Additional APC during ESP may have a beneficial effect by decreasing bleeding rate without harmful effects.

By using a multimodality endoscope, both AFI and magnification NBI had limited clinical accuracy and moderate overall interobserver agreement. AFI does not appear to be useful as a broad-based technique for the detection of neoplasia in patients with BE.

Background/AimsDifferentially diagnosing focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (f-AIP) and pancreatic cancer (PC) is challenging. Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) may provide information for differentiating pancreatic masses. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of CEH-EUS in differentiating f-AIP from PC.MethodsData were collected prospectively and analyzed on patients who underwent CEH-EUS between May 2014 and May 2015. Eighty consecutive patients were diagnosed with f-AIP or PC. PC and f-AIP were compared for enhancement intensity, contrast agent distribution, and internal vasculature.ResultsThe study group comprised 53 PC patients and 27 f-AIP patients (17 with type-1 AIP [15 definite and two probable], two with probable type-2 AIP, and eight with AIP, not otherwise specified). Hyper- to iso-enhancement in the arterial phase (f-AIP, 89% vs PC, 13%; p<0.05), homogeneous contrast agent distribution (f-AIP, 81% vs PC, 17%; p<0.05), and absent irregular internal vessels (f-AIP, 85% vs PC, 30%; p<0.05) were observed more frequently in the f-AIP group. The combination of CEH-EUS and enhancement intensity, absent irregular internal vessels improved the specificity (94%) in differentiating f-AIP from PC.ConclusionsCEH-EUS may be a useful noninvasive modality for differentially diagnosing f-AIP and PC. Combined CEH-EUS findings could improve the specificity of CEH-EUS in differentiating f-AIP from PC.

Background and Objective:Accessory spleen (AS) may be encountered as an intrapancreatic lesion on EUS. This can look similar to other pancreatic pathologies and may lead to unnecessary interventions. The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of EUS in distinguishing intrapancreatic AS (IPAS) from other pancreatic lesions.Materials and Methods:Twelve sets of endoscopic images of the spleen and various pancreatic lesions confirmed on histology or cytology were gathered. Ten endosonographers were asked to characterize and identify the lesions. The responses were analyzed via Excel and the interobserver agreement was analyzed using Gwet's agreement coefficient statistic via Stata I/C v15.Results:In our sample, the interobserver agreement was 0.37 (−1–1; 0–0.2 poor, 0.2–0.4 fair, 0.4–0.6 moderate, 0.6–0.8 substantial, and 0.8–1.0 almost perfect) for determining whether or not the pancreatic lesion is IPAS. The reviewers were able to correctly determine IPAS endosonographically with a sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 74%, and positive and negative predictive values of 50% and 92%, respectively.Conclusion:There is a moderate-to-substantial interobserver agreement in describing the sonographic characteristics of the pancreatic lesions, such as the shape, echogenicity compared to spleen, echotexture, and border of the lesions. However, the interobserver agreement is only fair when deciding if the pancreatic lesion is an IPAS. The similar profile of IPAS and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor could confound the diagnosis of IPAS, thus contributing to the decreased interobserver agreement. This study demonstrates that EUS criteria alone are not accurate for IPAS diagnosis. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) may be required for a confirmatory diagnosis.

ABSTR AC TBackground and aims Rectal lesions traditionally represent the first lesions approached during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training in the West. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of rectal ESD in North America.Methods This is a multicenter retrospective analysis of rectal ESD between January 2010 and September 2018 in 15 centers. End points included: rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, comparison of pre-and post-ESD histology, and factors associated with failed resection. ResultsIn total, 171 patients (median age 63 years; 56 % men) underwent rectal ESD (median size 43 mm). En bloc resection was achieved in 141 cases (82.5 %; 95 %CI 76.8-88.2), including 24 of 27 (88.9 %) with prior failed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). R0 resection rate was 74.9 % (95 %CI 68.4-81.4). Post-ESD bleeding and perforation occurred in 4 (2.3 %) and 7 (4.1 %), respectively. Covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) was identified in 8.6 % of post-ESD specimens. There was one case (1/120; 0.8 %) of recurrence at a median follow-up of 31 weeks; IQR: 19-76 weeks). Older age and higher body mass index (BMI) were predictors of failed R0 resection, whereas submucosal fi-R0 resection, n (%) 128 (74.9 %) R1 resection, n (%) 20 (11.7 %) Rx resection, n (%) 23 (13.5 %) Overall curative resection, n (%) 125 (73.1 %) Curative resection for superficial invasive adenocarcinoma (n = 11) , n (%) 9 (81.8 %) Adverse events, n (%) ▪ Bleeding 4 (2.3 %) ▪ Perforation 7 (4.1 %) ▪ Nausea/abdominal pain 3 (2.9 %) ▪ Postoperative urinary retention 3 (1.8 %)▪ Post-ESD anal stricture 1 (0.6 %) EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection.