Search

Background & Aims The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions. Methods This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. Best Practice Advice 1 For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient’s expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. Best Practice Advice 2 For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. Best Practice Advice 3 For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Best Practice Advice 4 For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. Best Practice Advice 5 For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. Best Practice Advice 6 For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. Best Practice Advice 7 For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Best Practice Advice 8 For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. Best Practice Advice 9 Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. Best Practice Advice 10 Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration–approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound–guided gastrojejunostomy. Best Practice Advice 11 For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a “bridge to surgery” to allow for one-stage, elective resection. Best Practice Advice 12 For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient’s goals and functional status. Best Practice Advice 13 SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a “bridge to surgery” and in the palliative setting. Best Practice Advice 14 SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

Every year approximately 750,000 cholecystectomies are performed in the United States, most of those are performed laparoscopically. Postcholecystectomy complications are not uncommon and lead to increased morbidity and financial burden. Some of the most commonly encountered complications with laparoscopic cholecystectomy include biliary injury (0.08%-0.5%), bile leak (0.42%-1.1%), retained common bile duct stones (0.8%-5.7%), postcholecystectomy syndrome (10%-15%), and postcholecystectomy diarrhea (5%-12%). Endoscopy has an important role in the diagnosis and management of biliary complications and in many cases can provide definitive management. There is no consensus on the best therapeutic approach for biliary complications. Therefore, biliary complications should be approached by an experienced multidisciplinary team. It is important for the gastroenterologist to be familiar with the management of such complications (Visual Abstract, Supplemental Digital content 1, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B544).

Over the last decade, endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) have been established as effective and safe interventions to palliate visceral abdominal pain resulting from chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, respectively. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided approach has advantages over the percutaneous methods because it facilitates precise injection into the region owing to its more direct access. More recently, celiac ganglion neurolysis has been promoted as a safe alternative to CPN and it may be a more efficacious technique than CPN. Although large, adequately powered randomized trials are lacking, observational studies and small randomized trials support the use of celiac plexus block and CPN in palliation of pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer, respectively. However, these interventions’ affect on quality of life and survival is unclear and further large randomized studies are needed.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Aneuploidy has been proposed as a tool to assess progression in patients with Barrett’s Esophagus (BE), but has heretofore required multiple biopsies. We assessed whether a single esophageal brushing that widely sampled the esophagus could be combined with massively parallel sequencing to characterize aneuploidy and identify patients with disease progression to dysplasia or cancer. METHODS: Esophageal brushings were obtained from patients without BE, with non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high grade dysplasia (HGD), or adenocarcinoma (EAC). To assess aneuploidy, we employed RealSeqS, a technique that uses a single primer pair to interrogate ∼350,000 genome-spanning regions and identify specific chromosome arm alterations. A classifier to distinguish NDBE from EAC was trained on results from 79 patients. An independent validation cohort of 268 subjects was used to test the classifier at distinguishing patients at successive phases of BE progression. RESULTS: Aneuploidy progression was associated with gains of 1q, 12p, and 20q and losses on 9p and 17p. The entire chromosome 8q was often gained in NDBE, whereas focal gain of 8q24 was identified only when there was dysplasia. Among validation subjects, a classifier incorporating these features with a global measure of aneuploidy scored positive in 96% of EAC, 68% of HGD, but only 7% of NDBE. CONCLUSIONS: RealSeqS analysis of esophageal brushings provides a practical and sensitive method to determine aneuploidy in BE patients. It identifies specific chromosome changes that occur early in NDBE and others that occur late and mark progression to dysplasia. The clinical implications of this approach can now be tested in prospective trials.

Background Familial aggregation and segregation analysis studies have provided evidence of a genetic basis for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its premalignant precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aim to demonstrate the utility of linkage analysis to identify the genomic regions that might contain the genetic variants that predispose individuals to this complex trait (BE and EAC). Methods We genotyped 144 individuals in 42 multiplex pedigrees chosen from 1000 singly ascertained BE/EAC pedigrees, and performed both model-based and model-free linkage analyses, using S.A.G.E. and other software. Segregation models were fitted, from the data on both the 42 pedigrees and the 1000 pedigrees, to determine parameters for performing model-based linkage analysis. Model-based and model-free linkage analyses were conducted in two sets of pedigrees: the 42 pedigrees and a subset of 18 pedigrees with female affected members that are expected to be more genetically homogeneous. Genome-wide associations were also tested in these families. Results Linkage analyses on the 42 pedigrees identified several regions consistently suggestive of linkage by different linkage analysis methods on chromosomes 2q31, 12q23, and 4p14. A linkage on 15q26 is the only consistent linkage region identified in the 18 female-affected pedigrees, in which the linkage signal is higher than in the 42 pedigrees. Other tentative linkage signals are also reported. Conclusion Our linkage study of BE/EAC pedigrees identified linkage regions on chromosomes 2, 4, 12, and 15, with some reported associations located within our linkage peaks. Our linkage results can help prioritize association tests to delineate the genetic determinants underlying susceptibility to BE and EAC.

Ruben D. Acosta, MD, Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSCE, FASGE (invited content expert, ad-hoc member), Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Krishnavel V. Chathadi, MD, Dayna S. Early, MD, FASGE, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, John A. Evans, MD, Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Deborah A. Fisher, MD, MHS, FASGE, Lisa Fonkalsrud, BSN, RN, CGRN, Joo Ha Hwang, MD, PhD, FASGE, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Shabana F. Pasha, MD, John R. Saltzman, MD, FASGE, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amandeep K. Shergill, MD, Amy Wang, MD, Brooks D. Cash, MD, FASGE, previous Committee Chair, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

Background : There is a paucity of published data regarding the trend and distribution of gastrointestinal malignancies in Uganda. Objectives : To study the trend and distribution of gastrointestinal malignancies over a 10 year period at five regional referral hospitals in Uganda. Methods: Patient’s charts with histologically confirmed diagnoses of gastrointestinal malignancies for the period 2002-2011 were identified. Case information, which included age at diagnosis, sex, and year of diagnosis, primary anatomic site of the tumour and hospitals attended, was retrospectively abstracted. Patient’s clinical and demographic features were compared. Results : Oesophageal cancer was the most common (28.8%) followed by liver (25.8%), stomach (18.4%) and colorectal (14.3%). The mean age at diagnosis for all the cancers was not significantly different in both sexes 54.1, (SD16.1) versus 53.6, (SD 14.7). The highest mean annual number of cases of oesophageal and stomach cancers was 21.8, (SD 15.5) and 16.6, (SD 13.0) respectively from Mbarara Hospital; Lacor had the highest mean annual number of liver cancer cases (21, SD 17.7) followed by Mbale (11.4,SD 8.3). The mean annual number of colorectal cancers was highest in Mbale Hospital (10.3, SD 8.1) followed by Lacor (4.9, SD 3.9). The distribution of oesophageal, liver, stomach and colorectal cancers diagnosed per year across the five referral hospitals was different, P

We report a biomarker-based non-endoscopic method for detecting Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on detecting methylated DNAs retrieved via a swallowable balloon-based esophageal sampling device. BE is the precursor of, and a major recognized risk factor for, developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopy, the current standard for BE detection, is not cost-effective for population screening. We performed genome-wide screening to ascertain regions targeted for recurrent aberrant cytosine methylation in BE, identifying high-frequency methylation within the CCNA1 locus. We tested CCNA1 DNA methylation as a BE biomarker in cytology brushings of the distal esophagus from 173 individuals with or without BE. CCNA1 DNA methylation demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC)=0.95 for discriminating BE-related metaplasia and neoplasia cases versus normal individuals, performing identically to methylation of VIM DNA, an established BE biomarker. When combined, the resulting two biomarker panel was 95% sensitive and 91% specific. These results were replicated in an independent validation cohort of 149 individuals, who were assayed using the same cutoff values for test positivity established in the training population. To progress toward non-endoscopic esophageal screening, we engineered a well-tolerated, swallowable, encapsulated balloon device able to selectively sample the distal esophagus within 5 minutes. In balloon samples from 86 individuals, tests of CCNA1 plus VIM DNA methylation detected BE metaplasia with 90.3% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity. Combining the balloon sampling device with molecular assays of CCNA1 plus VIM DNA methylation enables an efficient, well-tolerated, sensitive, and specific method of screening at-risk populations for BE.

Background and Aims The obesity epidemic has led to increased use of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). These patients have an increased incidence of pancreaticobiliary diseases, yet standard ERCP is not possible because of surgically altered gastroduodenal anatomy. Laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) has been proposed as an option, but supporting data are derived from single-center small case series. Therefore, we conducted a large multicenter study to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of LA-ERCP. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with RYGB who underwent LA-ERCP in 34 centers. Data on demographics, indications, procedure success, and adverse events were collected. Procedure success was defined when all the following were achieved: reaching the papilla, cannulating the desired duct, and providing endoscopic therapy as clinically indicated. Results A total of 579 patients (median age, 51; 84% women) were included. Indication for LA-ERCP was biliary in 89%, pancreatic in 8%, and both in 3%. Procedure success was achieved in 98%. Median total procedure time was 152 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 109-210), with a median ERCP time of 40 minutes (IQR, 28-56). Median hospital stay was 2 days (IQR, 1-3). Adverse events were 18% (laparoscopy related, 10%; ERCP related, 7%; both, 1%) with the clear majority (92%) classified as mild/moderate, whereas 8% were severe and 1 death occurred. Conclusions Our large multicenter study indicates that LA-ERCP in patients with RYGB is feasible with a high procedure success rate comparable with that of standard ERCP in patients with normal anatomy. The ERCP-related adverse events rate is comparable with conventional ERCP, but the overall adverse event rate was higher because of the added laparoscopy-related events.

Background & Aims Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma is not recommended because it was not found to be cost effective. However, physician extenders (PEs) are able to perform unsedated procedures; their involvement might reduce the costs of BE screening. We examined the feasibility of training PEs to independently perform transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) and screen patients for BE and measured their learning curve. Methods Two PEs at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center underwent a structured didactic training program and observed nasopharyngoscopies before performing TNE under the supervision of attending endoscopists. Individual technical and cognitive components of TNE were rated on a 9-point structured scale. Learning curves were constructed using cumulative summation. Once the PEs were judged to be technically competent, each PE performed 10 independent videotaped TNEs, which were graded. Results Both PEs identified anatomic landmarks after 18 consecutive procedures. PE1 and PE2 performed satisfactory nasal intubations after 20 and 25 procedures and esophageal intubations after 29 and 35 procedures, respectively. They acquired overall competence after supervised training on 43 and 47 procedures, respectively. Conclusions We developed a program at a VA medical center to train PEs to perform TNE to screen for BE. The PEs were able to perform TNE and recognize esophageal landmarks independently after a modest number of supervised procedures.

This is one of a series of documents prepared by the ASGE Training Committee. This curriculum document contains recommendations for training, intended for use by endoscopy training directors, endoscopists involved in teaching endoscopy, and trainees in endoscopy. It was developed as an overview of techniques currently favored for the performance and training of small-bowel endoscopy and to serve as a guide to published references, videotapes, and other resources available to the trainer. By providing information to endoscopy trainers about the common practices used by experts in performing the technical aspects of the procedure, the ASGE hopes to improve the teaching and performance of small-bowel endoscopy.

Early diagnosis and accurate staging of pancreatic cancer is very important to plan optimal management strategy. Endoscopy plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound imaging (EUS) is the most sensitive modality for diagnosis, especially for small pancreatic tumors; it also allows tissue acquisition for histological diagnosis. Computed tomography scanning and EUS play complementary roles in staging and are comparable in determining resectability. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography allows tissue sampling but is limited to palliative biliary drainage in most cases. In this article, we review the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, with special emphasis on the use of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).