Background: Peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) has become a widely-used technique in diagnosing indeterminate biliary strictures, enabling optical viewing of the biliary system and targeted biopsies under direct vision. The diagnostic utility of the new endoscopic scraper, Trefle^®, for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) has also been reported. However, the diagnostic utility of POCS-guided and Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition for ECC has never been compared empirically. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition for diagnosing ECC compared with POCS-guided tissue sampling. Methods: Patients who underwent Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition or POCS-guided forceps biopsy to differentiate ECC from benign biliary disease between April 2014 and March 2018 were enrolled retrospectively. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition and POCS-guided forceps biopsy based on pathological evaluation. We also compared adverse events associated with Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition with those of POCS-guided forceps biopsy. Results: We enrolled 34 patients with biliary disease and performed Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition and POCS-guided forceps biopsy in 14 and 20 patients, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition were 87.5%, 83.3%, and 85.7%, respectively, and for POCS-guided forceps biopsy, these were 90.0% each. Statistical values of Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition and POCS-guided tissue acquisition were not significantly different. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between the Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition and the POCS-guided forceps biopsy (35.7% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.770). Compared with patients who underwent POCS procedure, endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed for fewer patients who underwent Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The diagnostic ability of Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition for ECC is similar to that of POCS-guided tissue acquisition. Trefle^®-assisted tissue acquisition might also help to preserve the sphincter of Oddi and its digestive function.

Peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) is believed to be effective in treating intrahepatic stones; however, reports on its efficacy are few. We reviewed the results of intrahepatic stones treated with fluoroscopic guidance or POCS. This study included 26 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for intrahepatic stones at our institution between January 2017 and December 2021. We retrospectively evaluated the procedure time and adverse events in the first session and the rate of complete stone removal. Complete stone removal was achieved in 92% (24/26); POCS was required in 16 of 26 (62%) procedures and the complete stone removal was achieved in 15 of 16 (94%) of these procedures. The POCS group had a significantly longer procedure time than the fluoroscopy group. Cholangitis incidence was high; however, no difference was noted between patients with and without POCS, and all cases were mild and treated conservatively. Endoscopic treatment for intrahepatic stones may lead to an increase in the incidence of cholangitis, requires specialized devices such as a cholangioscope, and should be performed in an established institution by experienced staff. POCS is useful for intrahepatic stones formed upstream of the stenosis and intrahepatic stones piled in the bile duct.

Background: Peroral cholangioscopy (POCS)-guided forceps mapping biopsy (FMB) is a method for the accurate preoperative identification of the extent of the disease of biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, the diagnostic value of POCS-FMB is still uncertain. Objectives: We evaluated the diagnostic utility of POCS-FMB for the identification of lateral extension—superficial intraductal spread longitudinally and continuously from the main lesion—of BTC. Methods: In the retrospective study, patients who received POCS-FMB and surgery for curative resection of BTC between September 2016 and August 2019 at our medical institution were enrolled. The diagnostic accuracy of POCS-FMB for the identification of lateral extension of BTC was evaluated. Furthermore, we also evaluated the factors affecting the diagnostic accuracy of POCS-FMB. Results: A total of 23 patients with BTC were enrolled, and 24 procedures of POCS-FMB from 96 sites of biliary tracts were performed. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of POCS-FMB were 53.8%, 63.9%, and 63.1%, respectively. In the multivariate logistic regression analyses, the biopsy from the bifurcation of biliary tracts was a significant factor affecting the diagnostic accuracy of POCS-FMB (odds ratio 3.538, 95%; confidence interval 1.151–10.875, p = 0.027). Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of POCS-FMB for the identification of lateral extension of BTC was insufficient. The biopsy from the bifurcation of biliary tracts was a positive factor affecting the diagnostic accuracy of POCS-FMB.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is a common technique for diagnosing pancreatic lesions with high accuracy and a low incidence of procedural adverse events. However, occasional adverse events, particularly bleeding, may occur. Procedures for hypervascular lesions are considered important, but their risks are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the safety and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for hypervascular pancreatic solid lesions. This study included 301 patients with 308 solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB between May 2011 and December 2018. We performed propensity-score matching to balance clinical differences between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions and analyzed 52 lesions. We compared the safety and diagnostic performance of propensity score-matched cohorts. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-FNB for hypervascular lesions were 94.7%, 100%, and 96.2%, and those for hypovascular lesions were 80.0%, 100%, and 84.6%, respectively. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions. Furthermore, adverse events occurred in only one patient (pancreatitis) in the hypovascular group. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions (0% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000). Therefore, EUS-FNB may be safe with a high diagnostic yield, even for hypervascular solid pancreatic lesions.

This study constructed a simplified post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) prediction model with a prognostic nutritional index (PNI). A total of 449 patients who underwent gastric ESD was included, divided with a ratio of 2:1, and assigned to the model or validation cohort. A prediction model of post-ESD (modified BEST-J score) was constructed using the model cohort. The modified BEST-J score was evaluated by comparing its accuracy to the BEST-J score in the validation cohort. Within 4 weeks of ESD, melena, hematemesis, or a 2 g/dL or greater decrease in hemoglobin level that required esophagogastroduodenoscopy was defined as post-ESD bleeding. In the model cohort, 299 patients were enrolled and 25 (8.4%) had post-ESD bleeding. Independent risk factors for post-ESD bleeding were use of P2Y12RA, tumor size > 30 mm, location of lesion at lower one-third of the stomach, and PNI $\le$ 47.9. Constructing the modified BEST-J score based on these variables, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were 73.9%, 78.1%, and 3.37. When comparing the modified BEST-J score to the BEST-J score in the validation cohort, no significant difference was observed by ROC-AUC (0.77 vs. 0.75, p = 0.81). Modified BEST-J score can predict post-ESD bleeding more simply, with the same accuracy as the BEST-J score.

Pathological examination by endoscopic ultrasound–fine needle aspiration is not possible in approximately 10% of pancreatic tumor cases. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC) is considered an alternative diagnostic method. However, its diagnostic capability is insufficient, and PJC has been repeatedly redevised. Serial pancreatic juice aspiration cytological examination (SPACE) and secretin-loaded PJC (S-PJC) have been recently introduced as alternative diagnostic methods. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic capacity and safety of SPACE and S-PJC using a propensity score-matched analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 75.0%, 100%, and 92.3% for S-PJC, respectively, and 71.4%, 100%, and 92.3% for SPACE, respectively, meaning that there was no significant difference between the groups. Four patients (15.4%) each in the S-PJC and SPACE groups experienced complications, including postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. Overall, there was no difference in efficacy and safety between the SPACE and S-PJC groups.