Since its advent in the 1980s endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has played an important role in the diagnosis, staging, and therapeutic management of various gastrointestinal malignancies. EUS has emerged as a vital tool in the evaluation of esophageal cancer as it provides a detailed view of the layers of the esophageal wall and surrounding tissues. This permits determination of tumor invasion depth and local lymph node metastases. It is the most sensitive and specific method available for locoregional staging of esophageal cancer. The information obtained via EUS is vital in determining the appropriate diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options. Thus, this article aims to present a review of the accuracy and utilization of EUS in the staging of esophageal cancer.
Background and study aims With newer imaging modalities, indications for use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have changed in the last decade. Despite advances in ERCP, paucity in recent literature regarding utilization and outcomes of ERCP exists. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the inpatient use of ERCP, outcomes, and most common indications. Patients and methods Retrospective-cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2007–2016. All patients with ICD9–10CM procedural codes for ERCP were included. The primary outcome was the use of ERCP. Secondary outcomes included determining procedural specifics (stenting, sphincterotomy and dilation), complications (post-ERCP pancreatitis [PEP], bile duct perforation), hospital length of stay, total hospital costs and charges. Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for confounders. Results A total of 1,606,850 patients underwent inpatient ERCP. The mean age was 59 years (60 % female). The total number of ERCPs increased over the last decade. Patients undergoing ERCP in 2016 had greater odds of undergoing bile duct stent placement, pancreatic duct (PD) stenting, biliary dilation, pancreatic sphincterotomy, PEP and biliary perforation. Inpatient mortality decreased. Hospital charges increased, while length of stay (LOS) decreased. Conclusions The number of ERCPs increased in the past decade. Odds of therapeutic interventions and complications increased. The most common principal diagnoses were choledocholithiasis and gallstone-related AP. Hence, physicians must be aware to promptly diagnose and treat complications. These findings may reflect the increased case complexity and fact that ERCP continues to evolve into an increasingly interventional tool, contrasting from its former role as a predominantly diagnostic and gallstone extraction tool.
Background Interval colorectal cancers may be associated with a low serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We aimed to determine the SDR and AADR for endoscopists in a United States multicenter cohort. Methods We included average-risk screening colonoscopies from five medical centers in the United States. Endoscopists with data on at least 100 average-risk screening colonoscopies were included. We calculated median SDR and AADR for endoscopists with adequate adenoma detection rates (ADRs) > 25 %. We analyzed the relationship between ADR and SDR, and between ADR and AADR using nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficients, scatter plots, and linear regression. Results We included 3513 screening colonoscopies performed by 26 gastroenterologists. The mean age of patients was 56.8 years (SD 7.4) and 1585 (45 %) were male. All but one endoscopist had an ADR above 25 %. There was a significant positive but modest correlation between ADR and SDR (rho = 0.67, P < 0.01), and between ADR and AADR (rho = 0.56, P < 0.01). For endoscopists with an adequate ADR, median (interquartile range) ADR was 43 % (32.0 % – 48.6 %), median SDR was 8.4 % (7.3 % – 11.4 %), and median AADR was 9.3 % (6.4 % – 12.6 %). Conclusion A significant percentage of endoscopists have either a low SDR or low AADR despite an adequate ADR, justifying the need for separate SDR and AADR benchmarks. Based on our multicenter cohort, endoscopists with adequate ADRs had a median SDR and median AADR of about 8 % and 9 %, respectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.