Search

This is the fifth in a series of papers entitled 'Controversies in EUS.' In the current paper, we deal with high-resolution catheter probes, otherwise known as EUS miniprobes (EUS-MPs). The application of miniprobes for early carcinomas in the entire intestinal tract, for subepithelial lesions, and for findings in the bile duct and pancreatic duct as well as endobronchial use is critically discussed. Submucous lesions, especially in the colon, but also early carcinomas in special cases are considered the most important indications. The argument is illustrated by numerous examples.

Patients with pancreas cancer must deal frequently with intractable and refractory pain. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) has been the most studied and used therapeutic technique aimed to destroy the pain fibres that allow the pancreas to communicate with the central nervous system. A neurolytic agent, most commonly ethanol, is optimally spread around the celiac axis in order to reduce pain and mitigate narcotic requirements. This can be performed early to prevent the spiral of pain and medication use, or more historically as salvage therapy. Different techniques to best administer the ethanol for effective EUS-CPN are still being debated. New EUS-guided injection techniques with radiofrequency, radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic agents need more study.

In "What should be known prior to performing EUS exams, Part I," the authors discussed the need for clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking EUS examinations. Herewith, we present part II which addresses some (technical) controversies how EUS is performed and discuss from different points of view providing the relevant evidence as available. (1) Does equipment design influence the complication rate? (2) Should we have a standardized screen orientation? (3) Radial EUS versus longitudinal (linear) EUS. (4) Should we search for incidental findings using EUS?

Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Recent small randomized controlled trials comparing EUS-BD with ERCP suggest that EUS-BD achieves a similar technical success rate and safety profile while potentially being associated with lower rates of stent dysfunction However, its application in clinical practice has been impeded by various undefined barriers. Aims To evaluate the current practice of EUS-BD and the determinants for its clinical implementation in MDBO. Methods An online survey was generated using Google Forms. Five endoscopy societies have distributed the survey as of October 10th, 2019. Survey questions measured participant characteristics, EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios, and potential barriers to implementation. Descriptive statistics were calculated using frequencies, chi-square statistics were used for inferential analysis, and a standard step-wise multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent variables for and against the use of EUS-BD. Results To date, 102 physicians have participated in the survey (response rate 7.97%). The majority of participants are from North America (39.2%), Asia (31.4%), and Europe (19.6%). Most participants are gastroenterologists with formal therapeutic endoscopy training (66.7%), though only 28.4% have received EUS-BD training. In unresectable cancer, 85.1% of respondents favoured EUS-BD over percutaneous biliary drainage following ERCP failure (p Conclusions In this international survey, it appears that EUS-BD is gaining traction, especially in the setting of unresectable disease following ERCP failure. However, barriers to implementation include the lack of high-quality data, fear for adverse events, limited experts in the field, and inadequate access to EUS technology. This suggest the need for high-quality clinical trials, increased endoscopist training in this field, and further technology development in EUS-BD in order to increase its uptake in clinical practice. Funding Agencies None

We recently introduced a series of papers "What should be known prior to performing EUS exams." In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are needed before embarking EUS examinations. In Part II, technical controversies on how EUS is performed were discussed from different points of view. In this article, important practical issues regarding EUS elastography will be raised and controversially discussed from very different points of view.

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are effective techniques that are widely used for tissue acquisition. However, it remains unclear how to obtain high-quality specimens. Therefore, we conducted a survey of EUS-FNA and FNB techniques to determine practice patterns worldwide and to develop strong recommendations based on the experience of experts in the field. Methods: This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). The survey was administered by E-mail through the SurveyMonkey website. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. Another questionnaire about the level of recommendation was designed to assess the respondents' answers. Results: ISEUS-TF members developed a questionnaire containing 17 questions that was sent to 53 experts. Thirty-five experts completed the survey within the specified period. Among them, 40% and 54.3% performed 50–200 and more than 200 EUS sampling procedures annually, respectively. Some practice patterns regarding FNA/FNB were recommended. Conclusion: This is the first worldwide survey of EUS-FNA and FNB practice patterns. The results showed wide variations in practice patterns. Randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for optimizing the FNA/FNB procedures.

We recently introduced a series of articles that dealt with controversies in EUS. In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information is necessary prior to EUS and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking on EUS examinations. Part II focuses on technical details and controversies about the use of EUS in special situations. In this article, important practical issues regarding the application of contrast-enhanced EUS in various clinical settings are raised and controversially discussed from different points of view.

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.

Background and Objectives: Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units. Methods: A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting. Results: EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up. Conclusions: Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

Background and Objectives: The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P). Materials and Methods: All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type. Results: One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (−4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%. Conclusion: The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND Pelvic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (PEUS-FNA) of rectal or perirectal lesions is safe, minimally invasive, and well tolerated. It provides valuable information, which can greatly influence patient management. Herein, the authors present what to their knowledge is the largest series to date of PEUS-FNA. METHODS PEUS-FNA specimens were retrieved from the archives of the study institution from January 2001 to March 2015. Only patients with solid pelvic lesions were examined. The cytopathology findings, immunohistochemistry, corresponding histology, and clinical data were collected. For analysis of accuracy, atypical or suspicious results were classified as “negative.” The sensitivity and specificity of PEUS-FNA were calculated in a subset of patients with available surgical pathology. RESULTS A total of 127 cases meeting the current study criteria were obtained from patients who underwent PEUS-FNA at the study institution between January 2001 and March 2015. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, and 53% were female. Pelvic lesions were comprised of 72% masses and 28% lymph nodes, with a mean mass diameter of 27.38 mm (range, 5-100 mm). PEUS-FNA was positive for malignancy in 45% of cases, atypical/suspicious in 4.7% of cases, and negative for malignancy in 50.3% of cases. Surgical pathology was available for 44 patients. PEUS-FNA demonstrated 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a diagnostic accuracy of 93.2%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 84.2%. No complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS PEUS-FNA is safe and effective for the investigation of pelvic lesions. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:836-41. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Numerous clinical pathways exist for patients presenting with a suspicious pancreatic mass. These range from direct surgical intervention following staging, with preoperative cross-sectional imaging, EUS with or without fine-needle aspiration or fine-needle core biopsy; neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy; or palliation. Although international guidelines exist for pancreas cancer management, the ideal workup and treatment for a suspicious pancreas mass is unclear. During its annual meeting in September 2017 (The Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasonography), the Canadian Society of Endoscopic Ultrasound organized a working group of experienced endosonographers and hepatobiliary surgeons from across Canada to achieve this goal.

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.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Unrelenting pain from chronic pancreatitis (CP) and pancreatic cancer (PC) remain clinical challenges for the physician and a significant cause of decreased quality of life for the patient. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy for each condition is distinct and builds on the endosonographer's straightforward access to the celiac axis.Over the past 20 years, generally small studies of modest methodology have surfaced for both EUS-guided celiac plexus block (CPB) and celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN). Our review aims to synthesize, analyze, and update the latest literature on the technique, efficacy, and safety of these procedures. EUS-CPB's role in treating CP pain is likely still relevant for a subset of patients and studies have shown efficacy and safety. However, a dramatic drop in research publications on the topic will make optimizing its role (including technique, injectate, and patient selection) increasingly difficult. However, EUS-CPN for PC pain is actively being refined with new information, data, and even guidelines. New EUS-guided strategies to treat PC pain besides conventional neurolysis are also likely to evolve in coming years.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a remarkable tool with multiple applications. Since its introduction approximately 30 years ago, it has become a pivotal modality for numerous indications such as the evaluation of pancreatobiliary pathologies, staging of luminal gastrointestinal cancers, assessment of subepithelial lesions, and for tissue acquisition [1, 2]. During the past few years, EUS has shifted from a purely diagnostic tool to a more interventional procedure. For example, it can now be used to drain fluid collections, to provide biliary access and decompression, to perform celiac plexus neurolysis, and to deposit fiducial markers.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of guideline was to provide clear and relevant consensus statements to form a practical guideline for clinicians on the indications, optimal technique, safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN).METHODS: Six important clinical questions were determined regarding EUS-CPN. Following a detailed literature review, 6 statements were proposed attempting to answer those questions. A group of expert endosonographers convened in Chicago, United States (May 2016), where the statements were presented and feedback provided. Subsequently a consensus group of 35 expert endosonographers voted based on their individual level of agreement. A strong recommendation required 80% voter agreement. The modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria were used to rate the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.RESULTS: Eighty percent agreement was reached on 5 of 6 consensus statements, 79.4% agreement was reached on the remaining one.CONCLUSIONS: EUS-CPN is efficacious, should be integrated into the management of pancreas cancer pain, and can be considered early at the time of diagnosis of inoperable disease. Techniques may still vary based on operator experience. Serious complications exist, but are rare.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the management of multiple diseases. Its accuracy is related to different aspects of the technique, one of the most important being the experience and interaction of the endosonographer and pathologist. Certain studies over the past years have highlighted the importance of having rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of samples obtained at the time of EUS-FNA. We have reviewed the role of ROSE, performed by the same endosonographer, a cytotechnologist and an expert cytopathologist. The available data suggest that ROSE (either by the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist, or the cytopathologist) improves sample adequacy and diagnostic yield, with the best option to have ROSE performed by an expert cytopathologist. However, if non-ROSE accuracy is already very high, any improvement is harder to achieve.

Background and Objectives: Currently, pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are recognized with increasing frequency and have become a more common finding in clinical practice. EUS is challenging in the diagnosis of PCLs and evidence-based decisions are lacking in its application. This study aimed to develop strong recommendations for the use of EUS in the diagnosis of PCLs, based on the experience of experts in the field. Methods: A survey regarding the practice of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs was drafted by the committee member of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). It was disseminated to experts of EUS who were also members of the ISEUS-TF. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. Results: Fifteen questions were extracted and disseminated among 60 experts for the survey. Fifty-three experts completed the survey within the specified time frame. The average volume of EUS cases at the experts' institutions is 988.5 cases per year. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of EUS alone in the morphologic diagnosis of PCLs, the results of the survey indicate that EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is widely expected to become a more valuable method.

Objective: This study aims to determine the yield of EUS in patients with common bile duct (CBD) dilation and normal liver function tests (LFTs). Materials and Methods: Between October 2000 and December 2016, all patients referred for EUS for unexplained CBD dilatation (CBD ≥7 mm), with normal aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin and no history of sphincterotomy, were eligible. Linear-array EUS was performed by one of the two experienced endosonographers. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Results: Of 29,920 upper gastrointestinal EUS procedures performed, 840/29,920 (3%) were for unexplained CBD dilation. Of 840 patients, 199 (24%) had normal LFTs, 99% were Caucasian, 46% had biliary-type abdominal pain, and 41% were postcholecystectomy. EUS diagnosed choledocholithiasis (CDL) or sludge in 18/199 (9%) patients (7/18 had CBD sludge only). No other pathology was diagnosed. Of 18 CDL patients, 15 (83%) had an intact gallbladder, and all 15 patients had cholelithiasis. The frequency of CDL or sludge in postcholecystectomy patients was only 3.7% (3/82); none of these patients were younger than 69 years of age. Regression analyses showed no associations between EUS diagnosis of CDL or sludge and biliary-type abdominal pain, other symptoms, sex, or race. Each additional year of age was associated with an increase in the risk of CDL or sludge by a factor of 1.05 (odds ratio: 1.05; P = 0.034). Summary: In patients with CBD dilation and normal LFTs, the only significant pathology identified is CBD stones or sludge (almost exclusively in elderly patients with cholelithiasis). Conclusion: EUS should be avoided in patients with dilated bile ducts and normal LFTs, especially if under 65 years of age and postcholecystectomy.

Pelvic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (PEUS-FNA) of rectal or perirectal lesions is safe, minimally invasive, and well tolerated. It provides valuable information, which can greatly influence patient management. Herein, the authors present what to their knowledge is the largest series to date of PEUS-FNA.PEUS-FNA specimens were retrieved from the archives of the study institution from January 2001 to March 2015. Only patients with solid pelvic lesions were examined. The cytopathology findings, immunohistochemistry, corresponding histology, and clinical data were collected. For analysis of accuracy, atypical or suspicious results were classified as "negative." The sensitivity and specificity of PEUS-FNA were calculated in a subset of patients with available surgical pathology.A total of 127 cases meeting the current study criteria were obtained from patients who underwent PEUS-FNA at the study institution between January 2001 and March 2015. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, and 53% were female. Pelvic lesions were comprised of 72% masses and 28% lymph nodes, with a mean mass diameter of 27.38 mm (range, 5-100 mm). PEUS-FNA was positive for malignancy in 45% of cases, atypical/suspicious in 4.7% of cases, and negative for malignancy in 50.3% of cases. Surgical pathology was available for 44 patients. PEUS-FNA demonstrated 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a diagnostic accuracy of 93.2%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 84.2%. No complications were noted.PEUS-FNA is safe and effective for the investigation of pelvic lesions. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:836-41. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development. METHODS: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.

Background and Aim Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA) is traditionally carried out with the stylet, as it is believed to prevent blockage or contamination of the needle by tissue coming from the gastrointestinal wall. However, this recommendation has not been demonstrated on an empirical basis. The aim of the present study was to compare the yield of EUS-FNA in a very large series of patients with (S+) and without (S–) the stylet. Methods Until 2004, the stylet was used for EUS-FNA in our center. After that, the stylet was never used. The results of all EUS-FNA in solid lesions carried out by one endosonographer with the same needle type were compared before and after stylet use was stopped. Results 3364 EUS-FNA procedures (in 3078 patients) in solid lesions were included (1483 S+ and 1881 S–). There was no significant difference between the S+ and S– results for any variable other than the number of passes required. The number of passes was significantly lower in the S– group when sampling lymph nodes, wall lesions and when carrying out biopsies through the gastric or rectal wall. However the statistical differences disappeared after controlling for malignancy, location and lesion size. Conclusion This very large comparative study showed no benefit in diagnostic yield when using the stylet for EUS-FNA.

Purpose Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is currently used as salvage therapy for morphine-resistant pancreatic cancer pain. Endoscopic ultrasound–guided CPN (EUS-CPN) can be performed early, at the time of EUS. We hypothesized that early EUS-CPN would reduce pain and morphine consumption, increase quality of life (QOL), and prolong survival. Patients and Methods Patients were eligible if referred for EUS for suspected pancreatic cancer with related pain. If EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology confirmed inoperable adenocarcinoma, patients were randomly assigned to early EUS-CPN or conventional pain management. Pain scores (7-point Likert scale), morphine equivalent consumption, and QOL scores (Digestive Disease Questionnaire-15) were assessed at 1 and 3 months. Results Five hundred eighty eligible patients were seen between April 2006 and December 2008. Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned (48 patients per study arm). Pain relief was greater in the EUS-CPN group at 1 month and significantly greater at 3 months (difference in mean percent change in pain score = −28.9 [95% CI, −67.0 to 2.8], P = .09, and −60.7 [95% CI, −86.6 to −25.5], P = .01, respectively). Morphine consumption was similar in both groups at 1 month (difference in mean change in morphine consumption = −1.0 [95% CI, −47.7 to 49.2], P = .99), but tended toward lower consumption at 3 months in the neurolysis group (difference in mean change in morphine consumption = −49.5 [95% CI, −127.5 to 7.0], P = .10). There was no effect on QOL or survival. Conclusion Early EUS-CPN reduces pain and may moderate morphine consumption in patients with painful, inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EUS-CPN can be considered in all such patients at the time of diagnostic and staging EUS.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for cyst fluid analysis (CFA) is often requested for pancreatic cystic lesions, to determine whether to operate or to observe. If this decision is not influenced by the EUS findings, the procedure may be unjustifiable. We aimed to determine whether EUS-CFA results predict surgery or observation in patients with pancreatic cysts referred for EUS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Consecutive patients referred to a quaternary pancreaticobiliary center for EUS evaluation of pancreatic cysts were eligible. Clinical data, computed tomography (CT) results, EUS findings, and CFA results were reviewed retrospectively. Statistical analysis was performed to determine variables associated with surgery versus observation. RESULTS Over 33 months, data on 194 consecutive patients referred for EUS for evaluation of pancreatic cysts were analyzed. Of these, 136 (70 %) patients had EUS-FNA. After the initial workup (including EUS with/without CFA), 35 (18 %) underwent surgery. Predictors of surgery were: younger age (< 65 years) (P = 0.0027), malignant appearance at EUS (P = 0.02), and history of EUS-FNA (P = 0.012). Cyst fluid appearance, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA 19–9), and amylase levels were not significant determinants of surgery. In 14/50 (28 %) of cases where EUS-CFA clearly suggested benign serous lesions, surgery was still performed and in 9/11 (82 %) of cases with malignant EUS-CFA findings, surgery was not done. CONCLUSIONS In patients with pancreatic cysts referred for EUS, age and EUS appearance independently predict surgery. The “perceived need for EUS-CFA” also predicts surgery, but not the EUS-CFA results. The clinical value of EUS-CFA requires further study.

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.

Background EUS is increasingly used in the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis (CP). A number of publications in this field have used different EUS terminology, features, and criteria for CP, making it difficult to reproduce their findings and apply them in clinical practice. Moreover, traditional criteria such as the Cambridge classification for CP are arguably outdated and have lost their relevance. Objective Our purpose was to establish consensus-based criteria for EUS features of CP. Design Consensus study. Main Outcome Measurements Thirty-two internationally recognized endosonographers anonymously voted on terminology of EUS features, rank order, and category (major vs minor criteria). Consensus was defined as greater than two thirds agreement among participants. Results Major criteria for CP were (1) hyperechoic foci with shadowing and main pancreatic duct (PD) calculi and (2) lobularity with honeycombing. Minor criteria for CP were cysts, dilated ducts ≥3.5 mm, irregular PD contour, dilated side branches ≥1 mm, hyperechoic duct wall, strands, nonshadowing hyperechoic foci, and lobularity with noncontiguous lobules. Limitation Lack of broadly accepted reference standard. Conclusion In a complex disease such as CP that has no universally accepted reference standard, an EUS-based criterion for diagnosis can be determined by expert consensus opinion and the existing body of evidence. Here we present the new "Rosemont criteria" for the EUS diagnosis of CP.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus block/neurolysis (CPB/N) can be performed by injecting at the base (central) or on either side (bilateral) of the celiac axis. Central CPB/N is easier and possibly safer. Bilateral CPB/N is more difficult but may be more effective as it reaches more ganglia. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term safety and efficacy of central and bilateral CPB/N.Consecutive patients referred for CPB/N to a quaternary EUS center were eligible for this study. Central CPB/N was used in the first half of the study period and bilateral CPB/N in the last half. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in visual analog pain scores at day 7.A total of 184 patients were eligible. Out of them, 24 (13%) were excluded for incomplete data. A total of 160 were left (71 central, 89 bilateral). The groups were similar for all cogent variables. Bilateral CPB/N was more effective than central CPB/N (mean percent pain reduction 70.4% (61.0-80.0) vs. 45.9% (32.7-57.4); P=0.0016). The only predictor of a50% pain reduction was bilateral CPB/N (odds ratio 3.55, 1.72-7.34). Only one complication was noted: self-limited bleeding because of laceration of the adrenal artery following bilateral celiac plexus (CP) block in an anticoagulated patient.(i) Bilateral CPB/N is more effective than central CPB/N; (ii) bilateral CPB/N is safe, but on rare occasions can cause trauma to the left adrenal artery; it should therefore be avoided in patients with a bleeding diathesis.

EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) and celiac plexus block (CPB) are safe and at least as effective as percutaneous approaches. EUS-guided CPN is particularly effective for pain related to malignant involvement of the celiac ganglia. For patients without cancer, CPB is generally used instead but appears to be less effective. Given the different injectates, needles, and techniques that are available, there are many possible ways to perform the procedure. Further studies are needed to clarify the most effective way to perform the technique and to determine the optimal place for it in the therapeutic algorithms.