• Diagnosis
• Endosonography
• Esophageal neoplasms
• Lymphatic metastasis
• Meta-analysis
• Stomach neoplasms

• Humans
• Lymphatic Metastasis/diagnostic imaging
• Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging
• Endosonography
• Upper Gastrointestinal Tract/diagnostic imaging
• Esophageal Neoplasms

• Contrast
• Endoscopic ultrasound
• Lymph node

• artificial intelligence
• fine-needle aspiration
• fine-needle biopsy
• subepithelial lesions

• Advance imaging
• Contrast enhancement
• Diagnosis
• Elastography
• Endoscopic ultrasound

It is vital to distinguish between inflammatory and malignant lymphadenopathy in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected individuals. The purpose of our study was to differentiate the variations in the clinical characteristics of HIV patients, and apply ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT parameters for distinguishing of malignant lymphoma and inflammatory lymphadenopathy in such patients.

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 59 consecutive HIV-infected patients who underwent whole-body ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Of these patients, 37 had biopsy-proven HIV-associated lymphoma, and 22 with HIV-associated inflammatory lymphadenopathy were used as controls. The determined parameters were the maximum of standard uptake value (SUV_max), SUV_max of only lymph nodes (SUV_LN), the most FDG-avid lesion-to-liver SUV_max ratio (SUR_max), laboratory examinations and demographics. The optimal cut-off of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT value was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC).

Considering the clinical records, the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scores in patients with inflammatory lymphadenopathy were obviously higher than those in patients with malignant lymphoma (P = 0.015), whereas lymphocyte counts and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were obviously lower (P = 0.014 and 0.010, respectively). For the ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT imaging, extra-lymphatic lesions, especially digestive tract and Waldeyer’s ring, occurred more frequently in malignant lymphoma than inflammatory lymphadenopathy. Furthermore, the SUR_max and SUV_LN in malignant lymphoma were markedly higher than those in inflammatory lymphadenopathy (P = 0.000 and 0.000, respectively). The cut-off point of 3.1 for SUR_max had higher specificity (91.9%) and relatively reasonable sensitivity (68.2%) and the cut-off point of 8.0 for the SUV_LN had high specificity (89.2%) and relatively reasonable sensitivity (63.6%).

Our study identified the distinctive characteristics of the clinical manifestations, the SUR_max, SUV_LN and detectability of extra-lymphatic lesions on ¹⁸F-FDG PET, and thus provides a new basis for distinguishing of malignant lymphoma from inflammatory lymphadenopathy in HIV-infected patients.

• 18F-FDG
• Diagnosis
• HIV
• Lymphadenopathy
• Lymphoma
• PET/CT

The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) has a fundamental role in the characterization and staging of malignant conditions, as well as in subsequent patients’ management. All imaging modalities (i.e. computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) rely mainly on size; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria based on B-mode evaluation and Doppler features fail to adequately characterize with high specificity LNs nature. The introduction of EUS-elastography and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS are useful techniques to increase the diagnostic yield in identifying metastatic LNs, to identify which suspicious LN should require pathological characterization and, finally, to target tissue acquisition. EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is increasingly being used for diagnosing lymphadenopathy whenever the characterization modifies patients’ subsequent management and when no superficial LN is accessible. Since target therapy are currently available (i.e. lung cancer, breast cancer), EUS-TA of malignant LNs could be required to identify tumor biology. In this field, both fine needle aspiration and biopsy needles are able to guarantee accurate results with almost perfect specificity and sub-optimal sensitivity. We finally propose a diagnostic algorithm based on most recent, high-level evidence for the diagnostic approach to suspected LNs assessment.

• Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition
• Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration
• Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy
• Biopsy
• Aspiration
• Cancer

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a clinical syndrome characterized by postprandial vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating and, in advanced cases, by weight loss secondary to inadequate oral intake. This clinical entity may be caused by mechanical obstruction, either benign or malignant, or by motility disorders. In this review we will focus on malignant GOO and on its endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided palliative treatment. The most frequent malignant causes of this syndrome are gastric and locally advanced pancreatic carcinomas; other causes include duodenal or ampullary neoplasms, gastric lymphomas, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathies and, more infrequently, gallbladder and bile duct cancers. Surgery represents the treatment of choice when radical and curative resection is potentially feasible; if the malignant cause is not likely to be completely resected, palliative treatments should be proposed. Palliative treatments for malignant GOO are primarily based on surgical gastro-jejunostomy and endoscopic placement of an enteral self-expanding metal stent. Both treatments are effective; however, endoscopic stent placement is less invasive and it is associated with good short-term results, while surgery provides longer-lasting effects with a lower frequency of reintervention. In the last few years, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (GE) has been proposed as palliative treatment for malignant GOO. This novel technique consists of the creation of an anastomosis between the gastric lumen and a small bowel loop distal to the malignant obstruction, through the deployment of a lumen-apposing metal stent under EUS-view. EUS-GE has the advantage of being as minimally invasive as enteral stent placement, and of guaranteeing long-term results similar to those of surgery.

• Gastric outlet obstruction
• Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy
• Endoscopic ultrasound
• Enteric anastomosis
• Lumen-apposing metal stents

• Differential diagnosis
• Endoscopic ultrasound
• Fine-needle aspiration
• Lymph nodes
• Lymphadenopathy
• Meta-analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

• Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration
• Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy
• Pancreatic lesions
• Subepithelial lesions
• Lymph node biopsy

• Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
• Endosonography
• Humans
• Lymph Nodes/diagnostic imaging
• Needles
• Pancreatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging
• Prospective Studies

• Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound
• Endoscopic ultrasound
• Guidelines
• Indications
• Techniques

• Contrast Media
• Endosonography/methods
• Endosonography/standards
• Humans
• Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, lymph nodes, and liver lesions, inadequate sampling may result in an incorrect pathological diagnosis. The accuracy of EUS for the evaluation of pancreatobiliary lesions may be increased by image enhancement technologies, including contrast-enhanced harmonic (CH)-EUS and EUS-elastography. These methods can provide information that complement EUS-FNA for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatobiliary cancer, and can help to identify the EUS-FNA target, reducing the requirement for repeat FNA.

• CH-EUS
• EUS-FNA
• EUS-elastography

• Artificial intelligence
• bariatric endoscopy
• cholangioscopy
• enteroscopy
• luminal opposing metal stents
• radiofrequency ablation

We recently introduced a series of articles that dealt with controversies in EUS. In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information is necessary prior to EUS and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking on EUS examinations. Part II focuses on technical details and controversies about the use of EUS in special situations. In this article, important practical issues regarding the application of contrast-enhanced EUS in various clinical settings are raised and controversially discussed from different points of view.

• contrast agents
• contrast enhacement
• guidelines
• pancreas

• Diagnosis
• endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration
• lymphadenopathy
• meta-analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is preferred for sampling of lymph nodes (LNs) adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall; however, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide improved diagnostic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of FNA versus FNB for LN sampling.

This was a multicenter retrospective study of prospectively collected data to evaluate outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Characteristics analyzed included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell-block analysis, and adverse events.

A total of 209 patients underwent EUS-guided LN sampling. The mean lesion size was 16.22±8.03 mm, with similar sensitivity and accuracy between FNA and FNB ([67.21% vs. 75.00%, respectively, p=0.216] and [78.80% vs. 83.17%, respectively, p=0.423]). The specificity of FNB was better than that of FNA (100.00% vs. 93.62%, p=0.01). The number of passes required for diagnosis was not different. Abdominal and peri-hepatic LN location demonstrated FNB to have a higher sensitivity (81.08% vs. 64.71%, p=0.031 and 80.95% vs. 58.33%, p=0.023) and accuracy (88.14% vs. 75.29%, p=0.053 and 88.89% vs. 70.49%, p=0.038), respectively. ROSE was a significant predictor for accuracy (odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–23.08; p=0.032). No adverse events were reported in either cohort.

Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs. EUS-FNB is preferred for abdominal LN sampling. EUS-FNA+ ROSE was similar to EUS-FNB alone, showing better diagnosis for EUS-FNB than traditional FNA. While ROSE remained a significant predictor for accuracy, due to its poor availability in most centers, its use may be limited to cases with previous inconclusive diagnoses.

• Endoscopic ultrasound
• Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition
• Fine-needle aspiration
• Fine-needle biopsy
• Lymph nodes

• Diagnosis, Differential
• Endosonography
• Humans
• Lymphadenopathy
• Pilot Projects
• Prospective Studies