Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Guruprasad P. Aithal
Based on 4 articles published since 2009
(Why 4 articles?)

Between 2009 and 2019, Guruprasad P. Aithal wrote the following 4 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline - March 2017. 2017

Polkowski, Marcin / Jenssen, Christian / Kaye, Philip / Carrara, Silvia / Deprez, Pierre / Gines, Angels / Fernández-Esparrach, Gloria / Eisendrath, Pierre / Aithal, Guruprasad P / Arcidiacono, Paolo / Barthet, Marc / Bastos, Pedro / Fornelli, Adele / Napoleon, Bertrand / Iglesias-Garcia, Julio / Seicean, Andrada / Larghi, Alberto / Hassan, Cesare / van Hooft, Jeanin E / Dumonceau, Jean-Marc. ·Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Oncology, Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The M. Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland Strausberg/Wriezen, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Medical University of Brandenburg, Germany. · Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, UK. · Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. · Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. · Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, ICMDM, IDIBAPS, CIBEREHD, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme & Hôpital Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. · Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. · Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital NORD AP-HM, Aix-Marseille-Université, Marseille, France. · Gastroenterology Department Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal. · Anatomic Pathology Unit, AUSL of Bologna, Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology, Ramsay Générale de Santé, Private Hospital Jean Mermoz, Lyon, France. · Gastroenterology Department, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. · Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. · Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Gedyt Endoscopy Center, Buenos Aires, Argentina. ·Endoscopy · Pubmed #28898917.

ABSTRACT: For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

2 Clinical Trial EUS-guided pancreatic cyst brushing: a comparative study in a tertiary referral centre. 2010

Thomas, Titus / Bebb, James / Mannath, Jayan / Ragunath, Krish / Kaye, Phillip V / Aithal, Guruprasad P. ·Biomedical Research Unit, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom. ·JOP · Pubmed #20208328.

ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: Fluid analysis obtained by EUS guided FNA is used to aid in diagnosis and management of cystic lesions in the pancreas. Complementing fluid aspiration with brushing of cyst wall may increase the cellular yield. OBJECTIVE: To compare cellular yield of pancreatic cyst FNA with and without wall brushing. DESIGN: Comparative study. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients with cystic pancreatic lesions referred for EUS-guided aspiration/sampling were included (median age 69 years; interquartile range: 49-77 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparing adequacy of cellular yield between EUS-guided aspiration alone vs. EUS-guided aspiration and cyst wall brushing. INTERVENTION: EUS-guided FNA and/or wall brushing (aspiration only: No. 27; brushing: No. 24). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in age (P=0.496) cyst size (P=0.084) or cyst location (P=0.227) between groups. Overall 29.5%; (15/51) of samples were acellular/insufficient with no significant difference between the two groups (22.2% in the aspiration only group vs. 37.5% in the brushing group; P=0.356). The remaining samples were adequate for cytological evaluation (77.8% vs. 62.5%; aspiration only vs. brushing groups). Seventeen cases were neoplastic (8 benign, 9 malignant). The diagnostic accuracy was 61.9% and 55.0% in aspiration only and brushing groups, respectively. Two out of 4 (50.0%) patents were diagnosed as having cancer in the brushings group compared to 1/5 (20.0%) in the FNA only group (P=0.524). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomised series. CONCLUSIONS: The cellular yield was similar in FNA and brushing group. Greater proportion of patients with malignant cystic pancreatic lesions diagnosed by EUS sampling was in the brushing group, but this did not reach statistical significance.

3 Article Incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis from direct pancreatic juice collection in hereditary pancreatitis and familial pancreatic cancer before and after the introduction of prophylactic pancreatic stents and rectal diclofenac. 2015

Nicholson, James A / Greenhalf, William / Jackson, Richard / Cox, Trevor F / Butler, Jane V / Hanna, Thomas / Harrison, Sara / Grocock, Christopher J / Halloran, Christopher M / Howes, Nathan R / Raraty, Michael G / Ghaneh, Paula / Johnstone, Marianne / Sarkar, Sanchoy / Smart, Howard L / Evans, Jonathan C / Aithal, Guruprasad P / Sutton, Robert / Neoptolemos, John P / Lombard, Martin G. ·From the *National Institute for Health Research Liverpool Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital; †Liverpool Clinical Trials Unit; Departments of ‡Gastroenterology, and §Radiology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool; and ║Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #25438071.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Individuals from hereditary pancreatitis (HP) and familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) kindreds are at increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Premalignant molecular changes may be detected in pancreatic juice collected by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The objective was to determine the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: A prospective study (1999-2013) was undertaken of 80 ERCPs (24 in HP and 56 in FPC) from 60 individuals and the impact of PEP prophylaxis using a self-expelling pancreatic stent and 50 mg diclofenac per rectum from 2008. RESULTS: There was no PEP in the HP cohort and 13 (23.2%) PEP from 56 procedures in the FPC cohort (P = 0.0077). Up to 2008 PEP had occurred in 7 (43.8%) of 16 procedures in FPC individuals versus none of 18 procedures in HP individuals (P = 0.0021). After the introduction of prophylaxis, the incidence of PEP fell to 6 (15.0%) of 40 procedures in FPC individuals (P = 0.0347).The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.23 (0.06-0.84) in favor of prophylaxis (0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with HP are at minimal risk for PEP. Although the risk of PEP in individuals with FPC can be reduced by using prophylactic self-expelling stents and diclofenac, it remains too high for routine screening.

4 Minor Preoperative drainage in pancreatic cancer. 2010

Dawwas, Muhammed F / James, Martin W / Aithal, Guruprasad P. · ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #20375415.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --