Faculty Bibliography

Background and study aims /UNASSIGNED:The anatomical meaning of the terms "proximal" and "distal" in relation to the pancreaticobiliary anatomy can be confusing. We aimed to investigate practice patterns of use of the terms "proximal" and "distal" for pancreaticobiliary anatomy amongst various medical specialties. Materials and methods /UNASSIGNED:An online survey link to a normal pancreaticobiliary diagram was emailed to a multispecialty physician pool. Respondents were asked to label various parts of the common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct (PD) using the terms "proximal," "distal," "not sure," or "other." Variability in use of these terms between specialties was assessed. Results /UNASSIGNED: = 0.1821). Conclusions /UNASSIGNED:Although use of the terms "proximal" and "distal" is still very common to describe pancreaticobiliary anatomy, there is a discordance about its meaning, particularly for the PD. Use of descriptive terminology may be a more accurate alternative to prior ambiguous terminologies such as "proximal" or "distal" and can serve to improve communication and decrease the possibility of medical errors.

Barrett esophagus (BE) is the precursor lesion to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The current surveillance strategy of 4-quadrant Seattle protocol biopsies has been associated with sampling error and missing higher-risk lesions, and there is often less adherence to endoscopic surveillance with long segments. Advancements in endoscopic imaging and sampling techniques allow for better surveillance of BE, particularly when assessing for dysplasia. This article highlights the key endoscopic imaging and sampling advancements in the evaluation of dysplasia in BE.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The need to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colorectal cancer screening has ushered in devices that mechanically or optically improve conventional colonoscopy. Recently, new technology devices (NTDs) have become available. We aimed to compare the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between NTDs and conventional colonoscopy and between mechanical and optical NTDs. METHODS:MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2017 for articles or abstracts reporting ADR, PDR, and AMR with NTDs. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies with >10 subjects were included. Primary outcomes included ADR, PDR, and AMR odds ratio (OR) between conventional colonoscopy and NTDs. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rates, adverse events, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time. RESULTS:From 141 citations, 45 studies with 20,887 subjects were eligible for ≥1 analyses. Overall, the ORs for ADR (1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.47; P < .01) and PDR (1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.67; P < .01) were higher with NTDs. Higher ADR (OR, 1.52 vs 1.25; P = .035) and PDR (OR, 1.63 vs 1.10; P ≤ .01) were observed with mechanical NTDs. The overall AMR with NTDs was lower compared with conventional colonoscopy (OR, .19; 95% CI, .14-.26; P < .01). Mechanical NTDs had lower AMRs compared with optical NTDs (OR, .10 vs .33; P < .01). No differences in cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation time, or total colonoscopy time were found. CONCLUSIONS:Newer endoscopic technologies are an effective option to improve ADR and PDR and decrease AMR, particularly with mechanical NTDs. No differences in operability and safety were found.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal dysplasia (ED) are frequently missed during screening and surveillance esophagoscopy because of sampling error associated with four-quadrant random forceps biopsy (FB). Aim/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this article is to determine if wide-area transepithelial sampling with three-dimensional computer-assisted analysis (WATS) used adjunctively with FB can increase the detection of BE and ED. Methods/UNASSIGNED:In this multicenter prospective trial, patients screened for suspected BE and those with known BE undergoing surveillance were enrolled. Patients at 25 community-based practices underwent WATS adjunctively to targeted FB and random four-quadrant FB. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 4203 patients, 594 were diagnosed with BE by FB alone, and 493 additional cases were detected by adding WATS, increasing the overall detection of BE by 83% (493/594, 95% CI 74%-93%). Low-grade dysplasia (LGD) was diagnosed in 26 patients by FB alone, and 23 additional cases were detected by adding WATS, increasing the detection of LGD by 88.5% (23/26, 95% CI 48%-160%). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Adjunctive use of WATS to FB significantly improves the detection of both BE and ED. Sampling error, an inherent limitation associated with screening and surveillance, can be improved with WATS allowing better informed decisions to be made about the management and subsequent treatment of these patients.

BACKGROUND:Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. METHODS:We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) RESULTS: Among 1,188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC Mean ± SD 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96,) (p<0.001 for APC). Endocuff was higher than standard HD colonoscopy for APC (p=0.014) . Mean cecal insertion times with FUSE (468 ± 311 seconds) and EndoRings (403 ± 263 seconds) were both longer than with Endocuff (354 ± 216 seconds) (p=0.006 and 0.018, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for a quality colonoscopy. Poor bowel preparation can result in longer procedural times, missed adenomas, earlier repeat procedures, increase costs, and decreased patient satisfaction [1-5]. Pure-Vu (MOTUS GI, Tirat Carmel, Israel) is a system that facilitates intra-procedural cleaning of a poorly prepared colon during a colonoscopy by irrigating the colon and evacuating the fluid and feces. The study aims were to evaluate Pure-Vu's cleansing capabilities and its usability and safety, in a live animal colon METHODS: The Pure-Vu system was used by four experienced gastroenterologists in 35 Yorkshire cross swine (66% female) that received a reduced bowel preparation to ensure an inadequate bowel preparation at baseline. Before the colonoscopy the Pure-Vu was attached to the colonoscope and the baseline prep was assessed during insertion. The Pure-Vu system was then used to cleanse the colon and the prep was then assessed post-Pure-Vu use. RESULTS: No adverse effects and no failed or prematurely terminated cases were noted. Fourteen percent of the swine colons were adequately prepped at baseline (median BBPS score = 0 [25 percentile=0, 75 percentile =1 ;IQR=1]) and improved to 100% after use of Pure-Vu (Wilcoxon signed rank test p <0.001) (median BBPS score = 3 [25 percentile=3, 75 percentile =3 ;IQR=0]). The physicians found Pure-Vu easy and intuitive to operate. DISCUSSION: The Pure-Vu system effectively cleaned inadequately prepped swine colons and proved to be easy to use. The Pure-Vu device, applied in clinical practice, may result in improved overall prep quality and a reduction in repeat examinations due to inadequately prepped colons.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) with computer-assisted 3-dimensional analysis is a sampling technique that combines abrasive brushing of the Barrett's esophagus (BE) mucosa followed by neural network analysis to highlight abnormal-appearing cells. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial of referral BE patients undergoing surveillance at 16 medical centers. Subjects received either biopsy followed by WATS, or vice versa. The primary outcome was rate of detection of HGD/EAC using WATS in conjunction with biopsy compared with biopsy alone using standard histopathologic criteria. Secondary aims included evaluating neoplasia detection rates (1) based on the procedure order (WATS vs biopsy first) (2) of each procedure separately, and (3) the additional time required for WATS. RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients (mean age 63.4 years, 76% male; 95% white) completed the trial. The median circumferential and maximal BE extents were 1.0 (IQR: 0.0-5.0) cm and 4.0 (IQR, 2.0-8.0) cm, respectively. The diagnostic yield for biopsy alone was as follows: HGD/EAC, 7 (4.4%); low-grade dysplasia (LGD), 28 (17.5%); non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), 106 (66.25%); and no BE, 19 (11.9%). The addition of WATS to biopsy yielded an additional 23 cases of HGD/EAC (absolute increase, 14.4%; 95% CI, 7.5%-21.2%). Among these 23 patients, 11 were classified by biopsy as NDBE, and 12 as LGD/IND; 14 received biopsy and 9 WATS first (p=NS) and the majority (n=21; 91.7%) had a prior dysplasia history. WATS added average of 4.5 minutes to the procedure. CONCLUSION: Results of this multicenter, prospective, randomized trial demonstrate that the use of WATS in a referral BE population increases the detection of HGD/EAC.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard of care for tissue sampling of solid lesions adjacent to the GI tract. Fine needle biopsy (FNB) may provide higher diagnostic yield with fewer needle passes. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial from six large tertiary care centers. Patients referred for tissue sampling of solid lesions were randomized to either FNA or FNB of the target lesion. Demographics, size, location, number of needle passes, and final diagnosis were recorded. RESULTS: After enrollment, 135 patients were randomized to FNA (49.3%) and 139 patients were randomized to FNB (50.7%).The following lesions were sampled: mass (n=210; 76.6%), lymph nodes (n=46, 16.8%), submucosal tumors (n=18, 6.6%). Final diagnosis was malignancy (n=192, 70.1%), reactive lymphadenopathy (n=30, 11.0%), and spindle cell tumors (n=24, 8.8%). FNA had a diagnostic yield of 91.1% compared to 88.5% for FNB (p=0.48). There was no difference between FNA and FNB when stratified by the presence of on-site cytopathology or by type of lesion sampled A median of 1 needle pass was needed to obtain a diagnostic sample for both needles. CONCLUSION: FNA and FNB obtained a similar diagnostic yield with a comparable number of needle passes. Based on these results, there is no significant difference in the performance of FNA compared to FNB in the cytological diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the GI tract. (ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01698190).