No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

NCT02158039.).

No abstract

Background National guidelines recommend genomic profiling of tumor tissue to guide precision therapy. We compared the specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Methods In our tandem, randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients undergoing EUS for evaluation of pancreatic masses underwent both conventional EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle and paired EUS-FNB (19 or 22-gauge needle), with the order randomized (EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, or vice versa). A minimum of one pass with each needle was obtained for histology. Second and third passes were performed to collect DNA. Specimens were evaluated by a cytopathologist blinded to the needle type. Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling was calculated based on FoundationOne clinical diagnostic (CDx) adequacy requirements. We compared the adequacy for genomic profiling DNA (quantity) and histology yields with both needles. Results Analysis included 50 patients (25 men; mean age 68 [standard deviation (SD) 13] years), with a mean lesion size of 38 (SD 17) mm; 37 lesions (74 %) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The mean DNA concentrations in PDAC by FNB and FNA needles were 5.930 (SD 0.881) µg/mL vs. 3.365 (SD 0.788) µg/mL, respectively (P = 0.01). The median standardized histology score per pass with EUS-FNB was 5 (sufficient for histology) and for EUS-FNA was 2 (enough for cytology). Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA was significantly higher with FNB than with FNA needles. Conclusions In this study, adequacy for genomic profiling, DNA, and histology yield were considerably superior using an EUS-FNB needle compared with an EUS-FNA needle.

It is as safe to perform large-volume breast reductions in the morbidly obese patient with comorbidities as in anyone else.

Background & Aims: Gastric emptying (GE) is involved in regulation of appetite. We compared times of GE after different bariatric endoscopic and surgical interventions and associations with weight loss. Methods:We performed a comprehensive search of publication databases, through September 14, 2018, for randomized and non-randomized studies reporting outcomes of weight-loss surgeries. Two independent reviewers selected and appraised studies. Outcome of interest was GE T 1/2 (min), measured before and after the procedure. A random effects model was used to pool the mean change in T 1/2 (min) after the intervention. We performed meta-regression analysis to find