Search

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a useful tool in pancreatic cancer diagnosis. However, the procedure itself may cause peritoneal dissemination and needle tract seeding at the puncture site. We herein report two cases of gastric wall metastasis due to needle tract seeding after EUS-FNA., Case Presentation: Case 1: A 68-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital for persistent cough. Computed tomography (CT) scan revealed inflammatory changes in the left lung field, and incidentally, a 15-mm hypovascular mass was detected in the pancreatic body. She underwent EUS-FNA and was diagnosed as pancreatic adenocarcinoma. She underwent distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy; however, a small hard mass was observed in the posterior gastric wall during surgery. We performed partial gastrectomy, and the resected specimen was diagnosed as a needle tract seeding following EUS-FNA. She then underwent adjuvant chemotherapy with TS-1, but the pancreatic cancer showed recurrence 6 months after surgery. She died due to peritoneal dissemination 18 months after surgery. Case 2: A 70-year-old man was incidentally detected with a pancreatic body mass on a CT scan as part of his follow-up for recurrence of basal cell carcinoma. He underwent EUS-FNA and was diagnosed as pancreatic adenocarcinoma. He had nodules in both lungs, and it was difficult to differentiate them from lung metastasis of pancreatic cancer. Therefore, he underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and thereafter, the lung nodules showed no changes; hence, he underwent distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. During surgery, we observed a hard mass in the posterior gastric wall. We performed partial gastrectomy, and the resected specimen was diagnosed as needle tract seeding due to EUS-FNA. He underwent chemotherapy with TS-1, and he is still alive 18 months after surgery at the time of writing., Conclusion: For resectable pancreatic body or tail tumors, EUS-FNA should be carefully performed to prevent needle tract seeding and intraoperative as well as postoperative assessment for gastric wall metastasis is mandatory.

The efficacy of 2nd-look esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with endoscopic hemostatic therapy (EHT) for the prevention of postendoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) clinical bleeding remains controversial. The aim of this study was to estimate post-ESD bleeding rate using 2nd and 3rd-look strategy, and to determine risk factors for clinical bleeding, and for EHT at 2nd and 3rd-look EGDs.Three hundred forty-four consecutive patients with early gastric cancer or adenoma underwent ESD from January 2006 through March 2012. Second and 3rd-look EGDs were performed on day 1 (D1) and day 7 (D7), respectively, with EHT as needed.Post-ESD clinical bleeding rate was 2.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2%-4.9%). For clinical bleeding, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for age <65 years and antithrombotic drug uses were 4.40 (95% CI 1.07-19.93) and 7.34 (95% CI 1.80-32.48), respectively. For D1 EHT, adjusted ORs of tumor location in the lower part of the stomach and maximum tumor diameter ≥60 mm were 2.16 (95% CI 1.35-3.51) and 2.20 (95% CI 1.05-4.98), respectively. For D7 EHT, adjusted OR of D1 EHT was 4.65 (95% CI 1.56-20.0).Post-ESD clinical bleeding rate was relatively low using 2nd and 3rd-look strategy. Age <65 years and antithrombotic drug use are significant risk factors for clinical bleeding. Regarding EHT, tumor location in the lower part of the stomach and maximum diameter of resected specimen ≥60 mm are significant predictors for D1 EHT. D1 EHT in turn is a significant risk factor for D7 EHT. The efficacy of sequential strategy for preventing post-ESD bleeding is promising.

Background: Incomplete resection of gastric neoplasms by endoscopic treatment could lead to residual/local recurrence, which may be difficult to identify. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of magnifying endoscopy for identifying and demarcating residual/local recurrent gastric neoplasms after endoscopic treatment., Methods: Between December 2004 and November 2010, magnifying endoscopy was performed in 15 patients with residual/local recurrent gastric neoplasms. All patients underwent conventional magnifying endoscopy (CME) and enhanced-magnification endoscopy with acetic acid instillation (EME) after conventional endoscopy (CE). Eleven patients additionally underwent magnifying endoscopy using narrow-band imaging (NBI-ME) and a combination of narrow-band imaging and acetic acid instillation (NBI-EME). For each procedure, it was recorded whether the location and circumferential demarcation of the lesions were identified. All lesions were resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection., Results: Eleven lesions were identified using CE. However, two and four additional lesions were identified using CME and EME, respectively. In 11 cases, NBI-ME and NBI-EME were performed and all lesions were identified. Three lesions, which were identified by CME, were not demarcated circumferentially. All 15 lesions were well demarcated by EME and 11 by NBI-ME and NBI-EME. Of the resected specimens, histopathology indicated that ten lesions were differentiated tubular adenocarcinomas and five lesions were adenomas. The histopathological diagnosis of the location and demarcation of all neoplasms corresponded to endoscopic findings., Conclusions: Magnifying endoscopy techniques (CME, EME, NBI-ME, and NBI-EME) may be useful for identifying and demarcating residual/local recurrent gastric neoplasms after previous endoscopic treatment.