Objective Some patients (10 % – 32 %) with a positive guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in terms of participation rate and detection outcomes when offered to patients with a positive gFOBT who did not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. Methods An invitation letter offering CTC or VCE was sent to selected patients after randomization. Acceptance of the proposed (or alternative) procedure and procedure results were recorded. Sample size was evaluated according to the hypothesis of a 13 % increase of participation with VCE. Results A total of 756 patients were targeted. Following the invitation letter, 5.0 % (19/378) of patients underwent the proposed VCE and 7.4 % (28/378) underwent CTC, (P = 0.18). Following the letter, 9.8 % (37/378) of patients in the VCE group underwent a diagnostic procedure (19 VCE, 1 CTC, 17 colonoscopy) vs. 10.8 % in the CTC group (41/378: 28 CTC, 13 colonoscopy; P = 0.55). There were more potentially neoplastic lesions diagnosed in the VCE group than in the CTC group (12/20 [60.0 %] vs. 8/28 [28.6 %]; P = 0.04). Thus, 15/20 noninvasive procedures in the VCE group (19 VCE, 1 CTC; 75.0 %) vs. 10/28 in the CTC group (35.7 %; P = 0.01) resulted in a recommendation of further colonoscopy, but only 10/25 patients actually underwent this proposed colonoscopy. Conclusion Patients with a positive gFOBT result who do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy are difficult to recruit to the screening program and simply proposing an additional, less-invasive procedure, such as VCE or CTC, is not an effective strategy.

CEUS allows direct visualization of intra-prosthetic flow, with a qualitative and anatomic study, in addition to the Doppler examination. This is a new, simple, and effective technique for TIPS follow-up.

No abstract

Background and Objectives: The background of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) patients treated with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). Methods: All patients with pCCA who underwent EUS-HGS from 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. The primary outcome was clinical success; the secondary outcomes were technical success, adverse events (AEs), stent patency, and oncological outcomes. Cox proportional-hazards regression and Kaplan–Meier curves were analyzed to identify variables related to survival. Results: Thirty-four patients (50% females, 76 years old) were included; 24 (70.6%) presented with distant metastasis. Indications for EUS-HGS were ERCP failure (64.7%), duodenal stricture (23.5%), postsurgical anatomy (5.9%), and dilation limited to the left intrahepatic duct (5.9%). The technical success rate was 97.1%. The clinical success rate was 64.7%. Nine (26.5%) presented AEs, 2 fatal (bleeding and leakage). The overall survival was 91 (31-263) days. On multivariate analysis, EUS-HGS clinical success (Exp[b]: 0.23 [0.09-0.60]; P = 0.003) and chemotherapy (Exp[b]: 0.06 [0.02-0.23]; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with survival. The survival was longer in patients who achieved EUS-HGS clinical success (178[61-393] vs. 15[73-24] days; hazard ratio: 6.3; P < 0.001) and in those starting chemotherapy (324[178-439] vs. 31 [9-48]; hazard ratio: 1.2; P < 0.001). Conclusions: EUS-HGS is effective in pCCA patients despite a not negligible AE rate. Clinical success, potentially leading to jaundice resolution and chemotherapy start, significantly improves survival.

No abstract