Interobserver agreement of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound as a reliable tool for assessment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma treatment: Example of in situ gene therapy

Background and study aims  In pancreatic cancer, the antitumor effect can only be assessed by means of a computed tomography (CT) scan using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria. The aim of this study was to assess the intra-observer and interobserver agreement of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging in assessing tumor volume in primary pancreatic cancer. Patients and methods  During a Phase 1 gene therapy trial, 21 patients had EUS before the first and second EUS-guided in situ gene therapy injections. All anonymized EUS files were then randomly distributed to three gastroenterologists/endosonographers and three radiologists (blind status). The largest tumor diameter was measured and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was determined. Results  Intra-observer and interobserver agreements were good to excellent, regardless of operator experience (junior versus senior member of staff) (ICC: 0.65 to 0.84). A comparison of pretreatment and post-treatment measurements by the investigators highlighted a significant antitumor effect (-11 %; P  = 0.0098), similar to that obtained during the generic protocol (-10 %; P  = 0.0045). Conclusions  Interobserver agreement regarding primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma measurements appears good to excellent, thus paving the way for the future inclusion of EUS assessments, particularly in trials assessing local therapies for pancreatic tumors.

The Asian Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (AFSUMB) Guidelines for Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound

The Asian Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology aimed to provide information on techniques and indications for contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS), and to create statements including the level of recommendation. These statements are based on current scientific evidence reviewed by a Consensus Panel of 15 internationally renowned experts. The reliability of clinical questions was measured by agreement rates after voting. Six statements were made on techniques, including suitable contrast agents for CH-EUS, differences between contrast agents, setting of mechanical index, dual imaging and duration and phases for observation. Thirteen statements were made on indications, including pancreatic solid masses, pancreatic cancer staging, pancreatic cystic lesions and mural nodules, detection of subtle pancreatic lesions, gallbladder sludge and polyps, hepatic lesions, lymph nodes, subepithelial lesions, visceral vascular diseases, guidance of fine needle aspiration and evaluation for local therapy. These international expert consensus guidelines will assist endosonographers in conducting CH-EUS according to evidence-based information.

Do we need elastography for EUS?

We recently introduced a series of papers “What should be known prior to performing EUS exams.” In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are needed before embarking EUS examinations. In Part II, technical controversies on how EUS is performed were discussed from different points of view. In this article, important practical issues regarding EUS elastography will be raised and controversially discussed from very different points of view.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Maximizing the endosonography: The role of contrast harmonics, elastography and confocal endomicroscopy

New technologies in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluation have been developed because of the need to improve the EUS and EUS-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnostic rate. This paper reviews the principle, indications, main literature results, limitations and future expectations for each of the methods presented. Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS uses a low mechanical index and highlights slow-flow vascularization. This technique is useful for differentiating solid and cystic pancreatic lesions and assessing biliary neoplasms, submucosal neoplasms and lymph nodes. It is also useful for the discrimination of pancreatic masses based on their qualitative patterns; however, the quantitative assessment needs to be improved. The detection of small solid lesions is better, and the EUS-FNA guidance needs further research. The differentiation of cystic lesions of the pancreas and the identification of the associated malignancy features represent the main indications. Elastography is used to assess tissue hardness based on the measurement of elasticity. Despite its low negative predictive value, elastography might rule out the diagnosis of malignancy for pancreatic masses. Needle confocal laser endomicroscopy offers useful information about cystic lesions of the pancreas and is still under evaluation for use with solid pancreatic lesions of lymph nodes.

The clinical impact of ultrasound contrast agents in EUS: a systematic review according to the levels of evidence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of contrast-harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) in routine clinical practice is increasing rapidly but is not yet standardized. We present the levels of evidence (LEs) found in the literature to put its clinical outcomes in the appropriate perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the available English-language articles. The LEs were stratified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 210 articles were included and presented according to different pathologic conditions. For pancreatic solid neoplasms, the pooled sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma were very high (LE 1); quantitative analysis and guidance of FNA were reported as investigational research (LE 2-3). For pancreatic cystic lesions, the identification of neoplastic solid components as hyperenhanced lesions represented a promising application of CH-EUS (LE 2). For lymph nodes, CH-EUS increased the diagnostic yield of B-mode EUS for the detection of malignancy (LE 2). For submucosal tumors, CH-EUS seemed useful for differential diagnosis and risk stratification (LE 2-3). For other applications, differential diagnosis of gallbladder and vascular abnormalities by CH-EUS were reported (LE 2-3).

CONCLUSIONS

The LEs of CH-EUS in the literature have evolved from the initial descriptive studies to multicenter and prospective trials, and even meta-analyses. The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lesions is the main field of application of CH-EUS. With regard to pancreatic solid neoplasms, the concomitant use of both CH-EUS and EUS-FNA may have additive value in increasing the overall accuracy by overcoming the false-negative results associated with each individual technique. Other applications are promising but still investigational.