Pancreatic cancer is the second most common malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract in the US, and adenocarcinoma has been identified as the most common type of pancreatic cancer. Different types of pancreatic cancers have been classified: adenocarcinoma, ductal adenosquamous carcinoma, solid pseudopapillary tumors, endocrine neoplasms, acinar cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, cystic tumors, primary lymphoma of the pancreas, and metastatic lesions of the pancreas. Adenosquamous carcinoma is extremely rare, behave in a very aggressive way and is responsible for the 1 to 4% of the pancreatic exocrine neoplastic lesions. We describe the case of an 82-years-old African American female, presenting to our institution with quantifiable weight loss (12 kg in 3 months), jaundice and abdominal pain. On admission, laboratory tests were obtained: total bilirubin: 11.07 mg/dl with a direct fraction of 10.32 mg/dl. Cross-sectional abdominal CT scan with contrast, showed a lesion localized in the pancreatic head (hypodense on T1, measuring 3.5 x 3.5 x 2.5 cm), with vascular invasion of the portal vein. EUS showed a solid, hypoechoic, not well-defined lesion (measuring 3.98 x 3.80 cm), localized between the head and neck of the pancreas. EUS-FNA was performed with a 22G needle using the fanning technique. The cytological specimens demonstrated components of both squamous carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent ERCP procedure, and biliary drainage was performed with an entirely covered metallic stent placement. After a month from the procedures, the patient died due to the severity of the disease. Endoscopic ultrasound has proven to be the best method to diagnose solid pancreatic lesions, including rare and aggressive type of tumors like primary adenosquamous cell carcinoma that we described in this very interesting case report

Objectives: The purpose of the present study is to compare intestinal preparation with mannitol and sodium picosulphate, assessing patient’s acceptance, side effects and cleaning capacity. Material and methods: This is a prospective, nom randomized, blind study, in which the evaluator had no information about the preparation applied. The sample obtained was divided into two groups according to the bowel preparation applied, with 153 patients prepared with 10% mannitol and 84 patients with sodium picosulfate. The evaluation of colon preparation was done using the Boston Scale (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale - BBP) through a three-point scoring system for each of the three regions of the colon: right, left and transverse colon. Results: Of the 237 patients that were evaluated, 146 (61.60%) were female and 91 (38.4%) were male. Regarding the group that used mannitol, 98 were female (64.05%) and 55 were male (35.95%). Among the patients who used sodium picosulfate, 48 were female (57.14%) and 36 were male (42.86%), with no statistical differences between both groups (p> 0.32). Considering that an adequate preparation scores ≥ 6 in the Boston Scale, the bowel cleansing preparation was satisfactory in both groups. 93% of the patients who used mannitol and 81% of the patients who used sodium picosulfate had adequate preparation (score of ≥ 6). Moreover, we consider that the average score in the preparation with Mannitol was 9, while the sodium picosulfate score was 7. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion: There is consensus among authors who state that colonoscopy’s safety and success are highly related to the cleansing outcome, regardless of the method used. The same can be observed in the present study, on which both preparations were proved safe and effective for bowel cleansing, according to the Boston scale, as well as accepted by patients and free of complications

Objetivos: El objetivo del presente estudio es comparar la preparación adecuada del colon con manitol y picosulfato sódico. Evaluar la aceptación de los pacientes, los efectos secundarios y la capacidad de limpieza. Materiales y métodos: Este es un estudio no aleatorio, prospectivo, ciego, en que el evaluador no tenía información sobre la preparación aplicada. La muestra obtenida se dividió en dos grupos de acuerdo con la preparación adecuada del colon, con 153 pacientes preparados con manitol al 10% y 84 pacientes con picosulfato sódico. La evaluación de la preparación se realizó usando la Escala de Boston (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale - BBP) a través de un sistema de puntuación para cada región del colon puntuada con 3 puntos: derecha, izquierda y colon transverso. Resultados: De los 237 pacientes que fueron evaluados, 146 (61,60%) eran mujeres y 91 (38,4%) eran hombres. En el grupo que utilizó manitol, 98 (64,05%) eran mujeres y 55 (35,95%) eran varones. Entre los pacientes que utilizaron picosulfato sódico, 48 (57,14%)eran mujeres y 36 (42,86%) eran hombres, sin diferencias estadísticas de ambos grupos (p>0,32). Teniendo en cuenta que con la adecuada preparación del colon y con puntuación de 6 puntos en la Escala de Boston, la preparación intestinal fue satisfactoria en ambos grupos. El 93% de los pacientes que utilizaron manitol y el 81% de los pacientes que utilizaron picosulfato sódico tenían preparación adecuada (puntuación de 6). La puntuación media en la preparación con manitol fue de 9 y en la preparación con picosulfato sódico fue de 7. No hubo diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos. Conclusión: Ambas preparaciones, demostraron ser seguras y eficaces para la limpieza del intestino, de acuerdo con la Escala de Boston, así como, la aceptabilidad de los pacientes y libre de complicaciones

RESUMO Contexto Cerca de 22% dos casos de câncer esofágico ocorrem como uma doença local e uma minoria é considerada lesão precoce, isto é, está limitada à mucosa ou submucosa. A ressecção endoscópica da mucosa, dissecção endoscópica da submucosa, a terapia fotodinâmica, a terapia laser e coagulação com plasma de argônio se desenvolveram como alternativas à ressecção cirúrgica para lesões precoces. Objetivo O objetivo desta revisão sistemática é identificar estudos que comparam terapia endoscópica com terapia cirúrgica, quanto à sobrevivência, à sobrevivência livre de doença, à morbidade e a mortalidade associada ao procedimento e a mortalidade associada ao câncer. Fontes de dados - Revisão sistemática utilizando MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, EBSCO, LILACS, Biblioteca da Universidade de São Paulo, BVS e ESCOPE. Seleção de estudo Estudo randomizado controlado, ensaio clínico e estudo de coorte. Critérios Estudos que comparam a sobrevivência, a sobrevivência livre de doença, a morbidade e a mortalidade associadas ao procedimento e mortalidade associada ao câncer na endoscópica e terapia cirúrgica para lesões precoces de câncer de esôfago. Extração de dados Extração independente de artigos com dois autores usando campos de dados pré-definidos, incluindo indicadores de qualidade do estudo. Limitação Somente estudos de coorte retrospectivos comparando endoscopia e a cirurgia foram recuperados. Resultados As taxas de sobrevida após 3 e 5 anos foram diferentes e mostrou-se superioridade das terapias cirúrgicas em relação às endoscópicas ao longo do tempo. A endoscopia é superior no controle da mortalidade relacionada ao câncer com alta taxa de recorrência da doença. Em relação à morbidade e mortalidade associadas ao procedimento, a endoscopia é superior. Conclusão Não há evidências de ensaios clínicos. Esta revisão sistemática mostrou superioridade na sobrevivência das terapias cirúrgicas. As terapias endoscópicas evidenciam superioridade no controle da mortalidade relacionada ao câncer com uma alta taxa de recorrência da doença. Além disso, a endoscopia correlaciona-se com menor morbidade e mortalidade associadas à intervenção. Ensaios controlados com grandes amostras são necessários para confirmar os resultados da análise atual.

ABSTRACT Background Esophageal cancer occurs as a local disease in 22% of cases, and a minority of this disease is limited to the mucosa or submucosa (early lesions). Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, and argon plasma coagulation have emerged as alternatives to surgical resection for early lesions. Objective The aim of this systematic review is to identify studies that statistically compare survival, disease-free survival, morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure, and mortality associated with cancer in the endoscopic versus surgical therapies. Data sources A systematic review using MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, EBSCO, LILACS, Library University of Sao Paulo, BVS, and SCOPE. Study selection Randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, clinical trial, and cohort study. Criteria - Studies that statistically compare survival, disease-free survival, morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure, and mortality associated with cancer in patients who underwent endoscopic and surgical therapy for early lesions of esophageal cancer. Data extraction Independent extraction of the articles by two authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. Limitation Only retrosprospective cohort studies comparing the endoscopic and surgical therapies were recovered. Results The survival rates after 3 and 5 years were different and exhibited superiority with the surgical therapies over time. Endoscopy is superior in the control of mortality related to cancer with a high rate of disease recurrence. With regard to the comorbidity and the mortality associated with the procedure, endoscopy is superior. Conclusion There is no evidence from clinical trials. In this systematic review, surgical therapies showed superiority for survival, and endoscopic therapies showed superiority in the control of mortality related to cancer with a high rate of disease recurrence; also, for the comorbidity and the mortality associated with the procedure, endoscopy is superior. Prospective, controlled trials with large sample sizes are necessary to confirm the results of the current analysis.

Background: Abdominal pain is present in the vast majority of patients with chronic pancreatitis, being frequently debilitating. Celiac plexus block (CPB) is an interventional technique that can be considered to provide a temporary pain relief. Objective: To estimate the effectiveness and safeness of endoscopic-ultrasound (EUS) comparing with percutaneous-guided CBP in patients with pancreatic pain. Methods: A systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and COCHRANE (via BVS). Study selection and data extraction: Only randomized control trials (RCT) comparing the beneficial and harmful effects of EUS and percutaneous-guided celiac plexus block for managing pancreatic pain were included. Data was extracted and analyzed on variables including pain relief and related procedure complications. Results: Two RCT met the inclusion criteria. Both studies assessed the primary outcome (reduction on pain score) and evaluated adverse effects. The drugs injected were the same; nevertheless percutaneous technique was guided by fluoroscopy in one study and by computer tomography (CT) in other. The results showed that the EUS-CPB group was more effective to reduce pain score after 4 weeks after the procedure, with risk of bias to do this affirmation. No statistical difference in pain relief at 1, 8 and 12 weeks and in complications rates. Conclusions: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, no statistically significant difference was noted in pain relief and complications for EUS and percutaneous - CPB.

Antecedentes: El dolor abdominal es presente en la gran mayoría de pacientes con pancreatitis crónica, siendo con frecuencia debilitante. El bloqueo del plexo celíaco (BPC) es una técnica de intervención que puede ser considerado para proporcionar un alivio temporal del dolor. Objetivo: Estimar la eficacia y seguridad de la ecografía endoscópica-(EE) comparando con percutánea en pacientes con dolor de páncreas. Fuentes de datos: una revisión sistemática de los artículos utilizando MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS y COCHRANE (a través de la BVS). Selección de los estudios y la extracción de datos: se incluyeron solo ensayos controlados aleatorios que compararon los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de la USE y bloqueo del plexo celiaco percutánea para el manejo del dolor de pancreas. Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados en variables incluyendo el alivio del dolor y las complicaciones de procedimientos relacionados. Resultados: Dos ensayos controlados cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Ambos estudios evaluaron el resultado primario (reducción en la puntuación de dolor) y los efectos adversos. Las drogas inyectadas fueron las mismas; sin embargo, la técnica percutánea fue guiado por fluoroscopia en un estudio y por tomografía computarizada (TC) en el otro. Los resultados mostraron que el grupo de la EE fue más eficaz para reducir la escala de dolor después de 4 semanas del procedimiento, con el riesgo de sesgo de hacer esta afirmación. No hay diferencia estadística en el alivio del dolor en el 1, 8 y 12 semanas y en las tasas de complicaciones. Conclusiones: En base a esta revisión sistemática y meta-análisis, no se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el alivio del dolor y las complicaciones de la BCP por EE y percutánea.

Background: Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the main risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Its therapeutic approach is controversial and surgical treatment in the presence of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia may be indicated. Endoscopic approach is an alternative with lower mortality and morbidity rates and favorable results. Objective: To define the best option, according to literature, to treat Barrett’s Esophagus. Materials and methods: Design: Systematic review of PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted and articles of randomized, controlled studies on BE endoscopic ablative treatment were selected. The systematic review through PUBMED retrieved results with higher evidence level and available recommendation grade regarding BE ablative therapy. Nine articles on randomized, controlled studies classified as A or B according to the Oxford table were selected. Cryotherapy, laser, photodynamic therapy (PDT), multipolar electrocoagulation (MPEC), and ablation through argon plasma coagulation (APC) and radiofrequency were considered ablation therapies. Patients: 649 patients from 10 different studies were analysed. Results: PDT was found to present an increase in treatment failure compared with APC, NNH = -7. BE ablation through MPEC or APC was found to have similar risk for treatment failure in meta-analysis. PDT associated with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is beneficial for BE ablation regarding PPI use alone, NNT = 2. Radiofrequency with PPI is an efficient method to reduce risk of treatment failure, NNT = 1. Conclusions: There are no studies demonstrating the benefit of indicating cryotherapy or laser therapy for BE endoscopic approach. APC ablation was found to have superior efficacy compared with PDT and ablation through APC and MPEC was found to present effective, similar results. Radiofrequency is the most recent approach requiring comparative studies for indication.

Introducción: El esófago e Barrett (BE) es un factor de riesgo importante para adenocarcinoma de esófago.Su manejo terapéutico es controversial y el tratamiento quirúrgico en la presencia de neoplasia intraepitelial de alto grado puede estar indicado. El manejo endoscópico es una alternative con menores tasas de morbilidad y mortalidad y con resultados favorables. Objetivo: Definir la major opción de tratamiento del esófago de Barrett de acuerdo a la literatura. Materiales y métodos: Diseño: Se realize una revisión sistemática de PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS yla librería Cochrane y los artículos randomizados, controlados en ablación endoscópica de BE fueron seleccionados. Esta revisión de PUBMED mostró resultados de una evidencia muy alta y recomendación alta para el uso de terapia ablativa. Nueve artículos de studios randomizados y controlados fueron catalogados grado A o B de aacuerdo a la table de Oxford y fueron seleccionados.Fueron consideradas como terapia ablativa, la crioterapia, laser,terapia fotodinámica (PDT),electrocoagulación multipolar (MPEC) ,ablación con coagulación por argón plasma (APC) y radiofrecuencia. Pacientes: 649 pacientes de 10 estudios diferentes fueron analizados. Resultados: El PDT se halló que tenía mas fallas que el APC , NNH=-7. La ablación del esófago de barrett por MPEC o APC tuvieron el mismo riesgo de fracaso terapéutico en los meta-análisis.La PDT asociado al uso de Inhibidores de bomba de protones (PPI) es beneficiosa versus el uso de, los PPI solos, NNT=2. La radiofrecuencia con PPI es un método eficiente para reducer el riesgo de fracas terapéutico, NNT=1. Conclusiones: No hay studios que demuestren el beneficio de la crioterapia o la terapia con laser para el esófago de Barrett, se encontró que tiene una eficacia superior comparada con el PDT y la ablación por APC y MPEC tenían resultados efectivos y similares.La radiofrecuencia es el manejo más reciente y requiere estudios comparativos para su indicación.