User login
New clinical guideline for biliary strictures issued
The recommendations provide guidance on the care of patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, with a focus on diagnosis and drainage. Although some of the principles may apply to intrahepatic strictures, the guideline doesn’t specifically address them. The new guideline is considered separate from the 2015 ACG guideline related to primary sclerosing cholangitis.
“The appropriate diagnosis and management of biliary strictures is still a big clinical challenge and has important implications in endoscopic, surgical, and oncological decision-making,” co-author Jennifer Maranki, MD, a professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, said in an interview.
“We wanted to provide the best possible guidance to gastroenterologists based on the available body of literature, with key shifts in diagnosis and management based on currently available modalities and tools,” she said.
The guideline was published in the March issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
The recommendations were developed by a diverse group of authors from across the United States in recognition of the potential influence of commercial and intellectual conflicts of interest. The panel used a systematic process that involved structured literature searches by librarians and independent appraisal of the quality of evidence by dedicated methodologists, the authors write.
Overall, the team outlined 11 recommendations and 12 key concepts. A strong recommendation was made when the benefits of the test or intervention clearly outweighed the potential disadvantages. A conditional recommendation was made when some uncertainty remained about the balance of benefits and harms. Key concepts address important clinical questions that lack adequate evidence to inform recommendations. They are based on indirect evidence and expert opinion.
Epidemiology and diagnosis
The burden of biliary strictures is difficult to estimate, owing to the lack of a specific administrative code. The estimated cost of caring for biliary disease in the United States is about $16.9 billion annually, although this figure includes costs associated with gallbladder disease, choledocholithiasis, and other (nonobstructive) biliary disorders, the authors write.
Among the 57,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer each year, at least 60% will cause obstructive jaundice, resulting in about 34,000 annual cases of malignant extrahepatic biliary stricture, the team notes. In addition, about 3,000 cases of malignant perihilar stricture are expected in the United States each year. Patients may also seek care for benign strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune disease, and post-cholecystectomy injury.
Under the first key concept, the authors note that biliary strictures in adults are more likely to be malignant than benign, except in certain well-defined scenarios. This underscores the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion during evaluation, they add.
In general, a definitive tissue diagnosis is necessary to guide oncologic and endoscopic care for most strictures that aren’t surgically resectable at the time of presentation. For patients with extrahepatic biliary stricture due to an apparent or suspected pancreatic mass, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle sampling (aspiration or biopsy) is recommended over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the preferred method of evaluation for malignancy.
For patients with suspected malignant perihilar stricture, multimodality sampling is recommended over brush cytology alone at the time of the index ERCP.
Guidance on drainage
For management, the principal objective is to restore the physiologic flow of bile into the duodenum. Although there is wide variability in the difficulty and risk of drainage, depending on location and complexity, perihilar strictures are generally more challenging and are riskier to drain than extrahepatic strictures. The goals should be to alleviate symptoms, reduce serum bilirubin to a level such that chemotherapy can be safely administered, and optimize surgical outcomes.
For benign extrahepatic biliary strictures, ERCP is the preferred modality for durable treatment. Fully covered self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is recommended over multiple plastic stents to reduce the number of procedures required for long-term treatment.
For extrahepatic strictures due to resectable pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, the authors recommend against routine preoperative biliary drainage. However, drainage is warranted for some patients, including those with acute cholangitis, severe pruritus, very high serum bilirubin levels, those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, and those for whom surgery is delayed.
For malignant extrahepatic strictures that are unresectable or borderline resectable, SEMS placement is recommended over plastic stents. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against uncovered SEMS versus fully covered SEMS.
For perihilar strictures due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. In addition, for malignant perihilar strictures, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against plastic stents versus uncovered SEMS.
For perihilar strictures due to cholangiocarcinoma in cases in which resection or transplantation is not possible, adjuvant endobiliary ablation plus plastic stent placement is recommended over plastic stent placement alone.
Overall, for patients with a biliary stricture for which ERCP is indicated but is unsuccessful or impossible, EUS-guided biliary access and drainage is recommended over PTBD, because it is associated with fewer adverse events. However, these interventional EUS procedures should be performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience.
“The workup of biliary strictures is challenging, invasive, and costly, requiring multiple diagnostic tools with highly variable yields,” co-author Victoria Gomez, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric endoscopy at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
“Providers caring for these patients must be up to date with the most current evidence so that they can make the safest and most well-informed decisions for their patients,” she said. “These include considerations such as limiting the use of anesthesia, using tests that will result in the highest diagnostic yield, and providing effective therapies to decompress biliary obstruction.”
Future questions
Additional research is needed in several areas to strengthen recommendations and advance the field, the study authors write.
“Biliary strictures without an associated mass are a diagnostic challenge, and there are exciting opportunities to understand how new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, can be used to improve our assessment,” co-author Anna Tavakkoli, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine in digestive and liver diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“Also, we highlighted several controversies in the drainage of perihilar strictures, including whether to use ERCP versus percutaneous drainage, whether metallic or plastic stents are better, and what the optimal stent placement should be,” she said. “Future multicenter studies are needed to address these key controversies.”
Although fully covered SEMS placement remains effective for benign biliary strictures, multiple plastic stents may be a better alternative in some cases. Such cases include those in which the stricture is close to the hilum, those in which the gallbladder is intact and in which crossing the cystic duct orifice cannot be avoided, those in which a fully covered SEMS has previously migrated or was not well tolerated, and those in which stricture has recurred after removal of a fully covered SEMS.
‘Comprehensive list’
“Overall, the authors have done a commendable job putting together a comprehensive list of recommendations that will invariably alter the practice of many therapeutic endoscopists for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures,” Matthew Fasullo, DO, an advanced endoscopy and gastroenterology fellow at New York University Medical Center, told this news organization.
Dr. Fasullo, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, has published on advances in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment for post-transplant biliary complications.
“The fact that ... cholangioscopy-directed biopsies after an initial negative evaluation via ERCP reveal malignancy in 54% of cases underscores the need for best practice guidelines and supports advancements in diagnostics to confidently rule in or out cancer,” he said.
“The movement toward multimodality sampling at the time of initial evaluation with a combination of brushing, fluoroscopy-directed biopsies, cholangioscopy-directed biopsies, and fluorescence in situ hybridization should become universally adopted in those with an ambiguous diagnosis,” he added. “As technology continues to improve, next-generation sequencing will prove to be an invaluable adjunct to the current pathological evaluation.”
The authors received no financial support for the guideline. One author has a consultant role for Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is an advisory board member role for Advarra. The other authors and Dr. Fasullo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The recommendations provide guidance on the care of patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, with a focus on diagnosis and drainage. Although some of the principles may apply to intrahepatic strictures, the guideline doesn’t specifically address them. The new guideline is considered separate from the 2015 ACG guideline related to primary sclerosing cholangitis.
“The appropriate diagnosis and management of biliary strictures is still a big clinical challenge and has important implications in endoscopic, surgical, and oncological decision-making,” co-author Jennifer Maranki, MD, a professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, said in an interview.
“We wanted to provide the best possible guidance to gastroenterologists based on the available body of literature, with key shifts in diagnosis and management based on currently available modalities and tools,” she said.
The guideline was published in the March issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
The recommendations were developed by a diverse group of authors from across the United States in recognition of the potential influence of commercial and intellectual conflicts of interest. The panel used a systematic process that involved structured literature searches by librarians and independent appraisal of the quality of evidence by dedicated methodologists, the authors write.
Overall, the team outlined 11 recommendations and 12 key concepts. A strong recommendation was made when the benefits of the test or intervention clearly outweighed the potential disadvantages. A conditional recommendation was made when some uncertainty remained about the balance of benefits and harms. Key concepts address important clinical questions that lack adequate evidence to inform recommendations. They are based on indirect evidence and expert opinion.
Epidemiology and diagnosis
The burden of biliary strictures is difficult to estimate, owing to the lack of a specific administrative code. The estimated cost of caring for biliary disease in the United States is about $16.9 billion annually, although this figure includes costs associated with gallbladder disease, choledocholithiasis, and other (nonobstructive) biliary disorders, the authors write.
Among the 57,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer each year, at least 60% will cause obstructive jaundice, resulting in about 34,000 annual cases of malignant extrahepatic biliary stricture, the team notes. In addition, about 3,000 cases of malignant perihilar stricture are expected in the United States each year. Patients may also seek care for benign strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune disease, and post-cholecystectomy injury.
Under the first key concept, the authors note that biliary strictures in adults are more likely to be malignant than benign, except in certain well-defined scenarios. This underscores the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion during evaluation, they add.
In general, a definitive tissue diagnosis is necessary to guide oncologic and endoscopic care for most strictures that aren’t surgically resectable at the time of presentation. For patients with extrahepatic biliary stricture due to an apparent or suspected pancreatic mass, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle sampling (aspiration or biopsy) is recommended over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the preferred method of evaluation for malignancy.
For patients with suspected malignant perihilar stricture, multimodality sampling is recommended over brush cytology alone at the time of the index ERCP.
Guidance on drainage
For management, the principal objective is to restore the physiologic flow of bile into the duodenum. Although there is wide variability in the difficulty and risk of drainage, depending on location and complexity, perihilar strictures are generally more challenging and are riskier to drain than extrahepatic strictures. The goals should be to alleviate symptoms, reduce serum bilirubin to a level such that chemotherapy can be safely administered, and optimize surgical outcomes.
For benign extrahepatic biliary strictures, ERCP is the preferred modality for durable treatment. Fully covered self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is recommended over multiple plastic stents to reduce the number of procedures required for long-term treatment.
For extrahepatic strictures due to resectable pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, the authors recommend against routine preoperative biliary drainage. However, drainage is warranted for some patients, including those with acute cholangitis, severe pruritus, very high serum bilirubin levels, those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, and those for whom surgery is delayed.
For malignant extrahepatic strictures that are unresectable or borderline resectable, SEMS placement is recommended over plastic stents. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against uncovered SEMS versus fully covered SEMS.
For perihilar strictures due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. In addition, for malignant perihilar strictures, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against plastic stents versus uncovered SEMS.
For perihilar strictures due to cholangiocarcinoma in cases in which resection or transplantation is not possible, adjuvant endobiliary ablation plus plastic stent placement is recommended over plastic stent placement alone.
Overall, for patients with a biliary stricture for which ERCP is indicated but is unsuccessful or impossible, EUS-guided biliary access and drainage is recommended over PTBD, because it is associated with fewer adverse events. However, these interventional EUS procedures should be performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience.
“The workup of biliary strictures is challenging, invasive, and costly, requiring multiple diagnostic tools with highly variable yields,” co-author Victoria Gomez, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric endoscopy at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
“Providers caring for these patients must be up to date with the most current evidence so that they can make the safest and most well-informed decisions for their patients,” she said. “These include considerations such as limiting the use of anesthesia, using tests that will result in the highest diagnostic yield, and providing effective therapies to decompress biliary obstruction.”
Future questions
Additional research is needed in several areas to strengthen recommendations and advance the field, the study authors write.
“Biliary strictures without an associated mass are a diagnostic challenge, and there are exciting opportunities to understand how new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, can be used to improve our assessment,” co-author Anna Tavakkoli, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine in digestive and liver diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“Also, we highlighted several controversies in the drainage of perihilar strictures, including whether to use ERCP versus percutaneous drainage, whether metallic or plastic stents are better, and what the optimal stent placement should be,” she said. “Future multicenter studies are needed to address these key controversies.”
Although fully covered SEMS placement remains effective for benign biliary strictures, multiple plastic stents may be a better alternative in some cases. Such cases include those in which the stricture is close to the hilum, those in which the gallbladder is intact and in which crossing the cystic duct orifice cannot be avoided, those in which a fully covered SEMS has previously migrated or was not well tolerated, and those in which stricture has recurred after removal of a fully covered SEMS.
‘Comprehensive list’
“Overall, the authors have done a commendable job putting together a comprehensive list of recommendations that will invariably alter the practice of many therapeutic endoscopists for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures,” Matthew Fasullo, DO, an advanced endoscopy and gastroenterology fellow at New York University Medical Center, told this news organization.
Dr. Fasullo, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, has published on advances in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment for post-transplant biliary complications.
“The fact that ... cholangioscopy-directed biopsies after an initial negative evaluation via ERCP reveal malignancy in 54% of cases underscores the need for best practice guidelines and supports advancements in diagnostics to confidently rule in or out cancer,” he said.
“The movement toward multimodality sampling at the time of initial evaluation with a combination of brushing, fluoroscopy-directed biopsies, cholangioscopy-directed biopsies, and fluorescence in situ hybridization should become universally adopted in those with an ambiguous diagnosis,” he added. “As technology continues to improve, next-generation sequencing will prove to be an invaluable adjunct to the current pathological evaluation.”
The authors received no financial support for the guideline. One author has a consultant role for Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is an advisory board member role for Advarra. The other authors and Dr. Fasullo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The recommendations provide guidance on the care of patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, with a focus on diagnosis and drainage. Although some of the principles may apply to intrahepatic strictures, the guideline doesn’t specifically address them. The new guideline is considered separate from the 2015 ACG guideline related to primary sclerosing cholangitis.
“The appropriate diagnosis and management of biliary strictures is still a big clinical challenge and has important implications in endoscopic, surgical, and oncological decision-making,” co-author Jennifer Maranki, MD, a professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, said in an interview.
“We wanted to provide the best possible guidance to gastroenterologists based on the available body of literature, with key shifts in diagnosis and management based on currently available modalities and tools,” she said.
The guideline was published in the March issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
The recommendations were developed by a diverse group of authors from across the United States in recognition of the potential influence of commercial and intellectual conflicts of interest. The panel used a systematic process that involved structured literature searches by librarians and independent appraisal of the quality of evidence by dedicated methodologists, the authors write.
Overall, the team outlined 11 recommendations and 12 key concepts. A strong recommendation was made when the benefits of the test or intervention clearly outweighed the potential disadvantages. A conditional recommendation was made when some uncertainty remained about the balance of benefits and harms. Key concepts address important clinical questions that lack adequate evidence to inform recommendations. They are based on indirect evidence and expert opinion.
Epidemiology and diagnosis
The burden of biliary strictures is difficult to estimate, owing to the lack of a specific administrative code. The estimated cost of caring for biliary disease in the United States is about $16.9 billion annually, although this figure includes costs associated with gallbladder disease, choledocholithiasis, and other (nonobstructive) biliary disorders, the authors write.
Among the 57,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer each year, at least 60% will cause obstructive jaundice, resulting in about 34,000 annual cases of malignant extrahepatic biliary stricture, the team notes. In addition, about 3,000 cases of malignant perihilar stricture are expected in the United States each year. Patients may also seek care for benign strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune disease, and post-cholecystectomy injury.
Under the first key concept, the authors note that biliary strictures in adults are more likely to be malignant than benign, except in certain well-defined scenarios. This underscores the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion during evaluation, they add.
In general, a definitive tissue diagnosis is necessary to guide oncologic and endoscopic care for most strictures that aren’t surgically resectable at the time of presentation. For patients with extrahepatic biliary stricture due to an apparent or suspected pancreatic mass, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle sampling (aspiration or biopsy) is recommended over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the preferred method of evaluation for malignancy.
For patients with suspected malignant perihilar stricture, multimodality sampling is recommended over brush cytology alone at the time of the index ERCP.
Guidance on drainage
For management, the principal objective is to restore the physiologic flow of bile into the duodenum. Although there is wide variability in the difficulty and risk of drainage, depending on location and complexity, perihilar strictures are generally more challenging and are riskier to drain than extrahepatic strictures. The goals should be to alleviate symptoms, reduce serum bilirubin to a level such that chemotherapy can be safely administered, and optimize surgical outcomes.
For benign extrahepatic biliary strictures, ERCP is the preferred modality for durable treatment. Fully covered self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is recommended over multiple plastic stents to reduce the number of procedures required for long-term treatment.
For extrahepatic strictures due to resectable pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, the authors recommend against routine preoperative biliary drainage. However, drainage is warranted for some patients, including those with acute cholangitis, severe pruritus, very high serum bilirubin levels, those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, and those for whom surgery is delayed.
For malignant extrahepatic strictures that are unresectable or borderline resectable, SEMS placement is recommended over plastic stents. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against uncovered SEMS versus fully covered SEMS.
For perihilar strictures due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. In addition, for malignant perihilar strictures, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against plastic stents versus uncovered SEMS.
For perihilar strictures due to cholangiocarcinoma in cases in which resection or transplantation is not possible, adjuvant endobiliary ablation plus plastic stent placement is recommended over plastic stent placement alone.
Overall, for patients with a biliary stricture for which ERCP is indicated but is unsuccessful or impossible, EUS-guided biliary access and drainage is recommended over PTBD, because it is associated with fewer adverse events. However, these interventional EUS procedures should be performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience.
“The workup of biliary strictures is challenging, invasive, and costly, requiring multiple diagnostic tools with highly variable yields,” co-author Victoria Gomez, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric endoscopy at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
“Providers caring for these patients must be up to date with the most current evidence so that they can make the safest and most well-informed decisions for their patients,” she said. “These include considerations such as limiting the use of anesthesia, using tests that will result in the highest diagnostic yield, and providing effective therapies to decompress biliary obstruction.”
Future questions
Additional research is needed in several areas to strengthen recommendations and advance the field, the study authors write.
“Biliary strictures without an associated mass are a diagnostic challenge, and there are exciting opportunities to understand how new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, can be used to improve our assessment,” co-author Anna Tavakkoli, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine in digestive and liver diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“Also, we highlighted several controversies in the drainage of perihilar strictures, including whether to use ERCP versus percutaneous drainage, whether metallic or plastic stents are better, and what the optimal stent placement should be,” she said. “Future multicenter studies are needed to address these key controversies.”
Although fully covered SEMS placement remains effective for benign biliary strictures, multiple plastic stents may be a better alternative in some cases. Such cases include those in which the stricture is close to the hilum, those in which the gallbladder is intact and in which crossing the cystic duct orifice cannot be avoided, those in which a fully covered SEMS has previously migrated or was not well tolerated, and those in which stricture has recurred after removal of a fully covered SEMS.
‘Comprehensive list’
“Overall, the authors have done a commendable job putting together a comprehensive list of recommendations that will invariably alter the practice of many therapeutic endoscopists for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures,” Matthew Fasullo, DO, an advanced endoscopy and gastroenterology fellow at New York University Medical Center, told this news organization.
Dr. Fasullo, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, has published on advances in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment for post-transplant biliary complications.
“The fact that ... cholangioscopy-directed biopsies after an initial negative evaluation via ERCP reveal malignancy in 54% of cases underscores the need for best practice guidelines and supports advancements in diagnostics to confidently rule in or out cancer,” he said.
“The movement toward multimodality sampling at the time of initial evaluation with a combination of brushing, fluoroscopy-directed biopsies, cholangioscopy-directed biopsies, and fluorescence in situ hybridization should become universally adopted in those with an ambiguous diagnosis,” he added. “As technology continues to improve, next-generation sequencing will prove to be an invaluable adjunct to the current pathological evaluation.”
The authors received no financial support for the guideline. One author has a consultant role for Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is an advisory board member role for Advarra. The other authors and Dr. Fasullo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
COVID raises risk for long-term GI complications
, a large new study indicates.
The researchers estimate that, so far, SARS-CoV-2 infections have contributed to more than 6 million new cases of GI disorders in the United States and 42 million new cases worldwide.
The diagnoses more common among patients who’ve had COVID ranged from stomach upset to acute pancreatitis, say the researchers, led by Evan Xu, a data analyst at the Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research and Development Service, VA St. Louis Health Care System.
Signs and symptoms of GI problems, such as constipation and diarrhea, also were more common among patients who had had the virus, the study found.
“Altogether, our results show that people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders in the post-acute phase of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “Post-COVID care should involve attention to gastrointestinal health and disease.”
The results were published online in Nature Communications.
Disease risks jump
The researchers used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national health care databases to identify 154,068 people with confirmed COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021. They used statistical modeling to compare those patients with 5.6 million patients with similar characteristics who had not been infected during the same period and an historical control group of 5.9 million patients from March 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2019, before the virus began to spread across the globe.
The study included hospitalized and nonhospitalized COVID patients. The majority of the study population was male, but the study included almost 1.2 million female patients.
Compared with control persons, post-COVID patients’ increased risk of a GI diagnosis and the excess disease burden at 1 year, respectively, were as follows.
- 102% for cholangitis; 0.22 per 1,000 persons
- 62% for peptic ulcer disease; 1.57 per 1,000 persons
- 54% for irritable bowel syndrome; 0.44 per 1,000 persons
- 47% for acute gastritis; 0.47 per 1,000 persons
- 46% for acute pancreatitis; 0.6 per 1,000 persons
- 36% for functional dyspepsia; 0.63 per 1,000 persons
- 35% for gastroesophageal reflux disease; 15.5 per 1,000 persons
Patients who’d had the virus were also at higher risk for GI symptoms than their COVID-free peers. Their risk was 60% higher for constipation, 58% for diarrhea, 52% for vomiting, 46% for bloating, and 44% for abdominal pain, the investigators found.
The risk of developing GI symptoms increased with COVID-19 severity and was highest for those who received intensive care because of the virus, the researchers note.
Subgroup analyses found that the risks of composite gastrointestinal outcome were evident in all subgroups based on age, race, sex, obesity, smoking, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, the authors write.
Disease burden rises
The increased numbers of GI patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are altering the burden on the health care system, senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
The shift may be pronounced in primary care, where GI concerns should be seen as a trigger for questions about prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dr. Al-Aly said.
Patients may encounter longer wait times at GI clinics or may give up on trying to schedule appointments if waits become too long, he said. They may also present to emergency departments if they can’t get an outpatient appointment, he added.
Simon C. Mathews, MD, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization that he’s seeing increased wait times since COVID emerged.
“We know that the pandemic impacted patients’ ability and willingness to seek GI care. There continues to be a long backlog for patients who are only now getting reconnected to care. As a result, our clinics are busier than ever, and our wait times for appointments are unfortunately longer than we would like,” said Dr. Mathews, who was not involved in the research.
Abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and constipation continue to be among the most common symptoms Dr. Mathews sees in clinic, he said.
Kyle Staller, MD, a Massachusetts General Brigham gastroenterologist, said in an interview that it’s important to distinguish symptoms from eventual diagnoses, which lag behind.
“Are patients attributing their symptoms to COVID, or is COVID itself creating a background of inflammation or changes in the nerves that are making these symptoms more common? My suspicion is a little bit of both,” said Dr. Staller, who is director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General, Boston.
Although his clinic is seeing patients with the GI signs and symptoms listed in the article, “we’re not seeing as much of some of the diagnoses, like peptic ulcer disease and pancreatitis,” he said. “I wonder if those may be related to some of the consequences of being critically ill in general, rather than COVID specifically. Those diagnoses I would be more skeptical about.”
Duration of symptoms unclear
It’s hard to tell patients how long their GI symptoms might last after COVID, given the relatively short time researchers have had to study the virus, said Dr. Staller, who was not involved in the research.
The symptoms he’s seeing in patients after COVID mimic those of postinfectious IBS, which literature says could last for months or years, Dr. Staller said. “But they should improve over time,” he added.
Senior author Dr. Al-Aly agreed that the duration of post-COVID GI symptoms is unclear.
“What I can tell you is that even people who got SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 2020 are still coming back for GI problems,” he said.
Unlike other symptoms of long COVID, such as brain fog, gastroenterologists fortunately know how to treat the GI disorders that evolve from SARS-CoV-2 infection, said Dr. Al-Aly, who has studied the long-term effects of the virus on the brain, kidneys, heart, and other organs.
All health care providers “need to be thinking about COVID as a risk factor for all these diseases” and should ask patients about SARS-CoV-2 infection when they take their histories, he said.
The authors, Dr. Staller, and Dr. Mathews report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large new study indicates.
The researchers estimate that, so far, SARS-CoV-2 infections have contributed to more than 6 million new cases of GI disorders in the United States and 42 million new cases worldwide.
The diagnoses more common among patients who’ve had COVID ranged from stomach upset to acute pancreatitis, say the researchers, led by Evan Xu, a data analyst at the Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research and Development Service, VA St. Louis Health Care System.
Signs and symptoms of GI problems, such as constipation and diarrhea, also were more common among patients who had had the virus, the study found.
“Altogether, our results show that people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders in the post-acute phase of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “Post-COVID care should involve attention to gastrointestinal health and disease.”
The results were published online in Nature Communications.
Disease risks jump
The researchers used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national health care databases to identify 154,068 people with confirmed COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021. They used statistical modeling to compare those patients with 5.6 million patients with similar characteristics who had not been infected during the same period and an historical control group of 5.9 million patients from March 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2019, before the virus began to spread across the globe.
The study included hospitalized and nonhospitalized COVID patients. The majority of the study population was male, but the study included almost 1.2 million female patients.
Compared with control persons, post-COVID patients’ increased risk of a GI diagnosis and the excess disease burden at 1 year, respectively, were as follows.
- 102% for cholangitis; 0.22 per 1,000 persons
- 62% for peptic ulcer disease; 1.57 per 1,000 persons
- 54% for irritable bowel syndrome; 0.44 per 1,000 persons
- 47% for acute gastritis; 0.47 per 1,000 persons
- 46% for acute pancreatitis; 0.6 per 1,000 persons
- 36% for functional dyspepsia; 0.63 per 1,000 persons
- 35% for gastroesophageal reflux disease; 15.5 per 1,000 persons
Patients who’d had the virus were also at higher risk for GI symptoms than their COVID-free peers. Their risk was 60% higher for constipation, 58% for diarrhea, 52% for vomiting, 46% for bloating, and 44% for abdominal pain, the investigators found.
The risk of developing GI symptoms increased with COVID-19 severity and was highest for those who received intensive care because of the virus, the researchers note.
Subgroup analyses found that the risks of composite gastrointestinal outcome were evident in all subgroups based on age, race, sex, obesity, smoking, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, the authors write.
Disease burden rises
The increased numbers of GI patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are altering the burden on the health care system, senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
The shift may be pronounced in primary care, where GI concerns should be seen as a trigger for questions about prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dr. Al-Aly said.
Patients may encounter longer wait times at GI clinics or may give up on trying to schedule appointments if waits become too long, he said. They may also present to emergency departments if they can’t get an outpatient appointment, he added.
Simon C. Mathews, MD, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization that he’s seeing increased wait times since COVID emerged.
“We know that the pandemic impacted patients’ ability and willingness to seek GI care. There continues to be a long backlog for patients who are only now getting reconnected to care. As a result, our clinics are busier than ever, and our wait times for appointments are unfortunately longer than we would like,” said Dr. Mathews, who was not involved in the research.
Abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and constipation continue to be among the most common symptoms Dr. Mathews sees in clinic, he said.
Kyle Staller, MD, a Massachusetts General Brigham gastroenterologist, said in an interview that it’s important to distinguish symptoms from eventual diagnoses, which lag behind.
“Are patients attributing their symptoms to COVID, or is COVID itself creating a background of inflammation or changes in the nerves that are making these symptoms more common? My suspicion is a little bit of both,” said Dr. Staller, who is director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General, Boston.
Although his clinic is seeing patients with the GI signs and symptoms listed in the article, “we’re not seeing as much of some of the diagnoses, like peptic ulcer disease and pancreatitis,” he said. “I wonder if those may be related to some of the consequences of being critically ill in general, rather than COVID specifically. Those diagnoses I would be more skeptical about.”
Duration of symptoms unclear
It’s hard to tell patients how long their GI symptoms might last after COVID, given the relatively short time researchers have had to study the virus, said Dr. Staller, who was not involved in the research.
The symptoms he’s seeing in patients after COVID mimic those of postinfectious IBS, which literature says could last for months or years, Dr. Staller said. “But they should improve over time,” he added.
Senior author Dr. Al-Aly agreed that the duration of post-COVID GI symptoms is unclear.
“What I can tell you is that even people who got SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 2020 are still coming back for GI problems,” he said.
Unlike other symptoms of long COVID, such as brain fog, gastroenterologists fortunately know how to treat the GI disorders that evolve from SARS-CoV-2 infection, said Dr. Al-Aly, who has studied the long-term effects of the virus on the brain, kidneys, heart, and other organs.
All health care providers “need to be thinking about COVID as a risk factor for all these diseases” and should ask patients about SARS-CoV-2 infection when they take their histories, he said.
The authors, Dr. Staller, and Dr. Mathews report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large new study indicates.
The researchers estimate that, so far, SARS-CoV-2 infections have contributed to more than 6 million new cases of GI disorders in the United States and 42 million new cases worldwide.
The diagnoses more common among patients who’ve had COVID ranged from stomach upset to acute pancreatitis, say the researchers, led by Evan Xu, a data analyst at the Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research and Development Service, VA St. Louis Health Care System.
Signs and symptoms of GI problems, such as constipation and diarrhea, also were more common among patients who had had the virus, the study found.
“Altogether, our results show that people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders in the post-acute phase of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “Post-COVID care should involve attention to gastrointestinal health and disease.”
The results were published online in Nature Communications.
Disease risks jump
The researchers used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national health care databases to identify 154,068 people with confirmed COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021. They used statistical modeling to compare those patients with 5.6 million patients with similar characteristics who had not been infected during the same period and an historical control group of 5.9 million patients from March 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2019, before the virus began to spread across the globe.
The study included hospitalized and nonhospitalized COVID patients. The majority of the study population was male, but the study included almost 1.2 million female patients.
Compared with control persons, post-COVID patients’ increased risk of a GI diagnosis and the excess disease burden at 1 year, respectively, were as follows.
- 102% for cholangitis; 0.22 per 1,000 persons
- 62% for peptic ulcer disease; 1.57 per 1,000 persons
- 54% for irritable bowel syndrome; 0.44 per 1,000 persons
- 47% for acute gastritis; 0.47 per 1,000 persons
- 46% for acute pancreatitis; 0.6 per 1,000 persons
- 36% for functional dyspepsia; 0.63 per 1,000 persons
- 35% for gastroesophageal reflux disease; 15.5 per 1,000 persons
Patients who’d had the virus were also at higher risk for GI symptoms than their COVID-free peers. Their risk was 60% higher for constipation, 58% for diarrhea, 52% for vomiting, 46% for bloating, and 44% for abdominal pain, the investigators found.
The risk of developing GI symptoms increased with COVID-19 severity and was highest for those who received intensive care because of the virus, the researchers note.
Subgroup analyses found that the risks of composite gastrointestinal outcome were evident in all subgroups based on age, race, sex, obesity, smoking, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, the authors write.
Disease burden rises
The increased numbers of GI patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are altering the burden on the health care system, senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
The shift may be pronounced in primary care, where GI concerns should be seen as a trigger for questions about prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dr. Al-Aly said.
Patients may encounter longer wait times at GI clinics or may give up on trying to schedule appointments if waits become too long, he said. They may also present to emergency departments if they can’t get an outpatient appointment, he added.
Simon C. Mathews, MD, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization that he’s seeing increased wait times since COVID emerged.
“We know that the pandemic impacted patients’ ability and willingness to seek GI care. There continues to be a long backlog for patients who are only now getting reconnected to care. As a result, our clinics are busier than ever, and our wait times for appointments are unfortunately longer than we would like,” said Dr. Mathews, who was not involved in the research.
Abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and constipation continue to be among the most common symptoms Dr. Mathews sees in clinic, he said.
Kyle Staller, MD, a Massachusetts General Brigham gastroenterologist, said in an interview that it’s important to distinguish symptoms from eventual diagnoses, which lag behind.
“Are patients attributing their symptoms to COVID, or is COVID itself creating a background of inflammation or changes in the nerves that are making these symptoms more common? My suspicion is a little bit of both,” said Dr. Staller, who is director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General, Boston.
Although his clinic is seeing patients with the GI signs and symptoms listed in the article, “we’re not seeing as much of some of the diagnoses, like peptic ulcer disease and pancreatitis,” he said. “I wonder if those may be related to some of the consequences of being critically ill in general, rather than COVID specifically. Those diagnoses I would be more skeptical about.”
Duration of symptoms unclear
It’s hard to tell patients how long their GI symptoms might last after COVID, given the relatively short time researchers have had to study the virus, said Dr. Staller, who was not involved in the research.
The symptoms he’s seeing in patients after COVID mimic those of postinfectious IBS, which literature says could last for months or years, Dr. Staller said. “But they should improve over time,” he added.
Senior author Dr. Al-Aly agreed that the duration of post-COVID GI symptoms is unclear.
“What I can tell you is that even people who got SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 2020 are still coming back for GI problems,” he said.
Unlike other symptoms of long COVID, such as brain fog, gastroenterologists fortunately know how to treat the GI disorders that evolve from SARS-CoV-2 infection, said Dr. Al-Aly, who has studied the long-term effects of the virus on the brain, kidneys, heart, and other organs.
All health care providers “need to be thinking about COVID as a risk factor for all these diseases” and should ask patients about SARS-CoV-2 infection when they take their histories, he said.
The authors, Dr. Staller, and Dr. Mathews report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Genomics data reveal promising PSC therapeutic target
, according to a study published in Gastro Hep Advances.
PSC is very rare, with an incidence of 0-1.3 cases per 100,000 people per year. Because up to 80% of patients with PSC also have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a link along the gut-liver axis is suspected. So far, scientists have not understood the causes of PSC, the main complications of which include biliary cirrhosis, bacterial cholangitis, and cholangiocarcinoma.
No treatment is currently available for PSC, but the findings of this genomics study suggest several targets that may be worth pursuing, particularly the gene NR0B2.
“The therapeutic targeting of NR0B2 may potentiate that of FXR [farnesoid X receptor] and enable action on early events of the disease and prevent its progression,” wrote Christophe Desterke, PhD, of the Paul-Brousse Hospital, the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, and the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif, France, and his associates.
The researchers used an algorithmic tool to mine the MEDLINE/PubMed/NCBI database using the three key symptoms of PSC – biliary fibrosis, biliary inflammation, and biliary stasis – as their keywords. This approach allowed them to discover the genes and potential pathways related to PSC in published research text or in clinical, animal, and cellular models.
The researchers initially found 525 genes linked to PSC and then compared them to RNA data from liver biopsies taken from patients with liver disease from various causes. This process led to a ranking of the 10 best markers of PSC, based on the data-mining method and the genes’ association with one or more of the three PSC symptoms.
At the top of the list is NR1H4, also called FXR, which ranks most highly with biliary fibrosis and biliary stasis. NR1H4 is already a clear target for cholestatic and fatty liver diseases, the authors noted. The other genes, in descending order of relevance, are: ABCB4, ABCB11, TGFB1, IFNL3, PNPLA3, IL6, TLR4, GPBAR1, and IL17A. In addition, complications of PSC were significantly associated with upregulation of TNFRS12A, SOX9, ANXA2, MMP7, and LCN2.
Separately, investigation of the 525 initially identified genes in mouse models of PSC revealed that NR0B2 is also a key player in the pathogenesis of PSC.
"NR0B2 was upregulated in PSC livers independent of gender, age, and body mass index,” the authors reported. “Importantly, it was not dependent on the severity of PSC in the prognostic cohort, suggesting that this may be an early event during the disease.”
The researchers also found a possible pathway explaining the autoimmunity of PSC – the involvement of CD274, also known as the PDL1 immune checkpoint. The authors noted that the PDL1 inhibitor pembrolizumab has previously been reported as a cause of sclerosing cholangitis.
Further, the researchers discovered overexpression of FOXP3 in the livers of patients with PSC. Because FOXP3 determines what T-cell subtypes look like, the finding suggests that an “imbalance between Foxp3þ regulatory T cells and Th17 cells may be involved in IBD and PSC,” they wrote.
Also of note was the overexpression of SOX9 in the livers of patients with PSC whose profiles suggested the worst clinical prognoses.
Finally, the researchers identified three genes as potentially involved in development of cholangiocarcinoma: GSTA3, ID2 (which is overexpressed in biliary tract cancer), and especially TMEM45A, a protein in cells’ Golgi apparatus that is already known to be involved in the development of several other cancers.
The research was funded by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a bile duct disease with few therapeutic options other than liver transplant, and thus its prognosis remains grim. Additionally, the factors that cause the disease are not well understood. Identifying the pathways and genes involved in PSC pathogenesis could help in the development of potential therapeutic targets.
In this report Desterke et al. mined public data sets to identify and define a PSC-specific network. Of the top genes in this list, NR0B2 stood out as a potential player in pathogenesis because of its involvement in regulating bile acid metabolism. The authors showed that upregulation of NR0B2 occurs early in the disease process and in patient tissues is independent of variables such as gender and sex. Interestingly, the authors showed that this upregulation occurs primarily in cholangiocytes, the cells lining the bile duct. Higher expression of NR0B2 results in reprogramming that alters the metabolic function of these cells and predisposes them to malignancy.
This study, which is the first to look at omics data for PSC, highlights the involvement of genes and pathways that were previously unrecognized in disease pathogenesis. By using data derived from human PSC liver biopsies and animal models of PSC, the authors were able to validate their findings across species, which strengthened their conclusions. This approach also showed that NR0B2 deregulation occurs primarily in cholangiocytes, suggesting that future therapies should be targeted to this cell type. These important findings will improve our understanding of this rare but clinically significant disease.
Kari Nejak-Bowen, PhD, MBA, is associate professor, department of pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a bile duct disease with few therapeutic options other than liver transplant, and thus its prognosis remains grim. Additionally, the factors that cause the disease are not well understood. Identifying the pathways and genes involved in PSC pathogenesis could help in the development of potential therapeutic targets.
In this report Desterke et al. mined public data sets to identify and define a PSC-specific network. Of the top genes in this list, NR0B2 stood out as a potential player in pathogenesis because of its involvement in regulating bile acid metabolism. The authors showed that upregulation of NR0B2 occurs early in the disease process and in patient tissues is independent of variables such as gender and sex. Interestingly, the authors showed that this upregulation occurs primarily in cholangiocytes, the cells lining the bile duct. Higher expression of NR0B2 results in reprogramming that alters the metabolic function of these cells and predisposes them to malignancy.
This study, which is the first to look at omics data for PSC, highlights the involvement of genes and pathways that were previously unrecognized in disease pathogenesis. By using data derived from human PSC liver biopsies and animal models of PSC, the authors were able to validate their findings across species, which strengthened their conclusions. This approach also showed that NR0B2 deregulation occurs primarily in cholangiocytes, suggesting that future therapies should be targeted to this cell type. These important findings will improve our understanding of this rare but clinically significant disease.
Kari Nejak-Bowen, PhD, MBA, is associate professor, department of pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a bile duct disease with few therapeutic options other than liver transplant, and thus its prognosis remains grim. Additionally, the factors that cause the disease are not well understood. Identifying the pathways and genes involved in PSC pathogenesis could help in the development of potential therapeutic targets.
In this report Desterke et al. mined public data sets to identify and define a PSC-specific network. Of the top genes in this list, NR0B2 stood out as a potential player in pathogenesis because of its involvement in regulating bile acid metabolism. The authors showed that upregulation of NR0B2 occurs early in the disease process and in patient tissues is independent of variables such as gender and sex. Interestingly, the authors showed that this upregulation occurs primarily in cholangiocytes, the cells lining the bile duct. Higher expression of NR0B2 results in reprogramming that alters the metabolic function of these cells and predisposes them to malignancy.
This study, which is the first to look at omics data for PSC, highlights the involvement of genes and pathways that were previously unrecognized in disease pathogenesis. By using data derived from human PSC liver biopsies and animal models of PSC, the authors were able to validate their findings across species, which strengthened their conclusions. This approach also showed that NR0B2 deregulation occurs primarily in cholangiocytes, suggesting that future therapies should be targeted to this cell type. These important findings will improve our understanding of this rare but clinically significant disease.
Kari Nejak-Bowen, PhD, MBA, is associate professor, department of pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to a study published in Gastro Hep Advances.
PSC is very rare, with an incidence of 0-1.3 cases per 100,000 people per year. Because up to 80% of patients with PSC also have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a link along the gut-liver axis is suspected. So far, scientists have not understood the causes of PSC, the main complications of which include biliary cirrhosis, bacterial cholangitis, and cholangiocarcinoma.
No treatment is currently available for PSC, but the findings of this genomics study suggest several targets that may be worth pursuing, particularly the gene NR0B2.
“The therapeutic targeting of NR0B2 may potentiate that of FXR [farnesoid X receptor] and enable action on early events of the disease and prevent its progression,” wrote Christophe Desterke, PhD, of the Paul-Brousse Hospital, the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, and the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif, France, and his associates.
The researchers used an algorithmic tool to mine the MEDLINE/PubMed/NCBI database using the three key symptoms of PSC – biliary fibrosis, biliary inflammation, and biliary stasis – as their keywords. This approach allowed them to discover the genes and potential pathways related to PSC in published research text or in clinical, animal, and cellular models.
The researchers initially found 525 genes linked to PSC and then compared them to RNA data from liver biopsies taken from patients with liver disease from various causes. This process led to a ranking of the 10 best markers of PSC, based on the data-mining method and the genes’ association with one or more of the three PSC symptoms.
At the top of the list is NR1H4, also called FXR, which ranks most highly with biliary fibrosis and biliary stasis. NR1H4 is already a clear target for cholestatic and fatty liver diseases, the authors noted. The other genes, in descending order of relevance, are: ABCB4, ABCB11, TGFB1, IFNL3, PNPLA3, IL6, TLR4, GPBAR1, and IL17A. In addition, complications of PSC were significantly associated with upregulation of TNFRS12A, SOX9, ANXA2, MMP7, and LCN2.
Separately, investigation of the 525 initially identified genes in mouse models of PSC revealed that NR0B2 is also a key player in the pathogenesis of PSC.
"NR0B2 was upregulated in PSC livers independent of gender, age, and body mass index,” the authors reported. “Importantly, it was not dependent on the severity of PSC in the prognostic cohort, suggesting that this may be an early event during the disease.”
The researchers also found a possible pathway explaining the autoimmunity of PSC – the involvement of CD274, also known as the PDL1 immune checkpoint. The authors noted that the PDL1 inhibitor pembrolizumab has previously been reported as a cause of sclerosing cholangitis.
Further, the researchers discovered overexpression of FOXP3 in the livers of patients with PSC. Because FOXP3 determines what T-cell subtypes look like, the finding suggests that an “imbalance between Foxp3þ regulatory T cells and Th17 cells may be involved in IBD and PSC,” they wrote.
Also of note was the overexpression of SOX9 in the livers of patients with PSC whose profiles suggested the worst clinical prognoses.
Finally, the researchers identified three genes as potentially involved in development of cholangiocarcinoma: GSTA3, ID2 (which is overexpressed in biliary tract cancer), and especially TMEM45A, a protein in cells’ Golgi apparatus that is already known to be involved in the development of several other cancers.
The research was funded by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a study published in Gastro Hep Advances.
PSC is very rare, with an incidence of 0-1.3 cases per 100,000 people per year. Because up to 80% of patients with PSC also have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a link along the gut-liver axis is suspected. So far, scientists have not understood the causes of PSC, the main complications of which include biliary cirrhosis, bacterial cholangitis, and cholangiocarcinoma.
No treatment is currently available for PSC, but the findings of this genomics study suggest several targets that may be worth pursuing, particularly the gene NR0B2.
“The therapeutic targeting of NR0B2 may potentiate that of FXR [farnesoid X receptor] and enable action on early events of the disease and prevent its progression,” wrote Christophe Desterke, PhD, of the Paul-Brousse Hospital, the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, and the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif, France, and his associates.
The researchers used an algorithmic tool to mine the MEDLINE/PubMed/NCBI database using the three key symptoms of PSC – biliary fibrosis, biliary inflammation, and biliary stasis – as their keywords. This approach allowed them to discover the genes and potential pathways related to PSC in published research text or in clinical, animal, and cellular models.
The researchers initially found 525 genes linked to PSC and then compared them to RNA data from liver biopsies taken from patients with liver disease from various causes. This process led to a ranking of the 10 best markers of PSC, based on the data-mining method and the genes’ association with one or more of the three PSC symptoms.
At the top of the list is NR1H4, also called FXR, which ranks most highly with biliary fibrosis and biliary stasis. NR1H4 is already a clear target for cholestatic and fatty liver diseases, the authors noted. The other genes, in descending order of relevance, are: ABCB4, ABCB11, TGFB1, IFNL3, PNPLA3, IL6, TLR4, GPBAR1, and IL17A. In addition, complications of PSC were significantly associated with upregulation of TNFRS12A, SOX9, ANXA2, MMP7, and LCN2.
Separately, investigation of the 525 initially identified genes in mouse models of PSC revealed that NR0B2 is also a key player in the pathogenesis of PSC.
"NR0B2 was upregulated in PSC livers independent of gender, age, and body mass index,” the authors reported. “Importantly, it was not dependent on the severity of PSC in the prognostic cohort, suggesting that this may be an early event during the disease.”
The researchers also found a possible pathway explaining the autoimmunity of PSC – the involvement of CD274, also known as the PDL1 immune checkpoint. The authors noted that the PDL1 inhibitor pembrolizumab has previously been reported as a cause of sclerosing cholangitis.
Further, the researchers discovered overexpression of FOXP3 in the livers of patients with PSC. Because FOXP3 determines what T-cell subtypes look like, the finding suggests that an “imbalance between Foxp3þ regulatory T cells and Th17 cells may be involved in IBD and PSC,” they wrote.
Also of note was the overexpression of SOX9 in the livers of patients with PSC whose profiles suggested the worst clinical prognoses.
Finally, the researchers identified three genes as potentially involved in development of cholangiocarcinoma: GSTA3, ID2 (which is overexpressed in biliary tract cancer), and especially TMEM45A, a protein in cells’ Golgi apparatus that is already known to be involved in the development of several other cancers.
The research was funded by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Pancreatic cancer screening appears safe, effective for high-risk patients
Pancreatic cancer screening appears to be safe and effective for certain patients with high-risk indications due to genetic susceptibility, according to a prospective multicenter study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Screening in high-risk patients detected high-risk lesions in 0.8% of patients, which was lower than the typical range found in the literature, at 3%, said Andy Silva-Santisteban, MD, a research fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., which is estimated to become the second leading cause by 2030. About 15%-20% of patients are candidates for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis, with survival rates below 10%.
“These statistics have led pancreatic cancer screening to be studied with the goal of detecting earlier stages of the disease to improve survival,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “However, pancreatic cancer screening is not recommended for the general population.”
Pancreatic cancer screening is recommended for patients with increased risk due to genetic susceptibility, yet recent studies have found that screening studies face limitations from factors like small sample sizes, single-center focus, retrospective nature, nonconsecutive accrual of patients, varied inclusion criteria, and use of nonstandardized screening protocols.
To overcome these limitations, Dr. Silva-Santisteban and colleagues conducted a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer screening in consecutive high-risk patients at five centers in the United States between 2020 and 2022, also called the Pancreas Scan Study. Dr. Silva-Santisteban presented results from the first round of enrollment, which was awarded the Outstanding Research Award in the Biliary/Pancreas Category for Trainee.
The research team evaluated the yield (low-, moderate-, and high-risk pancreatic pathology), safety, and outcomes of screening. Low-risk pancreas pathology was categorized as fatty pancreas and chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate-risk was categorized as branch duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or neuroendocrine tumor under 2 cm. High-risk was categorized as main duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (MD-IPMN), pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (PanIN-III)/dysplasia, neuroendocrine tumor over 2 cm, or pancreatic cancer.
Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and had at least one of the following: BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Lynch syndrome plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM); ataxia telangiectasia mutated plus family history of pancreatic cancer; hereditary pancreatitis; or familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) syndrome.
Screening was performed annually with either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Fasting blood sugar was recorded annually to screen for new-onset diabetes.
Among 252 patients, 208 underwent EUS and 44 underwent MRCP. At the time of enrollment, 38.5% underwent their first screening, and 61.5% had a prior screening. The average age was 60, 69% were women, and 79% were White.
The most common indication was a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant in 93 patients (or 36.5%), followed by FPC syndrome in 80 patients (or 31.7%).
Low-risk pancreas pathology was noted in 23.4% of patients, with 17.5% having chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate risk was found in 31.7%, with nearly all detected as branch-duct IPMNs without worrisome features, Dr. Silva-Santisteban said.
Two patients (.8%) fell into the high-risk category with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Both were positive for BRCA2 mutation and family history of pancreatic cancer.
In the first patient, who was compliant with screening, EUS showed a 3-cm adenocarcinoma (T2N1M0 stage IIB). The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by total pancreatectomy, and is currently in cancer remission. No complications from surgery were noted.
In the second patient, who was not compliant with screening and was lost to follow-up for 6 years, EUS showed a 2.5-cm adenocarcinoma and four metastatic lesions in the liver (T2N1M1 stage IV). The patient underwent palliative chemotherapy.
EUS was more likely to identify chronic pancreatitis-like changes, but MRCP was more likely to identify BD-IPMN. The two patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified with EUS. However, there wasn’t a significant difference between EUS and MRCP in identifying high-risk lesions.
In patients undergoing screening, new-onset prediabetes was noted in 18.2%, and new-onset diabetes was noted in 1.7%. However, there was no association between abnormal blood sugar and pancreas pathology.
Twelve patients (4.8%) underwent further pancreatic evaluation because of screening findings. None of the patients underwent low-yield pancreatic surgery, which was lower than reported in the literature, at 2.8%. Overall, there were no complications as a direct result of screening with EUS or MRI.
“Patients should be carefully counseled regarding benefits and harms from pancreatic cancer screening,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “When feasible, such screening should be performed within the confines of a research study so more precise estimates of screening outcomes can be determined.”
The study funding was not disclosed. One author reported a consultant relationship with Pentax Medical, and the other authors indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Pancreatic cancer screening appears to be safe and effective for certain patients with high-risk indications due to genetic susceptibility, according to a prospective multicenter study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Screening in high-risk patients detected high-risk lesions in 0.8% of patients, which was lower than the typical range found in the literature, at 3%, said Andy Silva-Santisteban, MD, a research fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., which is estimated to become the second leading cause by 2030. About 15%-20% of patients are candidates for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis, with survival rates below 10%.
“These statistics have led pancreatic cancer screening to be studied with the goal of detecting earlier stages of the disease to improve survival,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “However, pancreatic cancer screening is not recommended for the general population.”
Pancreatic cancer screening is recommended for patients with increased risk due to genetic susceptibility, yet recent studies have found that screening studies face limitations from factors like small sample sizes, single-center focus, retrospective nature, nonconsecutive accrual of patients, varied inclusion criteria, and use of nonstandardized screening protocols.
To overcome these limitations, Dr. Silva-Santisteban and colleagues conducted a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer screening in consecutive high-risk patients at five centers in the United States between 2020 and 2022, also called the Pancreas Scan Study. Dr. Silva-Santisteban presented results from the first round of enrollment, which was awarded the Outstanding Research Award in the Biliary/Pancreas Category for Trainee.
The research team evaluated the yield (low-, moderate-, and high-risk pancreatic pathology), safety, and outcomes of screening. Low-risk pancreas pathology was categorized as fatty pancreas and chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate-risk was categorized as branch duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or neuroendocrine tumor under 2 cm. High-risk was categorized as main duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (MD-IPMN), pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (PanIN-III)/dysplasia, neuroendocrine tumor over 2 cm, or pancreatic cancer.
Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and had at least one of the following: BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Lynch syndrome plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM); ataxia telangiectasia mutated plus family history of pancreatic cancer; hereditary pancreatitis; or familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) syndrome.
Screening was performed annually with either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Fasting blood sugar was recorded annually to screen for new-onset diabetes.
Among 252 patients, 208 underwent EUS and 44 underwent MRCP. At the time of enrollment, 38.5% underwent their first screening, and 61.5% had a prior screening. The average age was 60, 69% were women, and 79% were White.
The most common indication was a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant in 93 patients (or 36.5%), followed by FPC syndrome in 80 patients (or 31.7%).
Low-risk pancreas pathology was noted in 23.4% of patients, with 17.5% having chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate risk was found in 31.7%, with nearly all detected as branch-duct IPMNs without worrisome features, Dr. Silva-Santisteban said.
Two patients (.8%) fell into the high-risk category with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Both were positive for BRCA2 mutation and family history of pancreatic cancer.
In the first patient, who was compliant with screening, EUS showed a 3-cm adenocarcinoma (T2N1M0 stage IIB). The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by total pancreatectomy, and is currently in cancer remission. No complications from surgery were noted.
In the second patient, who was not compliant with screening and was lost to follow-up for 6 years, EUS showed a 2.5-cm adenocarcinoma and four metastatic lesions in the liver (T2N1M1 stage IV). The patient underwent palliative chemotherapy.
EUS was more likely to identify chronic pancreatitis-like changes, but MRCP was more likely to identify BD-IPMN. The two patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified with EUS. However, there wasn’t a significant difference between EUS and MRCP in identifying high-risk lesions.
In patients undergoing screening, new-onset prediabetes was noted in 18.2%, and new-onset diabetes was noted in 1.7%. However, there was no association between abnormal blood sugar and pancreas pathology.
Twelve patients (4.8%) underwent further pancreatic evaluation because of screening findings. None of the patients underwent low-yield pancreatic surgery, which was lower than reported in the literature, at 2.8%. Overall, there were no complications as a direct result of screening with EUS or MRI.
“Patients should be carefully counseled regarding benefits and harms from pancreatic cancer screening,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “When feasible, such screening should be performed within the confines of a research study so more precise estimates of screening outcomes can be determined.”
The study funding was not disclosed. One author reported a consultant relationship with Pentax Medical, and the other authors indicated no relevant financial relationships.
Pancreatic cancer screening appears to be safe and effective for certain patients with high-risk indications due to genetic susceptibility, according to a prospective multicenter study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Screening in high-risk patients detected high-risk lesions in 0.8% of patients, which was lower than the typical range found in the literature, at 3%, said Andy Silva-Santisteban, MD, a research fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., which is estimated to become the second leading cause by 2030. About 15%-20% of patients are candidates for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis, with survival rates below 10%.
“These statistics have led pancreatic cancer screening to be studied with the goal of detecting earlier stages of the disease to improve survival,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “However, pancreatic cancer screening is not recommended for the general population.”
Pancreatic cancer screening is recommended for patients with increased risk due to genetic susceptibility, yet recent studies have found that screening studies face limitations from factors like small sample sizes, single-center focus, retrospective nature, nonconsecutive accrual of patients, varied inclusion criteria, and use of nonstandardized screening protocols.
To overcome these limitations, Dr. Silva-Santisteban and colleagues conducted a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer screening in consecutive high-risk patients at five centers in the United States between 2020 and 2022, also called the Pancreas Scan Study. Dr. Silva-Santisteban presented results from the first round of enrollment, which was awarded the Outstanding Research Award in the Biliary/Pancreas Category for Trainee.
The research team evaluated the yield (low-, moderate-, and high-risk pancreatic pathology), safety, and outcomes of screening. Low-risk pancreas pathology was categorized as fatty pancreas and chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate-risk was categorized as branch duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or neuroendocrine tumor under 2 cm. High-risk was categorized as main duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (MD-IPMN), pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (PanIN-III)/dysplasia, neuroendocrine tumor over 2 cm, or pancreatic cancer.
Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and had at least one of the following: BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Lynch syndrome plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM); ataxia telangiectasia mutated plus family history of pancreatic cancer; hereditary pancreatitis; or familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) syndrome.
Screening was performed annually with either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Fasting blood sugar was recorded annually to screen for new-onset diabetes.
Among 252 patients, 208 underwent EUS and 44 underwent MRCP. At the time of enrollment, 38.5% underwent their first screening, and 61.5% had a prior screening. The average age was 60, 69% were women, and 79% were White.
The most common indication was a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant in 93 patients (or 36.5%), followed by FPC syndrome in 80 patients (or 31.7%).
Low-risk pancreas pathology was noted in 23.4% of patients, with 17.5% having chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate risk was found in 31.7%, with nearly all detected as branch-duct IPMNs without worrisome features, Dr. Silva-Santisteban said.
Two patients (.8%) fell into the high-risk category with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Both were positive for BRCA2 mutation and family history of pancreatic cancer.
In the first patient, who was compliant with screening, EUS showed a 3-cm adenocarcinoma (T2N1M0 stage IIB). The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by total pancreatectomy, and is currently in cancer remission. No complications from surgery were noted.
In the second patient, who was not compliant with screening and was lost to follow-up for 6 years, EUS showed a 2.5-cm adenocarcinoma and four metastatic lesions in the liver (T2N1M1 stage IV). The patient underwent palliative chemotherapy.
EUS was more likely to identify chronic pancreatitis-like changes, but MRCP was more likely to identify BD-IPMN. The two patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified with EUS. However, there wasn’t a significant difference between EUS and MRCP in identifying high-risk lesions.
In patients undergoing screening, new-onset prediabetes was noted in 18.2%, and new-onset diabetes was noted in 1.7%. However, there was no association between abnormal blood sugar and pancreas pathology.
Twelve patients (4.8%) underwent further pancreatic evaluation because of screening findings. None of the patients underwent low-yield pancreatic surgery, which was lower than reported in the literature, at 2.8%. Overall, there were no complications as a direct result of screening with EUS or MRI.
“Patients should be carefully counseled regarding benefits and harms from pancreatic cancer screening,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “When feasible, such screening should be performed within the confines of a research study so more precise estimates of screening outcomes can be determined.”
The study funding was not disclosed. One author reported a consultant relationship with Pentax Medical, and the other authors indicated no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ACG 2022
One-third of pancreatic cancer diagnoses missed on scans
say United Kingdom researchers who report a novel analysis.
The study set out to identify the incidence and root causes of missed pancreatic cancer diagnoses on CT and MRI scans, the investigators explained at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022.
The team studied 600 pancreatic cancer cases, including 46 cases (7.7%) categorized as postimaging pancreatic cancer (PIPC) – cases not detected on imaging performed 3-18 months prior to diagnosis.
They also reviewed 46 CT scans and 4 MRI scans performed in PIPC patients.
The detailed analysis showed that 36% of cases of PIPC were potentially avoidable, reported first author Nosheen Umar, MD, a gastroenterology research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England).
In 10% of PIPC patients, imaging signs associated with pancreatic cancer, such as dilated bile or pancreatic ducts, were not recognized as such and were not investigated further. In 26% of scans, the signs of a mass lesion were not picked up by the radiologist.
The findings are notable as the time window for curative PC surgery is often short, and missing the diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging can result in worse clinical outcomes for patients already dealing with a challenging cancer that has generally poor outcomes, Dr. Umar said in an interview.
In fact, pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers in Europe, the UEG noted in a press release. Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months, and 5-year survival is less than 10%, Dr. Umar said.
Pancreatic cancer causes 95,000 deaths in the European Union each year, the UEG noted, adding that by 2035 the number of cases is predicted to rise by almost 40%.
Details of missed imaging signs
The aim of this study was to establish the most plausible explanations for missed imaging signs of PC, Dr. Umar explained, adding that early diagnosis is vitally important for offering patients the best chance of survival.
Cases analyzed for the study were identified from electronic medical records of adults diagnosed with PC between 2016 and 2021 at two National Health Service providers. An algorithm was developed to categorize PIPC and assess potential causes of the missed diagnoses.
The PIPC cases were categorized by type:
- Type 1 – A focal lesion on previous imaging reported in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC (0% of cases)
- Type 2 – Imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging (20% of cases)
- Type 3 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC, but lesion or imaging changes noted on review after PIPC diagnosis (26% of cases)
- Type 4 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC and no lesion or imaging changes on review after PIPC diagnosis (54% of cases)
“We hope this study will raise awareness of the issue of postimaging pancreatic cancer and common reasons why pancreatic cancer can be initially missed,” Dr. Umar stated in the UEG press release. “This will help to standardize future studies of this issue and guide quality improvement efforts so we can increase the likelihood of an early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, increase the chances of patient survival and, ultimately, save lives.”
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say United Kingdom researchers who report a novel analysis.
The study set out to identify the incidence and root causes of missed pancreatic cancer diagnoses on CT and MRI scans, the investigators explained at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022.
The team studied 600 pancreatic cancer cases, including 46 cases (7.7%) categorized as postimaging pancreatic cancer (PIPC) – cases not detected on imaging performed 3-18 months prior to diagnosis.
They also reviewed 46 CT scans and 4 MRI scans performed in PIPC patients.
The detailed analysis showed that 36% of cases of PIPC were potentially avoidable, reported first author Nosheen Umar, MD, a gastroenterology research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England).
In 10% of PIPC patients, imaging signs associated with pancreatic cancer, such as dilated bile or pancreatic ducts, were not recognized as such and were not investigated further. In 26% of scans, the signs of a mass lesion were not picked up by the radiologist.
The findings are notable as the time window for curative PC surgery is often short, and missing the diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging can result in worse clinical outcomes for patients already dealing with a challenging cancer that has generally poor outcomes, Dr. Umar said in an interview.
In fact, pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers in Europe, the UEG noted in a press release. Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months, and 5-year survival is less than 10%, Dr. Umar said.
Pancreatic cancer causes 95,000 deaths in the European Union each year, the UEG noted, adding that by 2035 the number of cases is predicted to rise by almost 40%.
Details of missed imaging signs
The aim of this study was to establish the most plausible explanations for missed imaging signs of PC, Dr. Umar explained, adding that early diagnosis is vitally important for offering patients the best chance of survival.
Cases analyzed for the study were identified from electronic medical records of adults diagnosed with PC between 2016 and 2021 at two National Health Service providers. An algorithm was developed to categorize PIPC and assess potential causes of the missed diagnoses.
The PIPC cases were categorized by type:
- Type 1 – A focal lesion on previous imaging reported in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC (0% of cases)
- Type 2 – Imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging (20% of cases)
- Type 3 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC, but lesion or imaging changes noted on review after PIPC diagnosis (26% of cases)
- Type 4 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC and no lesion or imaging changes on review after PIPC diagnosis (54% of cases)
“We hope this study will raise awareness of the issue of postimaging pancreatic cancer and common reasons why pancreatic cancer can be initially missed,” Dr. Umar stated in the UEG press release. “This will help to standardize future studies of this issue and guide quality improvement efforts so we can increase the likelihood of an early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, increase the chances of patient survival and, ultimately, save lives.”
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say United Kingdom researchers who report a novel analysis.
The study set out to identify the incidence and root causes of missed pancreatic cancer diagnoses on CT and MRI scans, the investigators explained at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022.
The team studied 600 pancreatic cancer cases, including 46 cases (7.7%) categorized as postimaging pancreatic cancer (PIPC) – cases not detected on imaging performed 3-18 months prior to diagnosis.
They also reviewed 46 CT scans and 4 MRI scans performed in PIPC patients.
The detailed analysis showed that 36% of cases of PIPC were potentially avoidable, reported first author Nosheen Umar, MD, a gastroenterology research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England).
In 10% of PIPC patients, imaging signs associated with pancreatic cancer, such as dilated bile or pancreatic ducts, were not recognized as such and were not investigated further. In 26% of scans, the signs of a mass lesion were not picked up by the radiologist.
The findings are notable as the time window for curative PC surgery is often short, and missing the diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging can result in worse clinical outcomes for patients already dealing with a challenging cancer that has generally poor outcomes, Dr. Umar said in an interview.
In fact, pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers in Europe, the UEG noted in a press release. Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months, and 5-year survival is less than 10%, Dr. Umar said.
Pancreatic cancer causes 95,000 deaths in the European Union each year, the UEG noted, adding that by 2035 the number of cases is predicted to rise by almost 40%.
Details of missed imaging signs
The aim of this study was to establish the most plausible explanations for missed imaging signs of PC, Dr. Umar explained, adding that early diagnosis is vitally important for offering patients the best chance of survival.
Cases analyzed for the study were identified from electronic medical records of adults diagnosed with PC between 2016 and 2021 at two National Health Service providers. An algorithm was developed to categorize PIPC and assess potential causes of the missed diagnoses.
The PIPC cases were categorized by type:
- Type 1 – A focal lesion on previous imaging reported in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC (0% of cases)
- Type 2 – Imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging (20% of cases)
- Type 3 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC, but lesion or imaging changes noted on review after PIPC diagnosis (26% of cases)
- Type 4 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC and no lesion or imaging changes on review after PIPC diagnosis (54% of cases)
“We hope this study will raise awareness of the issue of postimaging pancreatic cancer and common reasons why pancreatic cancer can be initially missed,” Dr. Umar stated in the UEG press release. “This will help to standardize future studies of this issue and guide quality improvement efforts so we can increase the likelihood of an early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, increase the chances of patient survival and, ultimately, save lives.”
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Real-world evidence seen for metal stents in biliary strictures
A real-world analysis in the United Kingdom found that a fully covered metal stent is safe and effective at controlling anastomotic strictures (AS) following liver transplants.
Biliary AS occurs in an estimated 5%-32% of patients following a liver transplant. Generally, these have been managed by insertion of side-by-side plastic stents to remodel the stricture, but this often required multiple procedures to resolve the problem. More recently, transpapillary fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMSs) have been introduced and they appear to perform equivalently to their plastic counterparts while requiring fewer procedures.
The new study “is yet another large experience demonstrating that use of fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures is highly effective and also cost-effective because you really decrease the number of ERCPs [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies] that are required to treat an anastomotic stricture,” said Vladimir Kushnir, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, which was published in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.
The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 162 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with intraductal self-expanding metal stent (IDSEMS) insertion at nine tertiary centers. The procedures employed the Kaffes (Taewoong Niti-S) biliary covered stent, which is not available in the United States. Unlike conventional FCSEMSs, the device does not have to traverse the papilla. It is also shorter and includes an antimigration waist and removal wires that may reduce the risk of silent migration. Small case series suggested efficacy in the treatment of post–liver transplant AS.
There were 176 episodes of stent insertion among the 162 included patients; 62% of patients were male, and the median age at transplant was 54 years. Etiologies included hepatocellular carcinoma (22%), alcohol-related liver disease (18%), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (12%). The median time to development of a stricture was 24.9 weeks. Among all patients, 35% had previously received stents; 75% of those were plastic stents.
Overall, 10% of patients experienced stricture recurrence at a median interval of 19 weeks following stent removal. Median stent emplacement was 15 weeks, and 81% of patients had a resolution of their strictures.
Dr. Kushnir, from Washington University in St. Louis, highlighted the differences between the stent used in the study and those currently available in the United States. “This type of stent is a self-expanding metal stent that’s covered, but what’s different about it is that it’s designed to go completely within the bile duct, whereas a traditional fully covered metal stent traverses the major duodenal papilla.”
Despite those differences, he believes that the study can inform current practice in the United States. “In situations where you’re faced with a question of whether or not you leave multiple plastic stents in, or you put a full metal stent in that’s going to be fully within the bile duct, I think this data does provide some reassurance. If you’re using one of the traditional stents that we have in the United States and putting it fully within the bile duct, you do need to be prepared to have a little bit of a harder time removing the stent when the time comes for the removal procedure, which could require cholangioscopy. But this does provide some evidence to back up the practice of using fully covered metal stents fully within the bile duct to remediate anastomotic strictures that may be just a little too high up to treat traditionally with a stent that remains transpapillary,” said Dr. Kushnir.
The study also suggests an avenue for further research. “What’s also interesting about this study is that they only left the stents in for 3 months. In most clinical trials, where we’ve used fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures, you leave the stent in from anywhere from 6 to 12 months. So with only 3 months dwell time they were able to get pretty impressive results, at least in the short term, in a retrospective study, so it does raise the question of should we be evaluating shorter dwell times for stents in treating anastomotic strictures when we’re using a fully covered metal stent that’s a larger diameter?” said Dr. Kushnir.
The authors noted some limitations, such as the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of control group. They also noted that the multicenter design may have introduced heterogeneity in patient management and follow-up.
“In conclusion, IDSEMS appear to be safe and highly efficacious in the management of [post–liver transplant] AS,” concluded the authors. “Long-term outcomes appear good with low rates of AS recurrence.”
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kushnir is a consultant for ConMed and Boston Scientific.
A real-world analysis in the United Kingdom found that a fully covered metal stent is safe and effective at controlling anastomotic strictures (AS) following liver transplants.
Biliary AS occurs in an estimated 5%-32% of patients following a liver transplant. Generally, these have been managed by insertion of side-by-side plastic stents to remodel the stricture, but this often required multiple procedures to resolve the problem. More recently, transpapillary fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMSs) have been introduced and they appear to perform equivalently to their plastic counterparts while requiring fewer procedures.
The new study “is yet another large experience demonstrating that use of fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures is highly effective and also cost-effective because you really decrease the number of ERCPs [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies] that are required to treat an anastomotic stricture,” said Vladimir Kushnir, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, which was published in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.
The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 162 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with intraductal self-expanding metal stent (IDSEMS) insertion at nine tertiary centers. The procedures employed the Kaffes (Taewoong Niti-S) biliary covered stent, which is not available in the United States. Unlike conventional FCSEMSs, the device does not have to traverse the papilla. It is also shorter and includes an antimigration waist and removal wires that may reduce the risk of silent migration. Small case series suggested efficacy in the treatment of post–liver transplant AS.
There were 176 episodes of stent insertion among the 162 included patients; 62% of patients were male, and the median age at transplant was 54 years. Etiologies included hepatocellular carcinoma (22%), alcohol-related liver disease (18%), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (12%). The median time to development of a stricture was 24.9 weeks. Among all patients, 35% had previously received stents; 75% of those were plastic stents.
Overall, 10% of patients experienced stricture recurrence at a median interval of 19 weeks following stent removal. Median stent emplacement was 15 weeks, and 81% of patients had a resolution of their strictures.
Dr. Kushnir, from Washington University in St. Louis, highlighted the differences between the stent used in the study and those currently available in the United States. “This type of stent is a self-expanding metal stent that’s covered, but what’s different about it is that it’s designed to go completely within the bile duct, whereas a traditional fully covered metal stent traverses the major duodenal papilla.”
Despite those differences, he believes that the study can inform current practice in the United States. “In situations where you’re faced with a question of whether or not you leave multiple plastic stents in, or you put a full metal stent in that’s going to be fully within the bile duct, I think this data does provide some reassurance. If you’re using one of the traditional stents that we have in the United States and putting it fully within the bile duct, you do need to be prepared to have a little bit of a harder time removing the stent when the time comes for the removal procedure, which could require cholangioscopy. But this does provide some evidence to back up the practice of using fully covered metal stents fully within the bile duct to remediate anastomotic strictures that may be just a little too high up to treat traditionally with a stent that remains transpapillary,” said Dr. Kushnir.
The study also suggests an avenue for further research. “What’s also interesting about this study is that they only left the stents in for 3 months. In most clinical trials, where we’ve used fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures, you leave the stent in from anywhere from 6 to 12 months. So with only 3 months dwell time they were able to get pretty impressive results, at least in the short term, in a retrospective study, so it does raise the question of should we be evaluating shorter dwell times for stents in treating anastomotic strictures when we’re using a fully covered metal stent that’s a larger diameter?” said Dr. Kushnir.
The authors noted some limitations, such as the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of control group. They also noted that the multicenter design may have introduced heterogeneity in patient management and follow-up.
“In conclusion, IDSEMS appear to be safe and highly efficacious in the management of [post–liver transplant] AS,” concluded the authors. “Long-term outcomes appear good with low rates of AS recurrence.”
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kushnir is a consultant for ConMed and Boston Scientific.
A real-world analysis in the United Kingdom found that a fully covered metal stent is safe and effective at controlling anastomotic strictures (AS) following liver transplants.
Biliary AS occurs in an estimated 5%-32% of patients following a liver transplant. Generally, these have been managed by insertion of side-by-side plastic stents to remodel the stricture, but this often required multiple procedures to resolve the problem. More recently, transpapillary fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMSs) have been introduced and they appear to perform equivalently to their plastic counterparts while requiring fewer procedures.
The new study “is yet another large experience demonstrating that use of fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures is highly effective and also cost-effective because you really decrease the number of ERCPs [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies] that are required to treat an anastomotic stricture,” said Vladimir Kushnir, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, which was published in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.
The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 162 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with intraductal self-expanding metal stent (IDSEMS) insertion at nine tertiary centers. The procedures employed the Kaffes (Taewoong Niti-S) biliary covered stent, which is not available in the United States. Unlike conventional FCSEMSs, the device does not have to traverse the papilla. It is also shorter and includes an antimigration waist and removal wires that may reduce the risk of silent migration. Small case series suggested efficacy in the treatment of post–liver transplant AS.
There were 176 episodes of stent insertion among the 162 included patients; 62% of patients were male, and the median age at transplant was 54 years. Etiologies included hepatocellular carcinoma (22%), alcohol-related liver disease (18%), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (12%). The median time to development of a stricture was 24.9 weeks. Among all patients, 35% had previously received stents; 75% of those were plastic stents.
Overall, 10% of patients experienced stricture recurrence at a median interval of 19 weeks following stent removal. Median stent emplacement was 15 weeks, and 81% of patients had a resolution of their strictures.
Dr. Kushnir, from Washington University in St. Louis, highlighted the differences between the stent used in the study and those currently available in the United States. “This type of stent is a self-expanding metal stent that’s covered, but what’s different about it is that it’s designed to go completely within the bile duct, whereas a traditional fully covered metal stent traverses the major duodenal papilla.”
Despite those differences, he believes that the study can inform current practice in the United States. “In situations where you’re faced with a question of whether or not you leave multiple plastic stents in, or you put a full metal stent in that’s going to be fully within the bile duct, I think this data does provide some reassurance. If you’re using one of the traditional stents that we have in the United States and putting it fully within the bile duct, you do need to be prepared to have a little bit of a harder time removing the stent when the time comes for the removal procedure, which could require cholangioscopy. But this does provide some evidence to back up the practice of using fully covered metal stents fully within the bile duct to remediate anastomotic strictures that may be just a little too high up to treat traditionally with a stent that remains transpapillary,” said Dr. Kushnir.
The study also suggests an avenue for further research. “What’s also interesting about this study is that they only left the stents in for 3 months. In most clinical trials, where we’ve used fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures, you leave the stent in from anywhere from 6 to 12 months. So with only 3 months dwell time they were able to get pretty impressive results, at least in the short term, in a retrospective study, so it does raise the question of should we be evaluating shorter dwell times for stents in treating anastomotic strictures when we’re using a fully covered metal stent that’s a larger diameter?” said Dr. Kushnir.
The authors noted some limitations, such as the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of control group. They also noted that the multicenter design may have introduced heterogeneity in patient management and follow-up.
“In conclusion, IDSEMS appear to be safe and highly efficacious in the management of [post–liver transplant] AS,” concluded the authors. “Long-term outcomes appear good with low rates of AS recurrence.”
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kushnir is a consultant for ConMed and Boston Scientific.
FROM THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
Game-changing results in fluid resuscitation for acute pancreatitis
Early, aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis led to a higher incidence of fluid overload without improving clinical outcomes in the landmark WATERFALL trial.
Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited.
“The WATERFALL trial demonstrates that aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis is not safe, it is not associated with improved outcomes, and it should be abandoned,” Enrique de-Madaria, MD, PhD, with Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain, told this news organization.
The trial settles a “new and clear reference for fluid resuscitation in this frequent disease: lactated Ringer’s solution 1.5 mL/kg per hour (preceded by a 10 mL/kg bolus over 2 hours only in case of hypovolemia),” added Dr. de-Madaria, president of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology.
“This moderate fluid resuscitation strategy is associated with a much lower frequency of fluid overload and a trend toward improved outcomes. For such reasons, it should be considered as a new standard of care in the early management of acute pancreatitis,” Dr. de-Madaria said.
The WATERFALL trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are “stunning and, given the carefully crafted trial methods, irrefutable,” Timothy Gardner, MD, with the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., wrote in a linked editorial.
Trial details
The trial was conducted at 18 centers across India, Italy, Mexico, and Spain. Patients who presented with acute pancreatitis were randomly allocated to aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution.
Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 mL/kg of body weight, followed by 3 mL/kg per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 mL/kg in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 mL/kg per hour in all patients in this group.
Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to clinical status.
A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis – 122 in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 127 in the moderate-resuscitation group.
The data and safety monitoring board terminated the trial at the first interim safety analysis as a result of the development of fluid overload in 20.5% of the patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group versus 6.3% of those in the moderate-resuscitation group (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.94; P = .004).
“An increased risk of fluid overload was detected in the overall population of patients and also in subgroups of patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome at baseline, patients with SIRS at baseline (thus, with a higher risk of development of severe pancreatitis), and patients with hypovolemia,” the investigators reported.
This clear signal of harm was coupled with no significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.18; P = .32).
Patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group spent a median of 6 days in the hospital, compared with 5 days for patients in the moderate-resuscitation group.
“These findings do not support current management guidelines, which recommend early aggressive resuscitation for the treatment of acute pancreatitis,” the study team wrote.
‘Landmark’ trial
This is a “landmark” trial and “so clinically relevant because of its choice of real world-appropriate aggressive-resuscitation and moderate-resuscitation treatment groups, its use of pancreatitis severity as the main clinical outcome, and its reliance on the carefully defined variable of fluid overload as the main safety outcome,” Dr. Gardner wrote in his editorial.
“Unlike in most other randomized, controlled trials of fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis, patients with varying baseline pancreatitis severity were included, and changes in the rate of resuscitation were determined on the basis of a dynamic assessment of hemodynamic testing, imaging, and clinical factors,” he added.
Dr. Gardner said the WATERFALL trial results lead to several conclusions.
First, the need to focus on a steady rate of initial resuscitation – no more than 1.5 mL/kg of body weight per hour. Clinicians should administer a bolus of 10 mL/kg only if there are signs of initial hypovolemia.
Second, that careful clinical and hemodynamic monitoring are essential during the first 72 hours after admission to make sure that patients remain euvolemic and to avoid fluid overload.
Third, that diuresis in patients with fluid overload in the first 72 hours is most likely beneficial and certainly not detrimental to important clinical outcomes.
Dr. Gardner said the trial also highlights the need to focus research efforts on evaluating other pharmacologic therapies instead of crystalloid fluids.
“Performing randomized controlled trials in acute pancreatitis is notoriously difficult, and the limited human and financial resources that are available for appropriately powered trials in this field post WATERFALL are much better spent on comparative-effectiveness and placebo-controlled trials evaluating new therapeutic agents,” Dr. Gardner said.
“Now that we have gone over the WATERFALL, it is time to look downstream at new targets to treat this challenging disease,” he concluded.
Support for the trial was provided by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, and ISABIAL (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early, aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis led to a higher incidence of fluid overload without improving clinical outcomes in the landmark WATERFALL trial.
Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited.
“The WATERFALL trial demonstrates that aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis is not safe, it is not associated with improved outcomes, and it should be abandoned,” Enrique de-Madaria, MD, PhD, with Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain, told this news organization.
The trial settles a “new and clear reference for fluid resuscitation in this frequent disease: lactated Ringer’s solution 1.5 mL/kg per hour (preceded by a 10 mL/kg bolus over 2 hours only in case of hypovolemia),” added Dr. de-Madaria, president of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology.
“This moderate fluid resuscitation strategy is associated with a much lower frequency of fluid overload and a trend toward improved outcomes. For such reasons, it should be considered as a new standard of care in the early management of acute pancreatitis,” Dr. de-Madaria said.
The WATERFALL trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are “stunning and, given the carefully crafted trial methods, irrefutable,” Timothy Gardner, MD, with the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., wrote in a linked editorial.
Trial details
The trial was conducted at 18 centers across India, Italy, Mexico, and Spain. Patients who presented with acute pancreatitis were randomly allocated to aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution.
Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 mL/kg of body weight, followed by 3 mL/kg per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 mL/kg in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 mL/kg per hour in all patients in this group.
Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to clinical status.
A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis – 122 in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 127 in the moderate-resuscitation group.
The data and safety monitoring board terminated the trial at the first interim safety analysis as a result of the development of fluid overload in 20.5% of the patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group versus 6.3% of those in the moderate-resuscitation group (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.94; P = .004).
“An increased risk of fluid overload was detected in the overall population of patients and also in subgroups of patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome at baseline, patients with SIRS at baseline (thus, with a higher risk of development of severe pancreatitis), and patients with hypovolemia,” the investigators reported.
This clear signal of harm was coupled with no significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.18; P = .32).
Patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group spent a median of 6 days in the hospital, compared with 5 days for patients in the moderate-resuscitation group.
“These findings do not support current management guidelines, which recommend early aggressive resuscitation for the treatment of acute pancreatitis,” the study team wrote.
‘Landmark’ trial
This is a “landmark” trial and “so clinically relevant because of its choice of real world-appropriate aggressive-resuscitation and moderate-resuscitation treatment groups, its use of pancreatitis severity as the main clinical outcome, and its reliance on the carefully defined variable of fluid overload as the main safety outcome,” Dr. Gardner wrote in his editorial.
“Unlike in most other randomized, controlled trials of fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis, patients with varying baseline pancreatitis severity were included, and changes in the rate of resuscitation were determined on the basis of a dynamic assessment of hemodynamic testing, imaging, and clinical factors,” he added.
Dr. Gardner said the WATERFALL trial results lead to several conclusions.
First, the need to focus on a steady rate of initial resuscitation – no more than 1.5 mL/kg of body weight per hour. Clinicians should administer a bolus of 10 mL/kg only if there are signs of initial hypovolemia.
Second, that careful clinical and hemodynamic monitoring are essential during the first 72 hours after admission to make sure that patients remain euvolemic and to avoid fluid overload.
Third, that diuresis in patients with fluid overload in the first 72 hours is most likely beneficial and certainly not detrimental to important clinical outcomes.
Dr. Gardner said the trial also highlights the need to focus research efforts on evaluating other pharmacologic therapies instead of crystalloid fluids.
“Performing randomized controlled trials in acute pancreatitis is notoriously difficult, and the limited human and financial resources that are available for appropriately powered trials in this field post WATERFALL are much better spent on comparative-effectiveness and placebo-controlled trials evaluating new therapeutic agents,” Dr. Gardner said.
“Now that we have gone over the WATERFALL, it is time to look downstream at new targets to treat this challenging disease,” he concluded.
Support for the trial was provided by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, and ISABIAL (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early, aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis led to a higher incidence of fluid overload without improving clinical outcomes in the landmark WATERFALL trial.
Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited.
“The WATERFALL trial demonstrates that aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis is not safe, it is not associated with improved outcomes, and it should be abandoned,” Enrique de-Madaria, MD, PhD, with Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain, told this news organization.
The trial settles a “new and clear reference for fluid resuscitation in this frequent disease: lactated Ringer’s solution 1.5 mL/kg per hour (preceded by a 10 mL/kg bolus over 2 hours only in case of hypovolemia),” added Dr. de-Madaria, president of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology.
“This moderate fluid resuscitation strategy is associated with a much lower frequency of fluid overload and a trend toward improved outcomes. For such reasons, it should be considered as a new standard of care in the early management of acute pancreatitis,” Dr. de-Madaria said.
The WATERFALL trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are “stunning and, given the carefully crafted trial methods, irrefutable,” Timothy Gardner, MD, with the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., wrote in a linked editorial.
Trial details
The trial was conducted at 18 centers across India, Italy, Mexico, and Spain. Patients who presented with acute pancreatitis were randomly allocated to aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution.
Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 mL/kg of body weight, followed by 3 mL/kg per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 mL/kg in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 mL/kg per hour in all patients in this group.
Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to clinical status.
A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis – 122 in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 127 in the moderate-resuscitation group.
The data and safety monitoring board terminated the trial at the first interim safety analysis as a result of the development of fluid overload in 20.5% of the patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group versus 6.3% of those in the moderate-resuscitation group (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.94; P = .004).
“An increased risk of fluid overload was detected in the overall population of patients and also in subgroups of patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome at baseline, patients with SIRS at baseline (thus, with a higher risk of development of severe pancreatitis), and patients with hypovolemia,” the investigators reported.
This clear signal of harm was coupled with no significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.18; P = .32).
Patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group spent a median of 6 days in the hospital, compared with 5 days for patients in the moderate-resuscitation group.
“These findings do not support current management guidelines, which recommend early aggressive resuscitation for the treatment of acute pancreatitis,” the study team wrote.
‘Landmark’ trial
This is a “landmark” trial and “so clinically relevant because of its choice of real world-appropriate aggressive-resuscitation and moderate-resuscitation treatment groups, its use of pancreatitis severity as the main clinical outcome, and its reliance on the carefully defined variable of fluid overload as the main safety outcome,” Dr. Gardner wrote in his editorial.
“Unlike in most other randomized, controlled trials of fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis, patients with varying baseline pancreatitis severity were included, and changes in the rate of resuscitation were determined on the basis of a dynamic assessment of hemodynamic testing, imaging, and clinical factors,” he added.
Dr. Gardner said the WATERFALL trial results lead to several conclusions.
First, the need to focus on a steady rate of initial resuscitation – no more than 1.5 mL/kg of body weight per hour. Clinicians should administer a bolus of 10 mL/kg only if there are signs of initial hypovolemia.
Second, that careful clinical and hemodynamic monitoring are essential during the first 72 hours after admission to make sure that patients remain euvolemic and to avoid fluid overload.
Third, that diuresis in patients with fluid overload in the first 72 hours is most likely beneficial and certainly not detrimental to important clinical outcomes.
Dr. Gardner said the trial also highlights the need to focus research efforts on evaluating other pharmacologic therapies instead of crystalloid fluids.
“Performing randomized controlled trials in acute pancreatitis is notoriously difficult, and the limited human and financial resources that are available for appropriately powered trials in this field post WATERFALL are much better spent on comparative-effectiveness and placebo-controlled trials evaluating new therapeutic agents,” Dr. Gardner said.
“Now that we have gone over the WATERFALL, it is time to look downstream at new targets to treat this challenging disease,” he concluded.
Support for the trial was provided by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, and ISABIAL (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
AGA Clinical Practice Update: Expert review on endoscopic management for recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis
Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.
Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.
The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.
First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.
Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.
Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.
Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.
Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.
Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).
Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.
Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.
“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.
The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.
Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.
The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.
First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.
Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.
Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.
Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.
Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.
Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).
Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.
Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.
“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.
The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.
Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.
The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.
First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.
Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.
Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.
Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.
Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.
Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).
Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.
Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.
“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.
The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Fine-needle aspiration alternative allows closer look at pancreatic cystic lesions
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.
For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.
“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”
Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.
The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.
The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.
Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.
The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.
Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.
“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”
“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”
For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”
She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.
“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.
Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.
“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”
The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.
For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.
“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”
Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.
The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.
The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.
Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.
The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.
Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.
“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”
“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”
For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”
She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.
“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.
Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.
“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”
The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.
For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.
“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”
Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.
The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.
The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.
Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.
The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.
Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.
“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”
“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”
For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”
She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.
“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.
Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.
“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”
The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Acute pancreatitis: Procalcitonin algorithm safely reduces antibiotic overuse
A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.
“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.
Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.
The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.
Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.
Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.
“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.
Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.
“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”
Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”
He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.
The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.
A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.
“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.
Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.
The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.
Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.
Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.
“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.
Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.
“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”
Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”
He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.
The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.
A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.
“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.
Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.
The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.
Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.
Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.
“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.
Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.
“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”
Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”
He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.
The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.
FROM THE LANCET GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY