Search

New biomarkers are urgently needed to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and subsequently individualize treatment strategies. Here, we identified a clinically relevant autoantibody (Aab) biomarker combination for the differential diagnosis of PDAC using high-throughput protein microarray technology. We identified the serological Aab profiles of 93 PDAC, chronic pancreatitis (CP), other pancreatic (PC) and prostate cancers (PRC), non-ulcer dyspepsia patients (DYS), and healthy controls (HC) using microarray technology. Identified Aabs were validated in tumour tissue via western blot and immunohistochemistry analyses. Subsequently, identified biomarkers were used to create a custom PDAC protein microarray and the clinical utility of the biomarker panel was tested in a cancer specificity cohort comprising 223 PDAC, PC, PRC, colorectal cancer (CRC), and HC samples. Combinatorial ROC curve analysis on the training cohort run on the CT100 + microarrays identified the most effective biomarker combination as CEACAM1-DPPA2-DPPA3-MAGEA4-SRC-TBPG-XAGE3 with an AUC = 85·0% (SE = 0·828, SP = 0·684). Additionally, differential expression analysis on the samples run on the IMMUNOME™ array identified 4 biomarkers (ALX1-GPA33-LIP1-SUB1) upregulated in PDAC against diseased and healthy controls. Subsequently, the specificity of our 11-biomarker panel was validated against other cancers (PDACvPC – AUC = 70·3%, PDACvCRC – AUC = 84·3%, PDACvPRC – AUC = 80·2%) and healthy controls (PDACvHC – AUC = 80·9%). We identified a clinically relevant and novel, 11-autoantibody PDAC biomarker panel that differentially diagnosed PDAC and anticipate that the oncogenic relevance of the recognized proteins could be a starting point for new therapies in the future.

This review gives an overview of different techniques in the treatment of post-acute complications of acute pancreatitis. The endoscopic treatment of those complications is currently standard of care. EUS opened up the broad implementation of internal drainage methods to make them safe and effective. Due to different endoscopic approaches worldwide, controversies have arisen that are pointed out in this paper. The main focus was placed on weighing up evidence to find the optimal approach. However, if no evidence can be provided, the authors, experienced in the field, give their personal advice.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently gained widespread acceptance as a minimally invasive alternative method for biliary drainage. Even in experienced endoscopy centers, ERCP may fail due to inaccessibility of the papillary region, altered anatomy (particularly postsurgical alterations), papillary obstruction, or neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction. Biliary cannulation fails at first attempt in 5%-10% of cases even in the absence of these factors. In such cases, alternative options for biliary drainage must be provided since biliary obstruction is responsible for poor quality of life and even reduced survival, particularly due to septic cholangitis. The standard of care in many centers remains percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). However, despite the high technical success rate with experienced operators, the percutaneous approach is more invasive and associated with poor quality of life. PTBD may result in long-term external catheters for biliary drainage and carry the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in up to 10% of patients, including bile leaks, hemorrhage, and sepsis. PTBD following a failed ERCP also requires scheduling a second procedure, resulting in prolonged hospital stay and additional costs. EUS-BD may overcome many of these limitations and offer some distinct advantages in accessing the biliary tree. Current data suggest that EUS-BD is safe and effective when performed by experts, although SAEs have been also reported. Despite the high number of clinical reports and case series, high-quality comparative studies are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to report on the current status of this procedure and to discuss the tools and techniques for EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios.

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?

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. While the first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites prior to ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis, and other related technical topics, the second part discusses specific procedural ERCP techniques including precut techniques and their timing as well as management algorithms. In addition, reviews on controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

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.

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.

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.