Circulating tumour cells as a biomarker for diagnosis and staging in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current diagnosis and staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has important limitations and better biomarkers are needed to guide initial therapy. We investigated the performance of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) as an adjunctive biomarker at the time of disease presentation. METHODS: Venous blood (VB) was collected prospectively from 100 consecutive, pre-treatment patients with PDAC. Utilising the microfluidic NanoVelcro CTC chip, samples were evaluated for the presence and number of CTCs. KRAS mutation analysis was used to compare the CTCs with primary tumour tissue. CTC enumeration data was then evaluated as a diagnostic and staging biomarker in the setting of PDAC. RESULTS: We found 100% concordance for KRAS mutation subtype between primary tumour and CTCs in all five patients tested. Evaluation of CTCs as a diagnostic revealed the presence of CTCs in 54/72 patients with confirmed PDAC (sensitivity=75.0%, specificity=96.4%, area under the curve (AUROC)=0.867, 95% CI=0.798-0.935, and P<0.001). Furthermore, a cut-off of ⩾3 CTCs in 4 ml VB was able to discriminate between local/regional and metastatic disease (AUROC=0.885; 95% CI=0.800-0.969; and P<0.001). CONCLUSION: CTCs appear to function well as a biomarker for diagnosis and staging in PDAC.

Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). This Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 Prophylactic colonic stent placement is not recommended. Colonic stenting should be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and imaging evidence of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 Colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery is not recommended as a standard treatment of symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 3 For patients with potentially curable but obstructing left-sided colonic cancer, stent placement may be considered as an alternative to emergency surgery in those who have an increased risk of postoperative mortality, I. e. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status ≥ III and/or age > 70 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 SEMS placement is recommended as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence), except in patients treated or considered for treatment with antiangiogenic drugs (e. g. bevacizumab) (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).(AU)

Removable esophageal stents have poor efficacy for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures (RBES).

With the recent availability of removable esophageal stents, endoscopic stenting has been utilized to treat refractory benign esophageal strictures (RBES). The objective of this study was to review the feasibility and effectiveness of removable esophageal stents to treat RBES. Patients who received removable esophageal stents for the treatment of RBES at the institution between 2004-2010 using its stent implantation logs and endoscopic database were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics, stricture etiology and location, stent and procedure characteristics, and clinical outcomes were obtained. Twenty-five patients with a mean age of 70 (72% male) underwent initial stent placement; 24 were successful. Overall clinical success was achieved in five of the 19 patients (26%) ultimately undergoing stent removal. RBES etiologies included anastomotic (13), radiation (5), peptic (3), chemotherapy (1), scleroderma (1), and unknown (2). Alimaxx-E (Merit-Endotek, South Jordan, UT, USA) stents were placed in 20 patients and Polyflex (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) stents were used in five patients. Immediate complications included failed deployment (1) and chest pain (7). Five patients died prior to stent removal. Stent migration was found in 53% (10/19) of patients who underwent stent removal: nine required additional therapy and one had symptom resolution. Out of the nine patients without stent migration, five required additional therapy and four had symptom resolution. Although placement of removable esophageal stents for RBES is technically feasible, it is frequently complicated by stent migration and chest pain. In addition, few patients achieved long-term stricture resolution after initial stenting. In this study, most patients ultimately required repeated stenting and/or dilations to maintain relief of dysphagia.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous for biliary access after failed cannulation.

INTRODUCTION: Selective cannulation fails in approximately 3 % of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) procedures. An endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique (EUS - RV) may salvage failed cannulation. The aims of the current study were to determine the safety and efficacy of EUS - RV. METHODS: A total of 40 patients underwent salvage EUS - RV. EUS - RV was attempted immediately after failed biliary cannulation. A dilated intra- or extra-hepatic biliary duct (IHBD or EHBD) was punctured from the stomach or the small intestine under EUS guidance followed by cholangiography and antegrade manipulation of the guide wire into the small intestine. Finally, the echoendoscope was exchanged for an appropriate endoscope and biliary cannulation was achieved over or adjacent to the guide wire. RESULT: EUS-RV appears safe and effective and may be considered as a primary salvage technique after failed cannulation. Antegrade manipulation of the guide wire into the small intestine was achieved in 29 of 40 patients (73 %; EHBD 25 /31 and IHBD 4/9). The reasons for failure were inability to advance the guide wire through an obstruction or a native ampulla. Re-attempt at ERC immediately after failed EUS - RV was made in seven of the 11 patients, and was successful in four. The remaining seven patients underwent percutaneous drainage within 3 days. Complications occurred in five patients (13 %), including pancreatitis, abdominal pain, pneumoperitoneum, and sepsis/death, which was unlikely to be related to the procedure. CONCLUSION: EUS - RV is safe and effective and should be considered as a primary salvage technique after failed cannulation. Immediate re-attempt at ERC after failed EUS - RV is warranted, as EUS-guided cholangiogram can facilitate biliary cannulation in some cases. Finally, prompt alternative biliary drainage should be available.

Diagnostic evaluation of cystic pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPNs) present a unique challenge in preoperative diagnosis. We investigated the accuracy of diagnostic methods for CPN. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cases series includes 70 patients who underwent surgery at a university hospital for presumed CPNs between 1997 and 2003, and for whom a definitive diagnosis was established. Variables examined included symptoms, preoperative work-up (including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 22 cases and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 12), and operative and pathological findings. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans (n=50 patients; CT=48; MRI=13) were independently reviewed by two blinded GI radiologists. RESULTS: The final histopathologic diagnoses were mucinous cystic neoplasm (n=13), mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (10), serous cystadenoma (11), IPMN (14), simple cyst (3), cystic neuroendocrine tumor (5), pseudocyst (4), and other (10). Overall, 25 of 70 were malignant (37%), 21 premalignant (30%), and 24 benign (34%). The attending surgeon's preoperative diagnosis was correct in 31% of cases, incorrect in 29%, non-specific "cystic tumor" in 27%, and "pseudocyst vs. neoplasm" in 11%. Eight had been previously managed as pseudocysts, and 3 pseudocysts were excised as presumed CPN. In review of the CT and MRI, a multivariate analysis of the morphologic features did not identify predictors of specific pathologic diagnoses. Both radiologists were accurate with their preferred (no. 1) diagnosis in <50% of cases. MRI demonstrated no additional utility beyond CT. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of CPN remains challenging. Cross-sectional imaging methods do not reliably give an accurate preoperative diagnosis. Surgeons should continue to err on the side of resection.