Background and Aims: There are limited data on the efficacy of liquid-based cytology (LBC) for EUS-guided FNA specimens. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of LBC for solid pancreatic neoplasms compared with conventional smears (CSs).Methods: In this randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients with suspected pancreatic cancer to the LBC group or the CS group. Aspirates from the first needle pass were processed by one method, aspirates from the second pass by the other method, and specimens from the last pass were processed as core biopsy samples. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic efficacy of each method, with the final diagnosis as the gold standard. A noninferiority margin of À10% was assumed.Results: Of 170 randomized patients, 165 were classified as malignant and 5 as benign. Unsatisfactory samples were less frequent in the LBC group (1.78%) compared with the CS group (5.33%). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of LBC versus CS were 88.0% versus 83.8% (P Z .276), 87.7% versus 83.2% (P Z .256), 100% versus 100% (P Z .999), 100% versus 100% (P Z .999), and 16.7% versus 16.1% (P Z .953), respectively. A bloody background was significantly more frequent in the CS group (CS, 85.2%; LBC, 1.8%; P < .001), whereas the nuclear features were similar for both groups.Conclusions: The diagnostic usefulness of LBC was comparable with that of CS. The cytomorphologic features did not differ significantly between the 2 methods, and the reduced bloody backgrounds allowed better visibility in the LBC method. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03606148.) (Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:837-46.)

Background FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been recommended as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, the evidence is lacking comparing not only two regimens, but also sequential treatment (FFX–GnP vs. GnP–FFX). Methods Data of 528 patients (FFX, n = 371; GnP, n = 157) with mPC were collected retrospectively. Propensity score matching was conducted to alleviate imbalance of the two groups. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and toxicity of patients were analyzed. Results In the whole population, OS (12.5 months vs. 10.3 months, P = 0.05) and PFS (7.1 months vs. 5.8 months, P = 0.02) were longer in the FFX group before matching and after matching (OS: 11.8 months vs. 10.3 months, P = 0.02; PFS: 7.2 months vs. 5.8 months, P <  0.01). For sequential treatment, OS and PFS showed no significant difference. Interruptions of chemotherapy due to toxicities were more frequent (6.8 vs. 29.3%, P <  0.001) in the GnP group, and cessation of chemotherapy showed a significant association with mortality (z = − 1.94, P = 0.03). Conclusions FFX achieved a longer overall survival than GnP in mPC, but not in the comparison for sequential treatment. More frequent adverse events followed by treatment interruptions during GnP might lead to a poor survival outcome. Therefore, FFX would be a better first-line treatment option than GnP for mPC.

Background Several systemic inflammatory response (SIR) markers, including platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), and albumin-to-globulin ratio (AGR), have emerged as prognostic markers in various cancers. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of SIR markers on the survival outcomes of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) patients. Methods Patients with histologically confirmed, unresectable IHC treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) chemotherapy in a single tertiary hospital from 2012 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier and adjusted Cox-proportional-hazards analysis. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to compare the performance of the SIR markers in predicting OS. Results A total of 137 patients received a median of six cycles (interquartile range [IQR], 3–11) of GP chemotherapy with a median observation time of 9.9 months (range, 1.8–54.7 months). The median PFS and OS of all patients were 7.8 months and 9.9 months, respectively. Among the SIR markers, high PLR (> 148) and high NLR (> 5) were associated with a short PFS (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.828, P = 0.006; HR 1.738, P = 0.030, respectively) and short OS (HR 2.332, P < 0.001; HR 2.273, P < 0.001, respectively). Low LMR (< 3.5) and low AGR (< 1.2) were associated with a short OS (HR 2.423, P < 0.001; HR 1.768, P = 0.002, respectively). In multivariable cox-regression analysis, high PLR (HR 1.766, P = 0.009) and distant lymph node (LN) metastasis (HR 2.085, P = 0.001) were associated with a short PFS. High PLR (HR 1.856, P = 0.002) was an independent predictor of a short OS, along with distant LN metastasis (HR 1.929; P < 0.001), low LMR (HR 1.691; P = 0.041), and low level of serum albumin (< 3.5 g/dL) (HR 1.632; P = 0.043). Time-dependent ROC analysis revealed that the area under the curve of PLR for predicting overall survival was greater than that of NLR, LMR, and AGR at most time points. Conclusions High PLR was an independent prognostic factor of a short PFS and OS in patients with unresectable IHC receiving GP chemotherapy.

Background: Two types of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are available for malignant distal biliary obstruction: fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) and uncovered SEMS. FCSEMS can prevent stent ingrowth, but a major concern is the spontaneous migration. The aim of this study is to determine whether the additional insertion of a double pigtail plastic stent to anchor the FCSEMS can prevent migration. Methods: Sixty-eight patients with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction were included in this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The patients were randomly assigned to the FCSEMS with internal anchoring plastic stent group (n = 33) or the FCSEMS group (n = 35). After placement of the FCSEMS, the anchoring stent was inserted inside the FCSEMS. The primary outcome was the rate of stent migration during the 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcomes were stent-related adverse events, stent patency, and survival rates. Results: The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The rate of stent migration at 6 months was significantly lower in the internal anchoring group (14% vs. 40%, p = 0.016). During follow-up, the mean stent patency was significantly longer in the FCSEMS with internal anchoring plastic stent group (181 [95% CI 159–203] vs. 119 [95% CI 94–143] days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in stent-related adverse events and overall survival rates at 6 months between the two groups. Conclusions: Our data suggest that the additional double pigtail plastic stent anchored the FCSEMS to prevent migration and prolonged patency without any serious adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03439020)

No abstract