Search

Oxidative stress mechanisms may explain associations between perinatal acetaminophen exposure and childhood attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We investigated whether the changes in umbilical cord plasma amino acids needed to synthesize the antioxidant glutathione and in the oxidative stress biomarker 8-hydroxy-deoxyguanosine may explain the association between cord plasma acetaminophen and ADHD in the Boston Birth Cohort (BBC). Mother–child dyads were followed at the Boston Medical Center between 1998 and 2018. Cord plasma analytes were measured from archived samples collected at birth. Physician diagnoses of childhood ADHD were obtained from medical records. The final sample consisted of 568 participants (child mean age [SD]: 9.3 [3.5] years, 315 (52.8%) male, 248 (43.7%) ADHD, 320 (56.3%) neurotypical development). Cord unmetabolized acetaminophen was positively correlated with methionine (R = 0.33, p &lt, 0.001), serine (R = 0.30, p &lt, 0.001), glycine (R = 0.34, p &lt, 0.001), and glutamate (R = 0.16, p &lt, 0.001). Children with cord acetaminophen levels &gt, 50th percentile appeared to have higher risk of ADHD for each increase in cord 8-hydroxy-deoxyguanosine level. Adjusting for covariates, increasing cord methionine, glycine, serine, and 8-hydroxy-deoxyguanosine were associated with significantly higher odds for childhood ADHD. Cord methionine statistically mediated 22.1% (natural indirect effect logOR = 0.167, SE = 0.071, p = 0.019) and glycine mediated 22.0% (natural indirect effect logOR = 0.166, SE = 0.078, p = 0.032) of the association between cord acetaminophen &gt, 50th percentile with ADHD. Our findings provide some clues, but additional investigation into oxidative stress pathways and the association of acetaminophen exposure and childhood ADHD is warranted.

Background and Aims Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is typically diagnosed at a late stage. Little is known about the incidental finding of early-stage PDAC. The aim of the current study was to determine the etiology of small solid pancreatic lesions (≤15 mm) to optimize clinical management. Methods Inclusion criterion for the retrospective study analysis was the incidental finding of primarily undetermined small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm in 394 asymptomatic patients. Final diagnoses were based on histology or cytology obtained by imaging-guided biopsy (and at least 12-month follow-up) and/or surgery. Contrast-enhanced US or contrast-enhanced EUS was performed in 219 patients. Results The final diagnoses of 394 patients were as follows: 146 PDACs, 156 neuroendocrine tumors, 28 metastases into the pancreas from other primary sites, and 64 various other etiologies. Contrast-enhanced US allowed differential diagnosis of PDAC and non-PDAC in 189 of 219 patients (86%). Conclusions Approximately 40% of patients with small solid pancreatic lesions had very early stage PDAC. Approximately 60% of small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm are not PDAC and, therefore, do not require radical surgery. Without preoperative diagnosis, an unacceptably large proportion of patients would be exposed to radical surgery with significant morbidity and mortality.

Recently, we introduced a series of papers describing on how to perform certain techniques and controversies in EUS. In the first paper, “What should be known before performing EUS examinations, Part I,” the authors discussed clinical information and whether other imaging modalities should be needed before embarking in EUS examination. In Part II, some technical controversies on how EUS is performed are discussed from different points of view by providing the relevant available evidence. Herewith, we describe on how to perform EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (FNT) in daily practice. The aim of this paper is to discuss pros and cons for several issues including historical remarks, injecting material, technical approach, and how to perform EUS-FNT including argues in favor and against.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was shown to be useful for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, there is lack of consensus on how EUS-BD should be performed. Methods: This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS conducted in February 2018. The survey consisted of 10 questions related to the practice of EUS-BD. Results: Forty-six endoscopists of them completed the survey. The majority of endoscopists felt that EUS-BD could replace percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failure of ERCP. Among all EUS-BD methods, the rendezvous stenting technique should be the First choice. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were recommended by most endoscopists. For EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), superiority of partially-covered SEMS over fully-covered SEMS was not in agreement. 6-Fr cystotomes were recommended for fistula creation. During the HGS approach, longer SEMS (8 or 10 cm) was recommended. During the choledochoduodenostomy approach, 6-cm SEMS was recommended. During the intrahepatic (IH) approach, the IH segment 3 was recommended. Conclusion: This is the first worldwide survey on the practice of EUS-BD for MBO. There were wide variations in practice, and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for the management of this condition.