IBD.

Discussion: Cancer incidence is declining for colorectal cancer and rising for other digestive cancers in people with IBD. Incidence and mortality remain higher in people with IBD than controls for colorectal, small bowel, bile duct, and pancreatic cancers.

Introduction: Preliminary data suggest that an encapsulated balloon (EsoCheck), coupled with a 2 methylated DNA biomarker panel (EsoGuard), detects Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) with high accuracy. The initial assay requires sample freezing upon collection. The purpose of this study was to assess a next-generation EsoCheck sampling device and EsoGuard assay in a much-enlarged multicenter study clinically enhanced by using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988-compliant assay and samples maintained at room temperature.

Methods: Cases with nondysplastic BE (NDBE), dysplastic BE (indefinite for dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia), EAC, junctional adenocarcinoma, plus endoscopy controls without esophageal intestinal metaplasia, were prospectively enrolled. Medical assistants at 6 institutions delivered the encapsulated balloon per orally with inflation in the stomach. The inflated balloon sampled the distal 5 cm of the esophagus and then was deflated and retracted into the capsule, preventing sample contamination. EsoGuard bisulfite sequencing assayed levels of methylated vimentin and methylated cyclin A1.

Results: A total of 243 evaluable patients-88 cases (median age 68 years, 78% men, 92% White) and 155 controls (median age 57 years, 41% men, 88% White)-underwent adequate EsoCheck sampling. The mean procedural time was approximately 3 minutes. Cases included 31 with NDBE, 16 with indefinite for dysplasia/low-grade dysplasia, 23 with high-grade dysplasia, and 18 with EAC/junctional adenocarcinoma. Thirty-seven NDBE and dysplastic BE cases (53%) were short-segment BE (<3 cm). Overall sensitivity was 85% (95% confidence interval 0.78-0.93) and specificity was 85% (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.90). Sensitivity for NDBE was 84%. EsoCheck/EsoGuard detected 100% of cancers (n = 18).

Discussion: EsoCheck/EsoGuard demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in detecting BE and BE-related neoplasia.

Article Title: Early Diagnostic Paracentesis Improves Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Cirrhosis and Ascites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is frequently used to risk-stratify pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). Rising PCL incidence and developments in tissue acquisition and specimen analysis necessitate updated appraisal of EUS-FNA safety, particularly the risk of postprocedure pancreatitis, the most common EUS-FNA-related adverse event. Our systematic review aims to accurately quantify the risk of EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis to best inform decisions regarding EUS-FNA's optimal role in PCL workup.

Methods: We performed systematic searches in 4 databases from inception to April 2024 for original English-language studies investigating EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis. We extracted data on demographics and EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis risk, severity, and risk factors. These were meta-analyzed through the DerSimonian Laird Method using a random-effects model. Meta-regression of pancreatitis risk was performed to delineate associations with clinical and procedural characteristics.

Results: Sixty-four studies comprised 8,086 patients and reported 110 EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis events. Pooled risk of EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis was 1.4% (95% confidence intervals, -0.8% to 3.5%; I2 = 0.00), which was predominantly of mild severity (67%) and uniformly nonfatal. Pancreatitis risk lacked significant association with sample size, age, sex, cyst size, needle caliber, or passes, although we noted trends toward higher risk in studies published after 2015, those using higher gauge needles (19 G vs 22 G/25 G), and those performing EUS-guided through-the-needle biopsy.

Discussion: We note with high certainty that pancreatitis after EUS-FNA of PCLs is infrequent and mild in severity with no mortality in the included cohort. EUS-guided through-the-needle biopsy may serve as a significant risk factor for EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis risk; however, further studies are needed to delineate other predisposing characteristics.