Introduction

Biliary and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) are common complications in patients with pancreatic cancer, often delaying essential cancer treatments. While endoscopic ultrasound-guided
gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has been shown to be superior to duodenal self-expandable metal stents (dSEMS) for managing GOO, the optimal strategy for biliary drainage (BD) in this setting remains unclear. Specifically, there is no consensus on whether to prefer EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) or EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS).

Aims & Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the optimal biliary drainage approach in patients undergoing EUS-GE for concomitant GOO and biliary obstruction. We searched Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE up to February 2025. Studies were included if they reported outcomes of EUS-CDS or EUS-HGS in patients with biliary obstruction and concomitant GOO
treated by EUS-GE. Pooled outcomes included technical and clinical success, stent dysfunction, and adverse events, analyzed using a random-effects model. Results were reported as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Five studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 128 patients (female = 45.5%; mean age range 63.0–73.0 years), with 61 undergoing EUS-CDS and 67 undergoing EUS-HGS. Four studies were conducted in Europe and one in the United States; one study was prospective. Technical success rates were similar between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83–1.11; I² = 0%; EUS-CDS 94.5% vs EUS-HGS 96.4%), as were clinical success rates (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92–1.19; I² = 0%; EUS-CDS 96.5% vs EUS-HGS 89.1%). However, the risk of stent dysfunction was significantly higher in the EUS-CDS group compared to EUS-HGS (RR 4.42, 95% CI 1.71–11.43; I² = 0%; EUS-CDS 45.1% vs EUS-HGS 10.9%). The incidence of procedure-related adverse events was comparable between the two approaches (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.24–5.50; I² = 40.8%; EUS-CDS 10.7% vs EUS-HGS 16.0%).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS are similarly safe and effective for managing malignant biliary obstruction in the setting of concomitant GOO. However, EUS-CDS is associated with a more than four-fold increase in the risk of stent dysfunction, which may result in delays to critical cancer treatments.

Disclosure

None

Clinical Case Summary

Introduction: Pancreatic involvement in non-Hodgkin lymphomas is rare and often mimics pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We report a case in which endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was pivotal in establishing the correct diagnosis.
Case Presentation: A 39-year-old male, a chronic smoker, presented with jaundice, anorexia, and fever. Laboratory findings revealed hepatocellular injury and cholestasis (total bilirubin: 15 mg/dL; GGT: 868 U/L; ALP: 679 U/L). CT imaging (Figure 1) demonstrated a large retroperitoneal mass infiltrating both the pancreas and adjacent vascular structures, associated with ascites and omental thickening. EUS (Figure 2) revealed a hypoechoic, poorly defined mass in the head and body of the pancreas (65×55 mm), with evidence of vascular invasion. A fine-needle biopsy (22G) was performed. Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) confirmed malignant duodenal stenosis. Histopathology was consistent with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The patient was initiated on R-CHOP chemotherapy (Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Hydroxydaunorubicin, Oncovin, Prednisone) after baseline staging. Eight months later, follow-up EUS (Figure 3) showed no residual pancreatic mass.
Discussion: In atypical pancreatic masses—especially in younger patients with systemic symptoms—EUS is essential for tissue acquisition and accurate differential diagnosis. Unlike adenocarcinoma, pancreatic lymphomas respond well to chemotherapy.
Conclusion: Early use of EUS in atypical pancreatic masses can prevent misdiagnosis, reduce time to treatment, and avoid unnecessary surgical interventions.

References

Figure 1 - retroperitoneal mass infiltrating pancreas and vascular structures
Figure 2 - hypoechoic, poorly defined mass in the head and body of the pancreas
Figure 3 - no residual pancreatic mass

Introduction

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection continues to pose a significant public health challenge, with demographic trends shaped by migration patterns and shifting risk profiles. Gaining insight into these dynamics is essential for optimising treatment approaches and informing effective resource allocation.

Aims & Methods

This retrospective cohort study aimed to analyze demographic patterns, HCV genotype distribution, and cirrhosis prevalence among patients treated for hepatitis C at St. Luke’s Hospital, Ireland, between 2016 and 2024. Statistical analyses included descriptive metrics, Chi-Square tests, one-way ANOVA, and multinomial logistic regression, performed using SPSS.

Results

A total of 202 patients received treatment during the study period, with 67% identifying as male and a median age of 46 years. The majority were born in Ireland (45.5%), Eastern Europe (16.8%), or other European countries (15.3%). No significant differences were observed in age at presentation across years (p = 0.449) or by country of birth (p = 0.367). Gender distribution remained stable over time (p = 0.373) and across birth countries (p = 0.107). Genotype distribution, however, varied significantly by country of birth (p < 0.001): Genotype 1b was more prevalent among patients from Eastern and other European countries, while Genotypes 1a and 3 were more common among Irish-born individuals. Genotypes 3 and 4 were seen more frequently in patients from non-European regions. Cirrhosis prevalence showed no significant association with genotype (p = 0.071) or country of birth (p = 0.064). Although country of origin did not change significantly over time (p = 0.224), descriptive trends indicated an increase in non-Irish-born patients.

Conclusion

This study highlights consistent demographic trends in HCV presentations over time, alongside distinct regional variations in genotype distribution. Continued monitoring of these patterns is essential for guiding service planning and delivering targeted, patient-centered care in a changing population landscape.

Introduction

There has been a shift from percutaneous drainage towards endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage for management of post-operative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFC). However, available series have been limited by sample size and little is known about the factors that may influence clinical success.

Aims & Methods

Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-guided drainage of POPFC following pancreatic surgery and identify predictors of clinical success.
We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of POPFC between 2014 and August 2024 at three academic centers. Primary outcome was clinical success, defined as the complete radiological regression of the collection and resolution of symptoms without the need for additional drainage procedures.

Results

In total, 265 cases were included (mean age 64 [SD±13.9] years, 37% pylorus-resecting pancreatoduodenectomy). Early drainage (≤14 days) was performed in 52% of cases (n=138) and DPPS were used in 209 cases (79%).
Clinical success with a single EUS drainage procedure was achieved in 160 cases (60.4%). Step-up interventions were required in 67 patients (25.3%), 37 of which required endoscopic revision only. Technical success was achieved in 90% (n=238) and adverse events occurred in 43 cases (16%).
Stent type, drainage timing, splenectomy and drainage route did not seem to significantly influence clinical success. Multivariate analysis including stent type and surgical history, showed that distal pancreatectomy was an independent risk factor for clinical failure.

Conclusion

EUS-guided drainage of POPFC was effective in the majority of cases with a single procedure, although distal pancreatectomy was suggested as an independent risk factor for clinical failure. These results further support the use of EUS-guided drainage for the management of postoperative collections.

Disclosure

HH declares no competing interests. MB received trial support from Boston Scientific and holds consultancy agreements with Dekra, Ovesco and Prion Medical. GV received lecture fees from Boston Scientific and travel grants from Pentax Medical and Euromedical. RVW holds a consultancy agreement with Boston Scientific. Schalk van der Merwe holds the Cook chair in Interventional endoscopy, has consultancy agreements with Cook, Pentax and Olympus and co-chairs the Boston-Scientific Chair in Therapeutic Biliopancreatic Endoscopy.