Infectious peritonitis after endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in a patient with ascites

SUMMARY OF EVENT: Bacterial, mycotic peritonitis and Candida fungemia developed in a patient with moderate ascites who had undergone endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD). Antibiotics and antifungal agent were administered and ascites drainage was performed. Although the infection improved, the patient's general condition gradually deteriorated due to aggravation of the primary cancer and he died. TEACHING POINT: This is the first report to describe infectious peritonitis after EUS-BD. Ascites carries the potential risk of severe complications. As such, in patients with ascites, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is typically preferred over EUS-BD or percutaneous drainage to prevent bile leakage. However, ERCP may not be possible in some patients with tumor invasion of the duodenum or with surgically altered anatomy. Thus, in patients with ascites who require EUS-BD, we recommend inserting the drainage tube percutaneously and draining the ascites before and after the intervention in order to prevent severe infection.

Risks of transesophageal endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage

SUMMARY OF EVENT: Pneumoderma, mediastinal emphysema, and bilateral pneumothorax were developed in the patient who had undergone transesophageal endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous technique. Chest drainage was performed immediately. TEACHING POINT: Transesophageal approach carries the potential risks of severe complications such as mediastinal emphysema, mediastinitis, and pneumothorax. To prevent puncturing through the esophagus, clipping the esophagogastric junction using a forward-viewing scope before procedure is very useful. In cases of inadvertent transesophageal puncture, devices other than the needle should not be passed through the site.

Development of a new reagent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis and tumor ablation therapy

BACKGROUND: Both endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) and tumor ablation using ethanol are very common procedures, and the utility of these therapies has already been reported in prominent journals. However, their effectiveness appears temporary and insufficient, especially EUS-CPN. We therefore have to consider new reagents for improving the results. The present study examined the best concentration of ethanol and povidone iodine mixed with atelocollagen for more effective therapies. METHODS: The effects of the new reagents were confirmed in three live pigs. At first, we injected three kinds of reagents (including indigo carmine) in three separate areas of para-aortic tissue under EUS guidance in one pig. At more than 4 hours after injection, we checked ethanol injection sites after dissection. In next study, we performed EUS-guided injection of a total of six kinds of reagents (two kinds of ethanol, three kinds of povidone iodine, and control atelocollagen) into the livers of two living pigs. After 2 weeks, we examined tissue damage to the liver in the two pigs. RESULTS: The 75% ethanol (absolute ethanol 3.75 mL + 1% atelocollagen 1.25 mL + a very small amount of indigo carmine) was seen like blue gel, and still remained in the para-aortic tissue. Brownish areas of povidone iodine mixed with 3% atelocollagen exhibited clear, regular borders with greatly reduced infiltration into surrounding tissue compared to others. CONCLUSION: We concluded that 75% ethanol mixed with 1% atelocollagen appears optimal for EUS-CPN. Povidone iodine mixed with 3% atelocollagen may be suitable for small tumor ablation therapy.

Does the WHO 2010 classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms accurately characterize pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas? / Шинэ санаа Шинэ нээлт

Background: The WHO classified pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNEN) in 2010 as G1, G2, and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), according to Ki67 labeling index (LI). However, the clinical behavior of NEC is still not fully studied. We aimed to clarify the clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of NECs. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinicopathological characteristics, KRAS mutation status, treatment response, and the overall survival of eleven pNEC patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2014 according to the WHO 2010. We subclassified WHO-NECs into well-differentiated (WDNEC) and poorlydifferentiated NEC (PDNEC), the latter further subdivided into large and small cell type. Results: The median Ki67 LI was 69.1% (range, 40% - 95%) and the median tumor size was 35 mm. 11 WHO-NECs were subclassified 4 WDNEC and 7 PDNEC, and further separated PDNEC into 3 large cell and 4 small cell subtypes. Comparisons of WDNEC vs. PDNEC revealed hypervascularity on CT, 50% (2/4) vs. 0% (0/7) (P = 0.109); median Ki67 LI, 46.3% (40% - 53%) vs. 85% (54% - 95%) (P = 0.001); KRAS mutations, 0% (0/4) vs. 85.7% (6/7) (P = 0.015); response rates to platinum-based chemotherapy, 0% (0/2) vs.100% (4/4) (P = 0.067) and median survival, 227 vs. 186 days (P = 0.227). Conclusions: The WHO-NEC category may be composed of heterogeneous disease entities, namely WDNEC and PDNEC. These subgroups tended to exhibit differing Ki67 and KRAS mutation profiles, and distinct response to chemotherapy. Further studies for the re-evaluation of the current WHO 2010 classification is warranted.

Does the WHO 2010 classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms accurately characterize pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas? / Шинэ санаа Шинэ нээлт

Background: The WHO classified pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNEN)in 2010 as G1, G2, and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), according to Ki67labeling index (LI). However, the clinical behavior of NEC is still not fully studied.We aimed to clarify the clinicopathological and molecular characteristics ofNECs.Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinicopathological characteristics,KRAS mutation status, treatment response, and the overall survival of elevenpNEC patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2014 according to the WHO 2010.We subclassified WHO-NECs into well-differentiated (WDNEC) and poorlydifferentiatedNEC (PDNEC), the latter further subdivided into large and smallcell type.Results: The median Ki67 LI was 69.1% (range, 40% - 95%) and the mediantumor size was 35 mm. 11 WHO-NECs were subclassified 4 WDNEC and 7PDNEC, and further separated PDNEC into 3 large cell and 4 small cell subtypes.Comparisons of WDNEC vs. PDNEC revealed hypervascularity on CT, 50% (2/4)vs. 0% (0/7) (P = 0.109); median Ki67 LI, 46.3% (40% - 53%) vs. 85% (54% -95%) (P = 0.001); KRAS mutations, 0% (0/4) vs. 85.7% (6/7) (P = 0.015); responserates to platinum-based chemotherapy, 0% (0/2) vs.100% (4/4) (P = 0.067) andmedian survival, 227 vs. 186 days (P = 0.227).Conclusions: The WHO-NEC category may be composed of heterogeneousdisease entities, namely WDNEC and PDNEC. These subgroups tended to exhibitdiffering Ki67 and KRAS mutation profiles, and distinct response to chemotherapy.Further studies for the re-evaluation of the current WHO 2010 classification iswarranted.