Search

Background: Cholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP)., Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up., Results: After screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life., Conclusion: EUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition (EUS + TA) is used to provide a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Key performance indicators (KPI) for these procedures are rate of adequate sample (RAS) and sensitivity for malignancy (SFM)., Aim: assess practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma in the Netherlands., Patients and Methods: Results of all EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma from 2014-2018, were extracted from the national Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were classified as: insufficient for analysis (b1), benign (b2), atypia (b3), neoplastic other (b4), suspected malignant (b5), and malignant (b6). RAS was defined as the proportion of EUS procedures yielding specimen sufficient for analysis. SFM was calculated using a strict definition (malignant only, SFM-b6), and a broader definition (SFM-b5+6)., Results: 691 out of 1638 resected patients (42%) underwent preoperative EUS + TA. RAS was 95% (range 89-100%), SFM-b6 was 44% (20-77%), and SFM-b5+6 was 65% (53-90%). All centers met the performance target RAS>85%. Only 9 out of 17 met the performance target SFM-b5+6 > 85%., Conclusion: This nationwide study detected significant practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA procedures prior to surgical resection of pancreatic carcinoma. Therefore, quality improvement of EUS + TA is indicated., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: With the introduction of the national bowel cancer screening program, the detection of sessile and flat colonic lesions ≥20 mm in size, defined as large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), has increased. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of endoscopic treatment of LNPCPs in the Dutch screening program., Methods: This investigation comprised 2 related, but separate, substudies (1 with a cross-sectional design and 1 with a longitudinal design). The first examined prevalence and characteristics of LNPCPs in data from the national Dutch screening cohort from February 2014 until January 2017. The second, with screening data from 5 endoscopy units in the Southern part of the Netherlands from February 2014 until August 2015, examined performance on important quality indicators (technical and clinical successes, recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and surgery referral rate). All patients were part of the national Dutch screening cohort., Results: In the national cohort, an LNPCP was detected in 8% of participants. Technical and clinical success decreased with increasing LNPCP size, from 93% and 96% in 20- to 29-mm lesions to 85% and 86% in 30- to 39-mm lesions and to 74% and 81% in ≥40-mm lesions (P < .001; P = .034). The cumulative recurrence rate at 12 months increased with LNPCP size, from 9% to 22% and 26% in the respective size groups (P = .095). The adverse event rate was 5%. The overall surgical referral rate for noninvasive LNPCPs was 7%., Conclusions: In this performance of 2 substudies, it was shown that quality parameters for endoscopic resection of large polyps in the Dutch screening cohort are not reached, especially in ≥30-mm polyps. Endoscopic resection of large polyps could benefit from additional training, quality monitoring, and centralization either within or between centers., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP., Methods and Analysis: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months., Ethics and Dissemination: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical treatment options like radiotherapy and definitive chemoradiation (CRT) have been implemented. The trends in (non-)surgical treatment and its impact on overall survival (OS) in patients with proximal esophageal cancer are unclear, related to its rare disease status. To optimize treatment strategies and counseling of patients with proximal esophageal cancer, it is therefore essential to gain more insight through real-life studies., Aim: To establish trends in treatment and OS in patients with proximal esophageal cancer., Methods: In this population-based study, patients with proximal esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2014 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The proximal esophagus consists of the cervical esophagus and the upper thoracic section, extending to 24 cm from the incisors. Trends in radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, and OS were assessed. Analyses were stratified by presence of distant metastasis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses was performed to assess the effect of period of diagnosis on OS, adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics., Results: In total, 2783 patients were included. Over the study period, the use of radiotherapy, resection, and CRT in non-metastatic disease changed from 53%, 23%, and 1% in 1989-1994 to 21%, 9%, and 49% in 2010-2014, respectively. In metastatic disease, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased over time. Median OS of the total population increased from 7.3 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4-8.1] in 1989-1994 to 9.5 mo (95%CI: 8.1-10.8) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). In non-metastatic disease, 5-year OS rates improved from 5% (95%CI: 3%-7%) in 1989-1994 to 13% (95%CI: 9%-17%) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a significant treatment effect over time on survival. In metastatic disease, median OS was 3.8 mo (95%CI: 2.5-5.1) in 1989-1994, and 5.1 mo (95%CI: 4.3-5.9) in 2010-2014 (logrank P = 0.26)., Conclusion: OS significantly improved in non-metastatic proximal esophageal cancer, likely to be associated with an increased use of CRT. Patterns in metastatic disease did not change significantly over time., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: de Vos-Geelen J has received non-financial support from BTG, and Servier, and has served as a consultant for Shire and has received institutional research funding from Servier. van Laarhoven HWM has served as a consultant for BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Nordic, and Servier and has received unrestricted research funding from Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Nordic, Philips, Roche, and Servier, all outside the submitted work. Slingerland M has served as a consultant for BMS and Lilly. Tjan-Heijnen VCG has received honoraria/travel grants from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, and Accord Healthcare, and has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, and Lilly. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)