Introduction

Capsule endoscopy is the first-line examination for digestive bleeding with likely origin in the small bowel, in hemodynamically stable patients. In the 2022 update, ESGE guidelines recommend that, in the context of overt bleeding, capsule enteroscopy should be performed as soon as possible, ideally within the first 48 hours. In the previous guidelines, published in 2015, the recommended window was 14 days.

Aims & Methods

This study aimed to evaluate the improvement in yield offered by the new recommendations regarding the timing of urgent capsule enteroscopy. Patients with suspected overt middle gastrointestinal bleeding between January 2005 and November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Diagnostic and therapeutic yield, rebleeding rate, and mortality were compared when capsule enteroscopy was performed within the first 48 hours, within the first 14 days, or between the 3rd and 14th day after admission.

Results

A total of 138 patients were included (58.7% men, median age 66 years), 87 of whom (63.0%) underwent capsule enteroscopy within the first 48 hours after hospital admission. The median follow-up was 55 months (5-180). The diagnostic yield (presence of blood or lesions with bleeding potential) was slightly higher when capsule enteroscopy was performed within the first 48 hours (81.6% versus 76.5%, p=0.349). On the other hand, capsule enteroscopy within the first 48 hours was significantly associated with higher therapeutic yield (endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical treatment) - 54.0% versus 39.2%, p=0.02. The rebleeding rate was significantly lower in patients undergoing enteroscopy within 48 hours after admission (19.5% versus 29.4%, p=0.04). On the other hand, overall mortality at 36 months did not differ between strategies (21.8% and 25.5%, p=0.401).

Conclusion

Performing capsule endoscopy within the first 48 hours, as recommended by recently published guidelines, is associated with favourable short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of primary liver cancer, predominantly diagnosed in patients with chronic liver diseases. The absence of specific biomarkers and the typically asymptomatic progression of the disease lead to delayed diagnosis. Patients with liver disease, including HCC, exhibit alterations in the gut microbiome and increased bacterial permeability, factors that may influence disease progression and patient outcomes. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in exploring circulating microbiome signatures as potential indicators of liver disease stutus, providing a new avenue for understanding HCC.

Aims & Methods

Aims: To identify the signatures of the circulating blood microbiome associated with hepatocellular carcinoma, response to treatment and disease prognosis.
Methods: This study conducted a post-hoc analysis of the SORAMIC clinical trial utilizing peripheral blood plasma samples. For this analysis, blood plasma samples from a cohort of 71 patients with HCC were examined (25 treated with Sorafenib and 46 with SIRT/Sorafenib). Peripheral blood samples were collected at two time points: baseline (prior to the initiation of anti-tumor therapy) with all 71 patients included, and post-therapy (7 to 9 weeks after treatment) with 39 patients included. Additionally, peripheral blood samples were obtained from 52 control subjects, who were endoscopically diagnosed with colonic diverticulosis, to compare against the patient group. The composition of the circulating blood microbiome was assessed through 16S rRNA gene sequencing, targeting the V1-V2 hypervariable regions. Subsequent analyses focused on identifying associations with potential novel biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and response to treatment.

Results

Patients with HCC had significantly diminished α-diversity of the circulating blood microbiome as compared to controls. Significant differences were also observed in between microbial communities of these two cohorts based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index. Patients with HCC had significantly higher levels of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes and lower levels of Firmicutes and Campylobacterota. Differential abundance analysis revealed that families of Gordoniaceae, Cryomorphaceae, Burkholderiaceae, Comamonadaceae, Enterobacteriaceae were significantly enriched in patients with HCC. At the genus level, patients with HCC had higher levels of Gordonia, Fluviicola, Burholderia, Limnohabitans and Escherichia/Shigella and lower levels of Corynebacterium. HCC patients, who responded to treatment with SIRT/Sorafenib showed an increase in blood bacterial diversity, enrichment of families Burkholderiales incertae sedis, Arcobacteraceae, Peptostreptococcaceae, Moraxellaceae, genera Sphaerotilus, Aliacrobacter, Rhodoluna, Giesbergeria, Microbacterium, Romboutsia, Arcicella, Pseudorhodoferax and depletion in families Gordoniaceae, Cryomorphaceae and genera Cloacibacterium, Gordonia, Limnohabitans, Fluviicola after the treatment. Levels of Acinetobacter, Enhydrobacter and Micrococcus in the blood before the HCC treatment were associated with patient prognosis.

Conclusion

Patients with HCC exhibit a unique circulating blood microbiome profile characterized by reduced bacterial diversity. Response to treatment is linked to an increase in α-diversity and changes in the circulating microbiome profile. Specific members of the circulating microbiome show potential prognostic capabilities, suggesting their utility as biomarkers for predicting disease progression and treatment outcomes in HCC.

Clinical Case Summary

A 62 y/o male complaining from epigastric pain, constipation, vomiting and eructation for two months and CT abd revealed irresectable pancreatic head mass 4.5x4.5 cm encasing PV and SMV with duodenal invasion. Ryle decompression was done before EGD, duodenal obstruction was noted and biopsy showed duodenitis (stasis induced). EUS-FNB confirmed well differentiated AC. Duodenal stenting was successfully performed with improving symptoms.
After one week patient complained from weakness and abnormal gait, examination showed normal vital signs, bilateral lower limb edema and patient was lethargic. Three days after, the patient became confused (GCS 12), so he was admitted to ICU.
CT brain was unremarkable. Lab investigations showed the following:
Na 130, K 4.1, Ca 7.8, Phos 2.8, Mg 2.6, Alb 2.9
Refeeding injury was suspected and TPN was started by the ICU team. No improvement of the consciousness was achieved and patient caught chest infection, developed sepsis and died.
Discussion: Refeeding syndrome is a serious complication that can be easily missed [1] in upper GI malignant obstructions with prolonged decreased oral intake along with the malignancy cachexia status. These obstructions may need surgery or stenting to regain patency and without cautious monitoring of the nutrients repletion rate either enteral or parenteral this will lead to fluid and electrolyte disturbance (Fluid balance abnormalities, Abnormal glucose metabolism, Vitamin deficiency, e.g., vitamin B1 (thiamine), Hypophosphatemia, Hypomagnesaemia and/or Hypokalemia) [2] with symptoms ranging from vague up to life threatening conditions like disturbed conscious level and heart failure. Our patient had high risk of developing refeeding syndrome due to caloric deprivation secondary to duodenal obstruction with development of the symptoms after stenting and restarting oral intake.
Conclusion: Nutritionist counseling after GI stenting of upper GI malignant obstructions is needed to avoid refeeding syndrome.

References

[1] Reber, E., Friedli, N., Vasiloglou, M.F., Schuetz, P. and Stanga, Z., 2019. Management of refeeding syndrome in medical inpatients. Journal of clinical medicine, 8(12), p.2202.
[2] Crook, M.A., Hally, V. and Panteli, J.V., 2001. The importance of the refeeding syndrome. Nutrition, 17(7-8), pp.632-637.

Introduction

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) can demonstrate microvascularization of the tumors. However, most images acquired from CEH-EUS are interpreted subjectively without quantification by time-intensity curves (TICs) analysis.

Aims & Methods

In this study, we used handcrafted software to quantify CEH-EUS images for objective interpretation of tumor microvascularization to make differential diagnosis of pancreatic tumors feasible.
We analyzed the videos of CEH-EUS for pancreatic tumors from the patients in National Taiwan University Hospital and Far Eastern Memorial Hospital. The convex-type echoendoscope (GF-UCT260; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with ultrasound (US) systems (EU-ME2) was used for the procedures. The second generation of US contrast agent with Sonazoid (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee,Wisc), which contains perfluorobutane microbubbles with a median diameter of 2–3 μm, was administered bolus and intravenously with a dosage of 0.015 ml encapsulated gas per kilogram body weight. The videos were recorded in AVI formats with 30 frames/second.
The algorithm for getting TICs includes the following steps:
(1) Circling the region of interest(ROI) in the B-mode
(2) Performing speckle tracking of the ROI in the B-mode
(3) Simultaneously obtaining the intensity of ROI (the mean pixel values in the ROI) in the corresponding contrast-enhanced harmonic image
(4) Outputting TICs after subtracting the baseline intensity (defined as mean TIC in the first 10 s for eliminating the different baseline intensities caused by other settings).
(5) Outputting histogram of pixel values and excel file containing all pixel values from the frame with the highest mean pixel value automatically.
(6) Calculating the standard variance of (5) to represent the heterogeneity inside the ROI.
The speckling tracking composes of searching and matching processes. We used full search for the searching process and normalization cross-correlation for the matching process. By using the hardware of CPU with Intel i7-8750H and GPU with Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti, the computation time was 0.7 ms/frame.

Results

The detailed results were shown in Table 1. We collected 10 and 7 videos of CEH-EUS for pancreatic tumors from NTUH and FEMH respectively in this study. Among them, 9 were diagnosed of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), 6 were pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET), and 2 were autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). The TICs were obtained through our proposed model. Briefly, there were no significant differences in times to peak, the mean peak intensity, the in-slope tangent and standard deviation of pixel value in ROI (from the frame with the highest mean pixel value) among PDAC, PNET, and AIP. However, there was significant difference in the mean peak intensities of PDAC and non-PDAC (37.88 vs 63.12, p=.031).

Table 1.The results from three kinds of pancreatic tumors based on the proposed model

Conclusion

In this study, there were no significant differences in times to peak, the mean peak intensity, and SD of pixel value in ROI (from the frame with the highest mean pixel value) among PDAC, PNET, and AIP, however there was significant difference in the mean peak intensity between PDAC and non-PDAC group. A study with larger test number is needed in the future for further application.

Disclosure

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Introduction

Bowel urgency is increasingly recognized as a common and impactful symptom in patients with Ulcerative Colitis (UC)¹. However, there are limited data exploring the relationship of bowel urgency with work productivity. We examined the relative association of bowel urgency clinically meaningful improvement (CMI) and bowel urgency remission with Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) scores in the presence of rectal bleeding (RB) remission and stool frequency (SF) remission as potential confounding variables using data from LUCENT-1 (NCT03518086) and LUCENT-2 (NCT03524092) phase 3 trials.

Aims & Methods

Bowel urgency severity was assessed using the Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (UNRS; 0=no urgency to 10=worst possible urgency). Bowel urgency CMI is a ≥3-point decrease and bowel urgency remission is a UNRS score of 0 or 1². WPAI scores (absenteeism, presenteeism, and work productivity loss in employed patients, and activity impairment in all patients) were measured using a 6-item questionnaire; higher scores indicate greater impairment and less productivity. Mediation analyses were performed to separately examine the relative association between the direct effect of bowel urgency CMI and bowel urgency remission (predictor) and WPAI scores while adjusting for the potential confounding effects of RB remission and SF remission (mediator). Analyses were treatment agnostic and combined patients from mirikizumab and placebo groups from LUCENT-1 (N=1162) and LUCENT-2 (N=544) trials.

Results

At week (W)12 and W52, the direct effect of bowel urgency remission accounted for 43%–49% and 27%–57% of the improvement in all WPAI domain scores except absenteeism, respectively. The association values greater than 100% at W12 and W52 (153% and 148%, respectively) reflect the critical importance of SF remission in the improvement of absenteeism score. Bowel urgency CMI resulted in the largest proportion of improvement in WPAI domain scores (except absenteeism) at W12 (71%–74%) and W52 (66%–78%). Bowel urgency CMI accounted for 68% and 239% of the improvement in absenteeism scores at W12 and W52, respectively. At W52, 750% of the effect was mediated by RB remission.

Conclusion

Improvement in work productivity and regular activities were primarily ascribed to bowel urgency remission or bowel urgency CMI relative to RB remission and SF remission in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC. These findings suggest that bowel urgency is a critical and independent symptom that considerably impacts patients’ productivity.

References

1. Dubinsky MC, et al. Crohn's & Colitis 360. Volume 4, Issue 3, July 2022;7(4):3.
2. Dubinsky MC, et al. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022;6(1):114.

Disclosure

Bruce Sands: Consulting: Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bacainn Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Calibr, Celltrion Healthcare, ClostraBio, Entera, Evommune, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Innovation Therapeutics, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Miro Bio, Morphic Therapeutics, MRM Health, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Surrozen, Teva, TLL Pharmaceutical, USWM Enterprises, VielaBio; consulting, speaking, research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting, speaking, grant/research support: Janssen; consulting, speaking: Abivax, Pfizer, Takeda
Brian Feagan: Consulting: AbbVie, AbolerIS, AgomAB Therapeutics, Allianthera, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Applied Molecular Transport Inc., Arena Pharma, Avir, Azora Therapeutics, BioJamp, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Pharma, Boxer, Celgene/BMS, Connect BioPharma, Cytoki, Disc Medicine, Duality, EcoR1, Everest Clinical Research Corp., Lilly, Equillium, Ermium, Ferring, First Wave, Galapagos, Galen Atlantica, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Glenmark, Gossamer Pharma, GSK, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Hot Spot Therapeutics, Index Pharma, Imhotex, ImmunExt, Immunic Therapeutics, Intact Therapeutics, JAKAcademy, Janssen, Japan Tobacco Inc., Kaleido Biosciences, Landos Biopharma, Leadiant, L.E.K. Consulting, LifeSci Capital, Lument AB, Millennium, MiroBio, Morphic Therapeutics, Mylan, OM Pharma, Origo BioPharma, Orphagen, Otsuka, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Play to Know AG, Progenity, Protagonist, PTM Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rebiotix, RedHill, Biopharma, REDX, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seres Therapeutics, Silverback Therapeutics, Surrozen Inc., Takeda, Teva, Thelium, Theravance, Tigenix, Tillotts, UCB Pharma, VHSquared Ltd., Viatris, Ysios, Ysopia, Zealand Pharma; speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda. Scientific advisory board member: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene/BMS Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Origo BioPharma, Pfizer, Prometheus, Takeda,Tillotts Pharma, Teva, Progenity, Index, Ecor1Capital, Morphic, GSK; stock shareholder: Gossamer Pharma.
Employment: Western University, Alimentiv Inc.
Stefan Schreiber: Consulting and personal fees: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Biogen, Celltrion, Celgene, Falk, Ferring, Fresenius, Galapagos/Gilead, HIKMA, IMAB, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist, Provention Bio, Takeda, and Theravance.
Vipul Jairath: Consulting/advisory board fees: AbbVie, Alimentiv Inc., Arena pharmaceuticals, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Asieris, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celltrion, Lilly, Ferring, Flagship Pioneering, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Metacrine, Mylan, Pandion, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Protagonist, Prometheus, Reistone Biopharma, Roche, Sandoz, Second Genome, Sorriso pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Teva, Topivert, Ventyx, Vividion. Speaker’s fees: Abbvie, Ferring, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen Pfizer Shire, Takeda, Fresenius Kabi.
Alessandro Armuzzi: Consulting/advisory board fees: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda.
Speaker’s fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, Tigenix.
Research grants: MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Biogen.
Theresa Hunter Gibble: Employment and stockholder: Eli Lilly and Company
Anthony Keohane: Employment and stockholder: Eli Lilly and Company
William J Eastman: Employment and stockholder: Eli Lilly and Company
Kristina A Traxler: Employment and stockholder: Eli Lilly and Company