Background and study aims Hemostatic powders are increasingly used to address limitations in conventional endoscopic techniques for gastrointestinal bleeding. Various agents exist with different compositions, characteristics, efficacy, and adverse events (AEs). We sought to review existing hemostatic powders, from preclinical to established agents. Methods A literature review on hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding was undertaken through a MEDLINE search from 2000–2021 and hand searching of articles. Relevant literature was critically appraised and reviewed for mechanism of action, hemostasis and rebleeding rate, factors associated with hemostatic failure, and AEs. Results The most established agents are TC-325 (Hemospray), EndoClot, and Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS). These agents have been successfully applied to a variety of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding etiologies, in the form of primary, combination, salvage, and bridging therapy. Few AEs have been reported, including visceral perforation, venous embolism, and self-limited abdominal pain. Newer agents include CEGP-003 and UI-EWD, which have shown results similar to those for the older agents in initial clinical studies. All aforementioned powders have high immediate hemostasis rates, particularly in scenarios not amenable to conventional endoscopic methods, but are limited by significant rates of rebleeding. Other treatments include TDM-621 (PuraStat) consisting of a liquid hemostatic agent newly applied to endoscopy and self-propelling thrombin powder (CounterFlow Powder), a preclinical but promising agent. Conclusions Rapid development of hemostatic powders and growing clinical expertise has established these agents as a valuable strategy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Further research will continue to refine the efficacy and applicability of these agents.

No abstract

Background: Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) are increasingly used in precision oncology. Yet, little is known about cancer patients' perspectives in clinical practice. We explored patients' depth of preferences for liquid vs tissue biopsies and knowledge regarding the role of blood biomarkers on their cancer. Methods: Three interviewer-administered trade-off scenarios and a 54-item selfadministered questionnaire were completed by cancer outpatients across all disease sites at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Results: Of 413 patients, 54% were female; median age was 61 (range 18-101) years. In trade-off scenario preference testing, 90% (n=372) preferred liquid over tissue biopsy at baseline; when wait times for their preferred test were increased from 2 weeks, patients tolerated an additional mean of 1.8 weeks (SD 2.1) for liquid biopsy before switching to tissue biopsy (with wait time 2 weeks). Patients also tolerated a 6.2% decrease (SD 8.8) in the chance that their preferred test would conclusively determine optimal treatment before switching from the baseline of 80%. 216 patients (58%) preferred liquid biopsy even with no chance of adverse events from tissue biopsy. Patients' knowledge of blood-based biomarkers related to their cancer was low (mean 23%); however, the majority viewed development of blood biomarkers as important. Conclusion: Patients had limited understanding of cancer-specific blood-based biomarkers, but 90% preferred liquid over tissue biopsies to assess biomarkers. There was little tolerance to wait longer for results, or for decreased test-conclusiveness. Developing accurate, low-risk tests for cancer diagnosis and management for blood biomarkers is therefore desirable to patients.

No abstract