Cumulative sum learning curves guiding multicenter multidisciplinary quality improvement of EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

An optimal curriculum for training in endoscopic ultrasound: a summarized evidence-based literature systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) training is strongly correlated with procedure quality and improved patient outcomes. However, EUS fellowship curricula and the environment in which training should take place are not well defined. A well-structured training curriculum should aim to establish a universally accepted competence framework before endosonographers are allowed to start independent practice. This systematic review seeks to identify the essential components of an EUS training curriculum, determine the optimal environment for this training, and highlight gaps and inconsistencies in current guidelines.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed using different databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane library, Directory of Open Access Journals, and Google Scholar) using Mesh methodology for keyword search in the field of EUS training and following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were review articles, original research articles, international societal guidelines, book chapters, and expert consensus addressing EUS educational aspects published in the last two decades (January 2002-August 2023) in peer-reviewed journals in English.

RESULTS

A total of 49 papers were included according to the inclusion criteria in the 20-year period range, from which 31 assessed diagnostic EUS curricula content and 19 any aspect of the therapeutic EUS curricula. The requisites, duration, and/or competence demonstration strategies were addressed in 28 publications, whereas 15 referred to the adequate environment for EUS training. Overall, there was a consensus on the need for a structured, formal EUS curriculum along with standardized and properly supervised training and assessment to ensure competence.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a structured EUS fellowship curricula should aim to produce competent practitioners, thereby ensuring safe and effective patient-care, uniformly and at the international level. While there is general agreement in the literature on the major aspects of a training curriculum, which we synthesize here, the ideal EUS training context deserves further study and better definition.

Curriculum for diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize and enhance training in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This manuscript represents the outcome of a formal Delphi process resulting in an official Position Statement of the ESGE and provides a framework to develop and maintain skills in diagnostic EUS. This curriculum is set out in terms of the prerequisites prior to training; the recommended steps of training to a defined syllabus; the quality of training; and how competence should be defined and evidenced before independent practice. 1:  Trainees should have achieved competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before training in diagnostic EUS. 2:  The development of diagnostic EUS skills by methods that do not involve patients is advisable, but not mandatory, prior to commencing formal training in diagnostic EUS. 3:  A trainee's principal trainer should be performing adequate volumes of diagnostic EUSs to demonstrate maintenance of their own competence. 4:  Training centers for diagnostic EUS should offer expertise, as well as a high volume of procedures per year, to ensure an optimal level of quality for training. Under these conditions, training centers should be able to provide trainees with a sufficient wealth of experience in diagnostic EUS for at least 12 months. 5:  Trainees should engage in formal training and supplement this with a range of learning resources for diagnostic EUS, including EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (FNA/FNB). 6:  EUS training should follow a structured syllabus to guide the learning program. 7:  A minimum procedure volume should be offered to trainees during diagnostic EUS training to ensure that they have the opportunity to achieve competence in the technique. To evaluate competence in diagnostic EUS, trainees should have completed a minimum of 250 supervised EUS procedures: 80 for luminal tumors, 20 for subepithelial lesions, and 150 for pancreaticobiliary lesions. At least 75 EUS-FNA/FNBs should be performed, including mostly pancreaticobiliary lesions. 8:  Competence assessment in diagnostic EUS should take into consideration not only technical skills, but also cognitive and integrative skills. A reliable valid assessment tool should be used regularly during diagnostic EUS training to track the acquisition of competence and to support trainee feedback. 9:  A period of supervised practice should follow the start of independent activity. Supervision can be delivered either on site if other colleagues are already practicing EUS or by maintaining contacts with the training center and/or other EUS experts. 10:  Key performance measures including the annual number of procedures, frequency of obtaining a diagnostic sample during EUS-FNA/FNB, and adverse events should be recorded within an electronic documentation system and evaluated.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma: a nationwide analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition (EUS + TA) is used to provide a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Key performance indicators (KPI) for these procedures are rate of adequate sample (RAS) and sensitivity for malignancy (SFM).

AIM

assess practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma in the Netherlands.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Results of all EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma from 2014-2018, were extracted from the national Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were classified as: insufficient for analysis (b1), benign (b2), atypia (b3), neoplastic other (b4), suspected malignant (b5), and malignant (b6). RAS was defined as the proportion of EUS procedures yielding specimen sufficient for analysis. SFM was calculated using a strict definition (malignant only, SFM-b6), and a broader definition (SFM-b5+6).

RESULTS

691 out of 1638 resected patients (42%) underwent preoperative EUS + TA. RAS was 95% (range 89-100%), SFM-b6 was 44% (20-77%), and SFM-b5+6 was 65% (53-90%). All centers met the performance target RAS>85%. Only 9 out of 17 met the performance target SFM-b5+6 > 85%.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study detected significant practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA procedures prior to surgical resection of pancreatic carcinoma. Therefore, quality improvement of EUS + TA is indicated.

Comparison of Adverse Events of Different Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

The efficacy of new generation endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy needles has been promising in recent years. Yet, comparing these needles’ diagnostic yield and safety to conventional needles is not well-known. Our study aims to compare the adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with different types of needles, including FNA needles, FNB needles with a Franseen tip and FNB needles with a reverse bevel. Furthermore, we will analyze the risk factors, including tumor vascularity, different needle types, and the underlying disease, which may impact the safety of the procedures. From May 2014 to December 2021, 192 consecutive EUS-TAs were performed on pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions in our hospital using different types of FNA and FNB needles. We retrospectively reviewed the data and identified the risk factors for EUS-TA-related complications. As a result, the hypervascular tumor is a significant risk factor for adverse events in our multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio of 4.96 (95% CI 1.33–18.47), while liver cirrhosis is one of the risk factors for adverse events during EUS-TA, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (95% CI 1.1–25.6). However, the risk of adverse events did not increase using Franseen-tip needles, compared to conventional FNA or FNB needles with a reverse bevel. In conclusion, we must be more cautious in patients with liver cirrhosis and hypervascular tumors, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, when performing EUS-guided tissue acquisition.