One-fourth of colorectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems allow for real-time computer-aided detection ...(CADe) of polyps with high accuracy. We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a CADe system in detection of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy.
We analyzed data from 685 subjects (61.32 ± 10.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or workup due to positive results from a fecal immunochemical test or signs or symptoms of CRC, at 3 centers in Italy from September through November 2019. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls). The CADe system included an artificial intelligence–based medical device (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, on the endoscopy display a green box over suspected lesions. A minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes was required. Lesions were collected and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR, the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdrawal time.
The ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group (54.8%) than in the control group (40.4%) (relative risk RR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.14–1.45). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group (mean, 1.07 ±1.54) than in the control group (mean 0.71 ± 1.20) (incidence rate ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15–1.86). Adenomas 5 mm or smaller were detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01–1.52), as were adenomas of 6 to 9 mm (detected in 10.6% of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09–2.86), regardless of morphology or location. There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 ± 101 seconds for the CADe group vs 435 ± 149 for controls; P = .1) or proportion of subjects with resection of non-neoplastic lesions (26.0% in the CADe group vs 28.7% of controls; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90–1.12).
In a multicenter, randomized trial, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time. ClinicalTrials.gov no: 04079478
Display omitted
RECOMMENDATIONS
For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) ...and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).
When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).
ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).
ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).
Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of newer end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with ...network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of available FNB needles for sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.
A systematic literature review (Medline and Cochrane Database) was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy of newer FNB needles in adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and adverse event rate. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.
Overall, 16 RCTs (1934 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, Franseen needles (Acquire; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA) significantly outperformed reverse-bevel needles (risk ratio RR, 1.21 95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.40 for accuracy and 1.31 95% CI, 1.05-1.22 for adequacy) and FNA needles (RR, 1.21 95% CI, 1.01-1.25 for accuracy and 1.07 95% CI, 1.02-1.13 for adequacy). Likewise, the Fork-tip needle (SharkCore; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was significantly superior to the reverse-bevel needle (RR, 1.17 95% CI, 1.03-1.33 for accuracy and 1.09 95% CI, 1.02-1.16 for adequacy) and to the FNA needle (RR, 1.09 95% CI, 1.01-1.19 for accuracy and 1.03 95% CI, 1.01-1.07 for adequacy). Other comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. As a consequence, Franseen (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .89 for accuracy and .94 for adequacy) and Fork-tip needles (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .76 for accuracy and .73 for adequacy) ranked as the 2 highest-performing FNB needles. When considering different needle sizes, 25-gauge Franseen and 25-gauge Fork-tip needles were not superior to 22-gauge reverse-bevel needles (RR, 1.18 95% CI, .96-1.46 and 1.04 95% CI, .62-1.52). None of the tested needles was significantly superior to the other FNB devices or to FNA needles when rapid onsite cytologic evaluation was available.
Franseen and Fork-tip needles, particularly 22-gauge size, showed the highest performance for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.
Display omitted
MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
For pancreatic solid lesions, ESGE recommends performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling as first-line procedure when a pathological diagnosis is required. ...Alternatively, percutaneous sampling may be considered in metastatic disease.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
In the case of negative or inconclusive results and a high degree of suspicion of malignant disease, ESGE suggests re-evaluating the pathology slides, repeating EUS-guided sampling, or surgery.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
In patients with chronic pancreatitis associated with a pancreatic mass, EUS-guided sampling results that do not confirm cancer should be interpreted with caution.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
For pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), ESGE recommends EUS-guided sampling for biochemical analyses plus cytopathological examination if a precise diagnosis may change patient management, except for lesions ≤ 10 mm in diameter with no high risk stigmata. If the volume of PCL aspirate is small, it is recommended that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level determination be done as the first analysis.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
For esophageal cancer, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling for the assessment of regional lymph nodes (LNs) in T1 (and, depending on local treatment policy, T2) adenocarcinoma and of lesions suspicious for metastasis such as distant LNs, left liver lobe lesions, and suspected peritoneal carcinomatosis.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
For lymphadenopathy of unknown origin, ESGE recommends performing EUS-guided (or alternatively endobronchial ultrasound EBUS-guided) sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management and no superficial lymphadenopathy is easily accessible.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
In the case of solid liver masses suspicious for metastasis, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management, and (i) the lesion is poorly accessible/not detected at percutaneous imaging, or (ii) a sample obtained via the percutaneous route repeatedly yielded an inconclusive result.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of tissue sampling techniques for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with ...network meta-analysis to compare these techniques.
Rates of sample adequacy, blood contamination, and tissue integrity using fine-needle biopsy sampling needles were evaluated. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed among the slow-pull, dry-suction, modified wet-suction, or no-suction techniques. Results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Overall, 9 randomized controlled trials (756 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, the no-suction technique was significantly inferior to the other techniques (RR, .85 95% CI, .78-.92 vs slow pull; RR, .85 95% CI, .78-.92 vs dry suction; RR, .83 95% CI, .76-.90 vs modified wet suction) in terms of sample adequacy. Consequently, modified wet suction was shown to be the best technique (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .90), with the no-suction technique showing poorer performance in terms of sample adequacy (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .14). Dry suction was associated with significantly higher rates of blood contamination as compared with the slow-pull technique (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.80), whereas no suction led to less blood contamination of samples in comparison with other techniques (RR, .71 95% CI, .52-.97 vs slow pull; RR, .49 95% CI, .36-.66 vs dry suction; RR, .57 95% CI, .40-.81 vs modified wet suction). The modified wet-suction technique significantly outperformed dry suction in terms of tissue integrity of the sample (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.75).
Modified wet suction seemed to provide high rates of integrity and adequate samples, albeit with high blood contamination. The no-suction technique performed significantly worse than other sampling strategies.
False positive (FP) results by computer-aided detection (CADe) hamper the efficiency of colonoscopy by extending examination time. Our aim was to develop a classification of the causes and clinical ...relevance of CADe FPs, and to assess the relative distribution of FPs in a real-life setting.
In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial comparing colonoscopy with and without CADe (NCT: 04079478), we extracted 40 CADe colonoscopy videos. Using a modified Delphi process, 4 expert endoscopists identified the main domains for the reasons and clinical relevance of FPs. Then, 2 expert endoscopists manually examined each FP and classified it according to the proposed domains. The analysis was limited to the withdrawal phase.
The 2 main domains for the causes of CADe FPs were identified as artifacts due to either the mucosal wall or bowel content, and clinical relevance was defined as the time spent on FPs and the FP rate per minute. The mean number of FPs per colonoscopy was 27.3 ± 13.1, of which 24 ± 12 (88%) and 3.2 ± 2.6 (12%) were due to artifacts in the bowel wall and bowel content, respectively. Of the 27.3 FPs per colonoscopy, 1.6 (5.7%) required additional exploration time of 4.8 ± 6.2 seconds per FP (ie, 0.7% of the mean withdrawal time). In detail, 15 (24.2%), 33 (53.2%), and 14 (22.6%) FPs were classified as being of mild, moderate, or severe clinical relevance. The rate of FPs per minute of withdrawal time was 2.4 ± 1.2, and was higher for FPs due to artifacts from the bowel wall than for those from bowel content (2.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.3 ± 0.2, P < .001).
FPs by CADe are primarily due to artifacts from the bowel wall. Despite a high frequency, FPs result in a negligible 1% increase in the total withdrawal time because most of them are immediately discarded by the endoscopist.
In recent years, the feasibility and safety of endoscopic placement of different biodegradable biliary stents have been investigated. New, helicoidally shaped, biliary and pancreatic biodegradable ...stents have been developed for endoscopic use. Stents are provided in different sizes and with 3 expected speeds of degradation: slow (11 weeks), medium (20 days), and fast (12 days). The aim of this study was to evaluate degradation time, technical outcomes, and safety of these stents.
This was a single-center, prospective, pilot study (August 2018 to January 2019) of consecutive patients with indication for biliary or pancreatic plastic stent positioning during ERCP. The primary outcome was the evaluation of degradation time of the stents, which was controlled by abdominal radiograph. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of specific stent-related technical features (loadability, pushability, and fluoroscopic visibility) as compared with commonly used plastic stents and adverse events (AEs).
Thirty-eight patients (11 women 28.9%; median age, 68.05 ± 10.74 years) who received 53 biodegradable stents (34 64.2% biliary and 19 35.8% pancreatic stents) were enrolled in the study. Thirty-five (66%) slow-degrading stents, 6 (11.3%) medium-degrading stents, and 12 (22.6%) fast-degrading stents were used. At time 1, partial degradation of the stents was present in 48 cases (90.6%). Five stents (9.4%) prematurely migrated. At the subsequent time 2 evaluation, complete degradation occurred in 100% of cases. Stent loadability was defined as excellent in all cases. Pushability of the stent was scored as excellent in 48 cases (90.5%), good in 4 cases (7.5%), and fair in 1 case (1.9%). Fluoroscopic visualization was excellent in 11 cases (20.8%), good in 39 cases (73.6%), and fair in 3 (5.6%). Only 1 AE of mild post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred.
The results of our study suggest that the biodegradation of the new biliary and pancreatic stents is reliable and in line with expected times and technically successful in a variety of indications. Further randomized multicenter studies are required to validate our preliminary findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03767166.)
EUS-guided biopsy sampling is the method of choice for obtaining pancreatic tissue. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been applied to EUS-guided biopsy sampling and may classify patients based on ...specific molecular profiles. Our study aimed to compare side-by-side the diagnostic yield achievable by genetic identification of somatic mutations detected with NGS versus histologic and cytologic typing in locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC) in samples acquired under EUS guidance.
We conducted a prospective comparative pilot study at Humanitas Research Hospital. The study included 33 patients referred for LAPC who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition using a 22-gauge Franseen needle. Material was obtained for both pathologic diagnosis and DNA extraction and targeted NGS analysis with the AmpliSeq Comprehensive Panel v3 (Illumina Inc, San Diego, Calif, USA). Twenty-one genes were prioritized for somatic mutation detection.
The final diagnosis was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in all patients (100%). A macroscopic core was obtained in 30 patients (91%). In 3 lesions no cores adequate for histologic analysis were obtained, but cytologic analysis revealed tumoral cells from PDAC. DNA was extracted from 32 of 33 samples (97%), most of which (27/32) carried at least 2 clearly pathogenic mutations in different genes. Detection of K-ras mutation allowed for molecular diagnosis of PDAC in most of the patients (30/32).
In our study we demonstrated that proper tissue specimens obtained under EUS guidance allowed DNA sample extraction and subsequent NGS analysis in 97% of cases. These results support the potential role of NGS as a complementary diagnostic test to be implemented in association with standard diagnostic modalities. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03578939.)
Display omitted
EUS elastography is useful in characterizing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), and fractal analysis–based technology has been used to evaluate geometric complexity in oncology. The aim of this study ...was to evaluate EUS elastography (strain ratio) and fractal analysis for the characterization of SPLs.
Consecutive patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled between December 2015 and February 2017. Elastographic evaluation included parenchymal strain ratio (pSR) and wall strain ratio (wSR) and was performed with a new compact US processor. Elastographic images were analyzed using a computer program to determine the 3-dimensional histogram fractal dimension. A composite cytology/histology/clinical reference standard was used to assess sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating curve.
Overall, 102 SPLs from 100 patients were studied. At final diagnosis, 69 (68%) were malignant and 33 benign. At elastography, both pSR and wSR appeared to be significantly higher in malignant as compared with benign SPLs (pSR, 24.5 vs 6.4 P < .001; wSR, 56.6 vs 15.3 P < .001). When the best cut-off levels of pSR and wSR at 9.10 and 16.2, respectively, were used, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating curve were 88.4%, 78.8%, 89.7%, 76.9%, and 86.7% and 91.3%, 69.7%, 86.5%, 80%, and 85.7%, respectively. Fractal analysis showed a significant statistical difference (P = .0087) between the mean surface fractal dimension of malignant lesions (D = 2.66 ± .01) versus neuroendocrine tumor (D = 2.73 ± .03) and a statistical difference for all 3 channels red, green, and blue (P < .0001).
EUS elastography with pSR and fractal-based analysis are useful in characterizing SPLs. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02855151.)
Display omitted
PDF
