User login
Power-washing is no longer just for blasting grimy driveways and stripping flaky paint. It’s good for work inside the gut, too.
In a proof-of-concept study, a “novel systematically directed high-pressure liquid spray,” delivered via the ERBEJET flexible probe, showed promise for collecting cytology specimens from the stomachs of patients undergoing endoscopy for gastric cancer screening or surveillance, reported lead author Charles J. Lightdale, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, and colleagues.
“Systematic random biopsies (updated Sydney protocol) have been recommended to increase detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, random biopsies can be laborious, time consuming, costly, and susceptible to sampling error owing to the large surface area of the stomach.”
Power-washing, in contrast, with the pressure dial turned to 10 bar, involves spraying the gut in a systematic fashion “using sweeping and painting motions” to dislodge cells from the mucosa. These specimens are then suctioned from the resultant pools of liquid, mixed 1:1 with 10% formalin, and shipped to the lab.
Boom! Cytology!
Just to be sure, however, the nine patients involved in the study also underwent standard-of-care biopsy collection from areas of interest, followed by random sampling according to the updated Sydney protocol. Two of the patients were power-washed again 12 months later for endoscopic surveillance.
Power-washing added 7-10 minutes to standard endoscopy time and generated 60-100 mL of liquid for collection. Post suction, a closer look at the gastric mucosa revealed “scattered superficial erosions,” while blood loss was deemed “minimal.” The procedure appeared well tolerated, with no aspiration or esophageal reflux during endoscopy, or adverse events reported by patients after 1 week of follow-up.
Cytopathology samples were deemed satisfactory and yielded “multiple strips and large clusters of cells.” These were sufficient to diagnose GIM in three patients and reactive glandular changes with inflammation in one patient, with findings confirmed on biopsy. In contrast, the power-washed cells from one patient were “highly suspicious” for dysplasia, but biopsies were negative.
Although the study was too small for a reliable comparison with the Sydney protocol, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues concluded that the power-wash approach deserves further investigation.
“ and to reduce morbidity and mortality from gastric cancer,” they wrote.
The investigators predicted that power-washing is likely safe in most patients, although it may be unsuitable for those with noncorrectable coagulopathies or in patients who cannot stop anticoagulants. Postsurgical patients, on the other hand, should tolerate the procedure just fine.
Patients with risk of gastric cancer “might be an important group” for evaluating the power-wash procedure, the investigators wrote, noting that combining the approach with artificial intelligence could one day yield even better results.
In the meantime, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues — like so many weekend warriors wielding a power-washer — are going to see if a different nozzle will take their work to the next level.
“We are actively studying a catheter with a broader stream and the potential to increase efficiency and decrease procedure time,” they wrote. “Another catheter design might allow for simultaneous spray and suction, so that cytology samples from specific regions of the stomach could be separately analyzed.”
This study was funded by Dalio Philanthropies, the Price Family Foundation, and the Frederic and Patricia Salerno Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and others.
The optimal surveillance endoscopic modality for gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is yet to be determined. Although the updated Sydney System, a comprehensive endoscopic biopsy protocol, has been advocated for GIM mapping, challenges are the heterogeneous distribution of GIM, suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy to detect GIM, and the cost burden of multiple biopsies.
This study by Lightdale et al. demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of obtaining cytology for the detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia by using a systemic endoscopy-guided high-pressure spray “power-wash” method. In this study, all cytophathology samples in nine subjects were deemed satisfactory for evaluation. All three subjects who were cytology positive for GIM on H&E stain and confirmed with positive immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed GIM on biopsy, and one subject had cells highly suspicious for dysplasia on cytology but biopsy was negative. Although all patients showed multiple superficial erosions after power-wash, bleeding was minimal and no adverse events related to power-wash were observed.
Applying cytology for detection of GIM appears promising as the way of collecting samples from the large surface area of the stomach. As clinicians, however, we are still left with some challenges. Even if cells collected are suspicious for dysplasia/neoplasia by this power-wash method, it would not be useful unless we precisely localize the area as we can not provide a focal curative endoscopic treatment. It is critical to increase the yield of localization of cytology sampling. Further research is also needed to standardize the cytopathologic diagnostic criteria of GIM and cost-effectiveness of the cytology-based approach compared to the current gold-standard biopsy protocol for the diagnosis of GIM.
Yutaka Tomizawa, MD, MSc, is a therapeutic endoscopist and clinical associate professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts related to this report.
The optimal surveillance endoscopic modality for gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is yet to be determined. Although the updated Sydney System, a comprehensive endoscopic biopsy protocol, has been advocated for GIM mapping, challenges are the heterogeneous distribution of GIM, suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy to detect GIM, and the cost burden of multiple biopsies.
This study by Lightdale et al. demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of obtaining cytology for the detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia by using a systemic endoscopy-guided high-pressure spray “power-wash” method. In this study, all cytophathology samples in nine subjects were deemed satisfactory for evaluation. All three subjects who were cytology positive for GIM on H&E stain and confirmed with positive immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed GIM on biopsy, and one subject had cells highly suspicious for dysplasia on cytology but biopsy was negative. Although all patients showed multiple superficial erosions after power-wash, bleeding was minimal and no adverse events related to power-wash were observed.
Applying cytology for detection of GIM appears promising as the way of collecting samples from the large surface area of the stomach. As clinicians, however, we are still left with some challenges. Even if cells collected are suspicious for dysplasia/neoplasia by this power-wash method, it would not be useful unless we precisely localize the area as we can not provide a focal curative endoscopic treatment. It is critical to increase the yield of localization of cytology sampling. Further research is also needed to standardize the cytopathologic diagnostic criteria of GIM and cost-effectiveness of the cytology-based approach compared to the current gold-standard biopsy protocol for the diagnosis of GIM.
Yutaka Tomizawa, MD, MSc, is a therapeutic endoscopist and clinical associate professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts related to this report.
The optimal surveillance endoscopic modality for gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is yet to be determined. Although the updated Sydney System, a comprehensive endoscopic biopsy protocol, has been advocated for GIM mapping, challenges are the heterogeneous distribution of GIM, suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy to detect GIM, and the cost burden of multiple biopsies.
This study by Lightdale et al. demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of obtaining cytology for the detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia by using a systemic endoscopy-guided high-pressure spray “power-wash” method. In this study, all cytophathology samples in nine subjects were deemed satisfactory for evaluation. All three subjects who were cytology positive for GIM on H&E stain and confirmed with positive immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed GIM on biopsy, and one subject had cells highly suspicious for dysplasia on cytology but biopsy was negative. Although all patients showed multiple superficial erosions after power-wash, bleeding was minimal and no adverse events related to power-wash were observed.
Applying cytology for detection of GIM appears promising as the way of collecting samples from the large surface area of the stomach. As clinicians, however, we are still left with some challenges. Even if cells collected are suspicious for dysplasia/neoplasia by this power-wash method, it would not be useful unless we precisely localize the area as we can not provide a focal curative endoscopic treatment. It is critical to increase the yield of localization of cytology sampling. Further research is also needed to standardize the cytopathologic diagnostic criteria of GIM and cost-effectiveness of the cytology-based approach compared to the current gold-standard biopsy protocol for the diagnosis of GIM.
Yutaka Tomizawa, MD, MSc, is a therapeutic endoscopist and clinical associate professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts related to this report.
Power-washing is no longer just for blasting grimy driveways and stripping flaky paint. It’s good for work inside the gut, too.
In a proof-of-concept study, a “novel systematically directed high-pressure liquid spray,” delivered via the ERBEJET flexible probe, showed promise for collecting cytology specimens from the stomachs of patients undergoing endoscopy for gastric cancer screening or surveillance, reported lead author Charles J. Lightdale, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, and colleagues.
“Systematic random biopsies (updated Sydney protocol) have been recommended to increase detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, random biopsies can be laborious, time consuming, costly, and susceptible to sampling error owing to the large surface area of the stomach.”
Power-washing, in contrast, with the pressure dial turned to 10 bar, involves spraying the gut in a systematic fashion “using sweeping and painting motions” to dislodge cells from the mucosa. These specimens are then suctioned from the resultant pools of liquid, mixed 1:1 with 10% formalin, and shipped to the lab.
Boom! Cytology!
Just to be sure, however, the nine patients involved in the study also underwent standard-of-care biopsy collection from areas of interest, followed by random sampling according to the updated Sydney protocol. Two of the patients were power-washed again 12 months later for endoscopic surveillance.
Power-washing added 7-10 minutes to standard endoscopy time and generated 60-100 mL of liquid for collection. Post suction, a closer look at the gastric mucosa revealed “scattered superficial erosions,” while blood loss was deemed “minimal.” The procedure appeared well tolerated, with no aspiration or esophageal reflux during endoscopy, or adverse events reported by patients after 1 week of follow-up.
Cytopathology samples were deemed satisfactory and yielded “multiple strips and large clusters of cells.” These were sufficient to diagnose GIM in three patients and reactive glandular changes with inflammation in one patient, with findings confirmed on biopsy. In contrast, the power-washed cells from one patient were “highly suspicious” for dysplasia, but biopsies were negative.
Although the study was too small for a reliable comparison with the Sydney protocol, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues concluded that the power-wash approach deserves further investigation.
“ and to reduce morbidity and mortality from gastric cancer,” they wrote.
The investigators predicted that power-washing is likely safe in most patients, although it may be unsuitable for those with noncorrectable coagulopathies or in patients who cannot stop anticoagulants. Postsurgical patients, on the other hand, should tolerate the procedure just fine.
Patients with risk of gastric cancer “might be an important group” for evaluating the power-wash procedure, the investigators wrote, noting that combining the approach with artificial intelligence could one day yield even better results.
In the meantime, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues — like so many weekend warriors wielding a power-washer — are going to see if a different nozzle will take their work to the next level.
“We are actively studying a catheter with a broader stream and the potential to increase efficiency and decrease procedure time,” they wrote. “Another catheter design might allow for simultaneous spray and suction, so that cytology samples from specific regions of the stomach could be separately analyzed.”
This study was funded by Dalio Philanthropies, the Price Family Foundation, and the Frederic and Patricia Salerno Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and others.
Power-washing is no longer just for blasting grimy driveways and stripping flaky paint. It’s good for work inside the gut, too.
In a proof-of-concept study, a “novel systematically directed high-pressure liquid spray,” delivered via the ERBEJET flexible probe, showed promise for collecting cytology specimens from the stomachs of patients undergoing endoscopy for gastric cancer screening or surveillance, reported lead author Charles J. Lightdale, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, and colleagues.
“Systematic random biopsies (updated Sydney protocol) have been recommended to increase detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, random biopsies can be laborious, time consuming, costly, and susceptible to sampling error owing to the large surface area of the stomach.”
Power-washing, in contrast, with the pressure dial turned to 10 bar, involves spraying the gut in a systematic fashion “using sweeping and painting motions” to dislodge cells from the mucosa. These specimens are then suctioned from the resultant pools of liquid, mixed 1:1 with 10% formalin, and shipped to the lab.
Boom! Cytology!
Just to be sure, however, the nine patients involved in the study also underwent standard-of-care biopsy collection from areas of interest, followed by random sampling according to the updated Sydney protocol. Two of the patients were power-washed again 12 months later for endoscopic surveillance.
Power-washing added 7-10 minutes to standard endoscopy time and generated 60-100 mL of liquid for collection. Post suction, a closer look at the gastric mucosa revealed “scattered superficial erosions,” while blood loss was deemed “minimal.” The procedure appeared well tolerated, with no aspiration or esophageal reflux during endoscopy, or adverse events reported by patients after 1 week of follow-up.
Cytopathology samples were deemed satisfactory and yielded “multiple strips and large clusters of cells.” These were sufficient to diagnose GIM in three patients and reactive glandular changes with inflammation in one patient, with findings confirmed on biopsy. In contrast, the power-washed cells from one patient were “highly suspicious” for dysplasia, but biopsies were negative.
Although the study was too small for a reliable comparison with the Sydney protocol, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues concluded that the power-wash approach deserves further investigation.
“ and to reduce morbidity and mortality from gastric cancer,” they wrote.
The investigators predicted that power-washing is likely safe in most patients, although it may be unsuitable for those with noncorrectable coagulopathies or in patients who cannot stop anticoagulants. Postsurgical patients, on the other hand, should tolerate the procedure just fine.
Patients with risk of gastric cancer “might be an important group” for evaluating the power-wash procedure, the investigators wrote, noting that combining the approach with artificial intelligence could one day yield even better results.
In the meantime, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues — like so many weekend warriors wielding a power-washer — are going to see if a different nozzle will take their work to the next level.
“We are actively studying a catheter with a broader stream and the potential to increase efficiency and decrease procedure time,” they wrote. “Another catheter design might allow for simultaneous spray and suction, so that cytology samples from specific regions of the stomach could be separately analyzed.”
This study was funded by Dalio Philanthropies, the Price Family Foundation, and the Frederic and Patricia Salerno Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and others.
FROM TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY