Introduction

Several gastrointestinal diseases have been linked to acute pancreatitis, but the risk of acute pancreatitis in microscopic colitis (MC) has not been studied.

Aims & Methods

To assess the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with MC, we conducted a nationwide, population-based, matched cohort study in Sweden of 12,140 patients with biopsy-verified MC (diagnosed in 2003-2017), 57,806 matched reference individuals, and 12,781 siblings without MC with follow-up until 2021. Data on MC were obtained from all of Sweden's regional pathology registers (n=28) through the ESPRESSO cohort. Data on acute pancreatitis were collected from the National Patient Register. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox regression.

Results

During a mean follow-up of 9.9 years (SD=4.3), 146 MC patients and 437 reference individuals were diagnosed with acute pancreatitis (127.8 vs. 80.1 per 100,000 person-years), corresponding to an aHR of 1.57 (95%CI=1.30-1.90). Moreover, we found a positive association between MC and acute non-gallstone-related pancreatitis (aHR 1.99 (95%CI=1.57-2.51)), but not with acute gallstone-related pancreatitis (aHR 1.08 (95%CI=0.78-1.49)). Comparing patients with MC to their unaffected siblings yielded an aHR of 1.28 (95%CI=0.92-1.78).
The risk of acute pancreatitis remained elevated also for MC patients with a follow-up exceeding 10 years (aHR 1.75 (95%CI=1.14-2.67)).

Conclusion

This nationwide study of more than 12,000 patients with MC demonstrated an increased risk of acute pancreatitis after MC. Hence, clinicians should have a low threshold for evaluation of acute pancreatitis in patients with MC. Also, these patients should receive advice and care aimed at reducing the risk of acute pancreatitis.

References

NA

Disclosure

Dr. Ludvigsson coordinates a study on behalf of the Swedish IBD quality register (SWIBREG). That study has received funding from the Janssen corporation. Dr Ludvigsson has also received financial support from MSD to develop a paper reviewing national healthcare registers in China.
Dr Olén has been PI on projects at Karolinska Institutet financed by grants from Janssen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Takeda, and Ferring, and Karolinska Institutet has received fees for lectures and participation on advisory boards from Janssen, Ferring, Galapagos, Bristol Myer Squibb, Takeda, and Pfizer.
Dr Olén also reports grants from Pfizer, Galapagos, and Janssen in the context of national safety monitoring programs.

Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a cornerstone in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatobiliary diseases. However, it carries the risk of complications including potentially fatal post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Despite ongoing efforts, effective strategies for managing PEP remain unestablished. Current guidelines define PEP based on symptoms and findings occurring within 24 hours after ERCP; however, early diagnosis and intervention may prevent its incidence and severity. Recently, urinary trypsinogen-2 (UT2) has emerged as a potential biomarker for early acute pancreatitis, but its role and the optimal timing for PEP remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of UT2 at multiple time points following ERCP.

Aims & Methods

This is a single-center prospective observational study conducted at The University of Tokyo Hospital. Patients who underwent their initial ERCP at our institution between February 2022 and June 2024 were enrolled. Patients with choledochojejunostomy, biliary pancreatitis, or those undergoing hemodialysis were excluded. UT2 levels were measured using a rapid dipstick test before ERCP, immediately after, and at 1 and 3 hours post-procedure. Serum amylase (AMY) levels were measured 3 hours after ERCP. We evaluated the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) of UT2 at multiple time points, for the diagnosis of PEP. PEP was defined as an elevation in pancreatic enzyme >3x upper limit of normal with abdominal pain at 24 hours post-pocedure.

Results

A total of 521 patients underwent initial ERCP during the study period, and 337 were included in the final analysis. The median age was 74 years, and 64% were male. A naïve papilla was present in 89% of patients. The indications for ERCP included bile duct stones (39%), malignant biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer (13%) or non-pancreatic cancer (18%), benign biliary stricture (5%), diagnostic pancreatogram (24%), and others (1.2%). EST, EPBD, and EPLBD were performed in 37%, 6.5%, and 4.5%, respectively. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and rectal NSAIDs administration were performed in 29% and 20%, respectively. PEP occurred in 10% (mild 8.6%, moderate 1.2%, and severe 0.3%) of patients. UT2 demonstrated a trend toward higher sensitivity compared to AMY (AMY: 52.9% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 52.9%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 64.7%), while AMY exhibited significantly higher specificity (AMY: 92.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 65.3%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 65.0%) and accuracy (AMY: 88.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 64.1%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 65.0%). Notably, 28.5% of patients were positive for UT2 prior to undergoing ERCP. These patients were significantly older (79 vs. 71 years, P < 0.01), more likely to have pancreatic cancer (19.8% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.02), and less likely to have chronic pancreatitis (3.1% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.01). After excluding 96 cases (28.5%) who were UT2-positive before ERCP, we further evaluated the diagnostic performance of UT2 and AMY. UT2 at 0 h had lower sensitivity compared to AMY (AMY: 54.2% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 37.5%, 1 h: 54.2%, 3 h: 54.2%). In contrast, specificity was similarly high across all markers (AMY: 91.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 88.9%, 1 h: 87.1%, 3 h: 87.1%). Diagnostic accuracy was comparable between AMY and UT2 (AMY: 88.0% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 83.8%, 1 h: 83.8%, 3 h: 83.8%).

Conclusion

UT2 showed slightly lower predictive performance for PEP compared to AMY. However, excluding UT2-positive pre-ERCP improved the diagnostic accuracy. The diagnostic performance plateaued at 1 hour after ERCP, suggesting its potential utility in predicting PEP earlier.

Disclosure

The author is affiliated with Nipro Corporation through a labor-related arrangement, but has received no financial support or remuneration related to this study.

Introduction

Treatment targets of ulcerative colitis (UC) have evolved to include not only endoscopic but also histologic remission. However, the concept of histological activity is still in its early days. We aimed to capture the attitudes towards UC histology and the uptake of standardized reporting of endoscopy and histology of UC in daily practice.

Aims & Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of physicians involved in the care of IBD worldwide. The survey included 21 questions divided into 3 sections. The first recorded demographics, specialty, and level of experience of participants; the second covered clinical practices and attitudes towards the use and reporting of endoscopy, and the third of histology.

Results

Participants: In total 359 physicians, from 60 countries (54.4% Europe, 24.4% Asia, 12.9% South America, 3.7% North America, 3.2% Africa, and 1.4% Oceania) responded; 87% were gastroenterologists, the remainder other specialists involved in the care of IBD. The majority practiced in academic hospitals (54.5%) or tertiary centers (22.1%), and only around one-fifth worked in secondary hospitals (12.8%) or local practices (8.1%).
Endoscopy: When performing endoscopy in quiescent UC, 72.1% of respondents reported taking biopsies also to assess microscopic activity, while 16.8% only for dysplasia detection, and 10.4% just in case of suspicious lesions; the average number of biopsies was 10.8 (SD 7.34, range 0 to 36). In the case of active UC, the percentage of operators collecting biopsies increased to 93.6%.
Endoscopy reports included a validated score in 91.9% of cases. Mayo was nearly always used (90%), with a large difference from the second most common score UCEIS (26.5%); other indices accounted for 1.7%. Of note, except for 1 respondent, all scores different from Mayo were used in addition to, and not instead of, Mayo. When restricting the analysis to participants working in high-volume centers (>500 UC patients cared for per year) all but one (117/118) reported using the Mayo score to grade endoscopic activity, and 32% (38/117) used also other scores in addition to Mayo, mainly UCEIS.
Histology: Centers represented in the survey were roughly equally split between those with a pathologist dedicated to IBD (46.2%) and those without (51%). UC histology was used by nearly all respondents (90.5%) for initial diagnosis, 72% to monitor disease course, 62.4% to determine microscopic extension, 59.9% to confirm deep remission when considering stopping treatment, and 42.3% to increase/optimize treatment. Nevertheless, 77.2% of participants reported that standard histological indices were not routinely available, although 21.7% of these used scores in selected cases, such as clinical trials or research. Among those who used (or worked in a center that used) standard scores (160/357) the choice of which index was mixed: 64.4% (103/160) used the Nancy index, followed by Geboes 31.9% (51/160), and Robarts 20.6% (33/160), a minority applied other scores.
The majority of respondents welcomed as useful or very useful an artificial intelligence system to automate scoring of endoscopy (69%) or histology (73%).

Conclusion

UC histology reports are less standard than endoscopy ones. Most physicians consider histological activity useful when managing UC and would welcome artificial intelligence systems to automate endoscopic and histological scoring.

Disclosure

OMN has served as a speaker for Janssen, Ferring, Takeda, Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi
MI has received research grants and equipment loans from Pentax USA, Olympus, and Fujifilm; is partially funded by NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham.
LPB reports personal fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, Samsung Bioepis, Inotrem, Al-lergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion Therapeutics, Gossamer Bio, Viatris, Thermo Fisher; grants from Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Fresenius Kabi; stock options: CTMA.
SG has served as consultant, Steering committee member, Advisory Board Member and Drug Monitoring committee member for Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring.
SD has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory board member for Schering Plough, Abbott (AbbVie) Laboratories, Merck and Co, UCB Pharma, Ferring, Cellerix, Millenium Takeda, Nycomed, Pharmacosmos, Actelion, Alfa Wasserman, Genentech, Grunenthal, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Vifor and Johnson and Johnson.

Remaining authors declare no relevant conflict of interest.

Introduction

While understanding the cause is pivotal for managing acute pancreatitis (AP), there is currently no established protocol for determining its aetiology. Ongoing research aims to validate diagnostic protocols and integrate advanced tests for cases of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). This study evaluated current international opinion about diagnosis and follow-up of IAP.

Aims & Methods

An international survey was conducted through an online survey platform; the link was shared through social media, e-mails and conference presentations. Responses were collected anonymously. The 37 questions were developed by an international multidisciplinary team, part of a Pancreas2000 collaborative project.

Results

Respondents (n=247) were from over 35 countries; 39% of them had over 10 years of clinical experience; 73% were working in tertiary referral centres; 56% were gastroenterologists, 34% surgeons. An equal number of respondents (n=85, 34%) chose magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as the first test ideally performed in case of no suspected aetiology for AP after basic tests. When both investigations were available in the respondents’ centre, 44% chose other tests, 30% MRCP and 27% EUS. If there is no evidence of biliary aetiology, 79% of respondents would not perform cholecystectomy; the rest would choose recurrent AP and a history of elevated liver enzymes as main indications. No correlation was found when comparing tertiary and non-tertiary centres in performing cholecystectomies, similarly when comparing centres with or without EUS availability. Most respondents (90%) followed up on moderate and severe AP cases without an aetiology at index admission; 53% of centres followed up on all the IAP cases after first discharge. The follow-up was mostly done by gastroenterologists (62%); 33% of specialists would conduct a follow-up visit every 6 months, while 17% wouldn’t recommend follow-up visits.

Conclusion

This international survey highlights the lack of standardisation for diagnosis and follow-up of IAP. Although MRCP and EUS were ideally chosen as first options in IAP diagnosis, respondents chose other investigations in their practice even when both were available. Only half of the centres schedule visits, showing a lack of consensus regarding follow-up. There is a need for international standardisation for diagnosis and follow-up of IAP.

Introduction

Since the report of Shaker in 1994, transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (T-EGDS) has been reported worldwide as one technique to facilitate comfortable procedures avoiding sedation. From 1996 in our Centre, we routinely use this technique in all the patients for diagnostic and selected operative EGDS. This approach is also suitable for the placement of percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG) but in the published papers it has been performed only when conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was unusable (dysphagic patients with neurological disease or with stenosis and/or occlusion of the mouth or pharynx). On the contrary, since 2000 we have routinely used the transnasal approach for all patients requiring PEG, reserving the oral technique when the transnasal access route is impossible.

Aims & Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent PEG placement between January 2000 and March 2023 in the Unit of Gastroenterology of San Camillo De Lellis Hospital, Rieti, Italy, in order to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of T-PEG placement in routine practice. We used ultrathin gastroscope through a nostril after assessment and lubrification, and the pull technique was used for tube placement.

Results

PEG placement was required for 256 consecutive patients (male 49.4%; female 51.6%), the average age was 79 years, within a range from 26 to 104 years. Transnasal approach was used in 162 patients (nasal group: 63.3%) while oral approach was used in 94 (oral group: 36.7%). The failure of transnasal approach was related to impossibility of nasal intubation due to narrow nasal passages or to inability to transilluminate the stomach. In these cases we needed transoral route. 14 patients underwent transoral PEG placement due to unavailability of transnasal gastroscope. The duration of the procedures was similar in both approaches (12 ±3 minutes oral vs 13±4 minutes nasal).
The most common indications for PEG insertion were neurologic disorders (n=132, 51.6 %), cerebrovascular accident (n=73, 28.5 %), esophageal cancer or head and neck cancer (n=18, 7 %), other pathologies (n=33, 12.9 %). 167 procedures were performed without sedation: 77.8 % ( n= 130) in the nasal group and only 22.1% (n=37) in the oral group. Outpatient regimen PEG placement was also significantly higher in trans nasal group (79 % vs 58 % oral group). We registered 3 major complications, 1 in oral group and 2 in nasal group (one necessitated surgery). No procedure-related death was registered. There were no unplanned re-admissions of outpatients discharged from the gastroenterology unit for procedure-related complications.

Conclusion

The more than twenty years’ experience of our center demonstrates that the transnasal approach is safety, feasible and could be routinely used in daily endoscopic practice for PEG placement. The minimally invasive technique therefore reserves sedation to a few selected cases to reduce costs, improve logistic organization and avoid anesthesia related complications.

References

1. Campo R, Montserrat A, Brullet E. Transnasal gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy: a randomized study of feasibility, safety, and tolerance. Endoscopy. 1998 Jun;30(5):448-52.
2. Schuldt AL, Kirsten H, Tuennemann J, Heindl M, van Bommel F, Feisthammel J, Hollenbach M, Hoffmeister A. Necessity of transnasal gastroscopy in routine diagnostics: a patient-centred requirement analysis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr 14;6(1):e000264.
3. Dumortier J, Lapalus MG, Pereira A, Lagarrigue JP, Chavaillon A, Ponchon T. Unsedated transnasal PEG placement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jan;59(1):54-7.
4. Dumortier J, Napoleon B, Hedelius F, Pellissier PE, Leprince E, Pujol B, Ponchon T. Unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice: results with 1100 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Feb;57(2):198-204
5. Preiss C, Charton JP, Schumacher B, Neuhaus H. A randomized trial of unsedated transnasal small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus peroral small-caliber EGD versus conventional EGD. Endoscopy. 2003 Aug;35(8):641-6.

Introduction

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the eight most common cancer worldwide and causes the sixth highest number of deaths per year. The incidence of EC in Norway has increased by over 20 % over the past two decades, and a similar increase is seen in other Western countries. The overall five-year survival is approximately 20 %, which makes it one of the most fatal malignancies. Tumour stage at diagnosis is the main prognostic factor, and an early diagnosis is of most importance to improve survival. Upper endoscopy (UE) with biopsies is the standard procedure for diagnosing EC. However, several studies have questioned the efficacy of UE for diagnosis of esophageal neoplasms. The rate of missed esophageal cancers (MEC) at UE is of concern in many Western countries which have been reported to account for 6.4 to 12.7 % of all ECs. We aimed to calculate the rate of MEC and identify factors associated with MEC in Central Norway.

Aims & Methods

Retrospective population-based cohort study including 625 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer (EC) in Central Norway 2004-2021. EC cases were identified by a search in the Cancer Registry of Norway, using ICD-10 codes C15x, and contained information about histological diagnosis and tumour localization. The dataset was verified by manual review of electronic patient records. MEC was defined as EC diagnosed 6-36 months after a previous non-diagnostic upper endoscopy. Clinical and disease variables were extracted from patient records. The rate of MEC in Central Norway was calculated annually and for the study period overall. Factors possibly associated with MEC, including tumour localization, histological type, as well as symptoms and findings were recorded. The median time interval from prior UE to date of diagnosis was calculated, as well as biopsy rates of patients with Barrett´s esophagus (BE) and ulcers at the prior UE.

Results

There were 625 patients in the entire cohort. The majority (n=404, 64.6%) were localized in the lower third of the esophagus and were adenocarcinomas (n=356, 57.0%). Fifty-one (8.2%) cancers were MEC. There was a significant increase in annual numbers of EC (p=0.001) and MEC (p=0.007) over the study period, but no increase in MEC rate (p=0.393). MEC patients were older than controls (74.0 years vs. 70.2 years, p=0.038), whereas sex did not differ significantly between MEC and controls. MEC was not associated with localization, sex or histological type. The most common findings at the prior UE were hiatus hernia (n=27, 52.9%), BE (n=26, 51.0%) and esophagitis (n=10, 19.6%), while the most common alarm symptom was gastrointestinal bleeding (n=11, 21.6%). The median time from prior UE to MEC diagnosis was 23.0 (6.2-35.6) months. In all patients with histological dysplasia (n=10) at the prior UE the follow-up interval was longer than recommended in current guidelines. A total of 24% of patients with either BE or an ulceration were not biopsied at UE preceding the MEC diagnosis.

Conclusion

MEC accounted for 8.2% of esophageal cancer in Central Norway. MEC was associated with higher age at diagnosis. There was no association between MEC and histological type or localization and a thorough examination of the entire esophagus is necessary to reduce MEC rates. Inappropriate follow-up of endoscopic BE, histological dysplasia or ulcerations were identified as preventable causes. Awareness of MEC, and more consistent biopsies of ulcerations and BE could reduce the MEC rate.

Disclosure

No conflict of interest.

Introduction

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare disease that can be diagnosed, according to the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC). Contrast-enhanced MRI with MRCP has now largely replaced other imaging techniques and ERCP for the assessment of ductal morphology in AIP. A number of MRI-criteria have been proposed, but due to the rarity of the disease the diagnostic imaging criteria have not yet been systematically validated. Aim of the study is to review and optimize the MR-morphologic diagnostic criteria for AIP in terms of specificity and sensitivity in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of the pancreaticobiliary system.

Aims & Methods

We analyzed retrospectively hundred-fiftysix (n=156) high-quality MRIs: AIP n=56, chronic pancreatitis (CP) n=25, pancreatic cancer (PDAC) n=25, primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) n=25, Non-HPB subjects n=25. The MRI reading was conducted in a blinded fashion, using defined criteria by at least two radiological experts. The statistical analysis was performed by means of Proportion test, Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, One-way ANOVA and Cohen’s Kappa Statistic of the level of agreement.

Results

The level of agreement between two readers was moderate to substantial agreement (κ 0.23-0.85). Sausage-like enlargment (Reader 1: Sens 30.91%, Spec 98.98%, NPV 71.85%, accuracy 74.51%; Reader 2: Sens 26.79%, Spec 98.00%, NPV 70.50%, accuracy 72.43%), restricted diffusion (Reader 1: Sens 47.83%, Spec 89.29%, NPV 75.76%, accuracy 74.51%; Reader 2: Sens 56.86%, Spec 73.26%, NPV 74.12%, accuracy 72.30%), delayed enhancement in the venous phase (Reader 1: Sens 8.70%, Spec 83.15%, NPV 63.79%, accuracy 74.10%; Reader 2: Sens 32.61%, Spec 79.31%, NPV 69.00%, accuracy 75.19%), the icicle sign (Reader 1: Sens 10.91%, Spec 100%, NPV 66.67%, accuracy 65.30%; Reader 2: Sens 37.50%, Spec 91.00%, NPV 72.22%, accuracy 71.79%) and hyperenhancement of ductal wall (Reader 1: Sens 14.29%, Spec 96.67%, NPV 67.44%, accuracy 71.90%; Reader 2: Sens 8.51%, Spec 95.45%, NPV 66.14%, accuracy 74.10%) show a good accuracy distinguishing AIP from controls. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was significantly different between AIP, PDAC and CP (ANOVA). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.85 (CI 0.73 – 0.97) and 0.68 (CI 0.51 – 0.85) respectively for CP and PDAC.

Conclusion

Our study showed that the Sausage-like enlargment, restricted diffusion, delayed enhancement in the venous phase, the icicle sign and hyperenhancement of ductal wall show a good accuracy distinguishing AIP from controls.