Methods: All EUS-P performed at our institution from August 2005 to March 2014 were retrospectively retrieved. Corresponding EUS findings, cytology, and follow-up information were reviewed. EUS-P was performed with the curvilinear
echoendoscope and a 22- see more (n = 41) or 25-guage (n = 1) fine needle. EUS-P was performed via transgastric (n = 24), transduodenal (n = 1), or transrectal (n = 17) approach. Patients undergoing EUS-P via transrectal approach received intravenous prophylactic antibiotics during the procedure. Results: Forty-two consecutive patients (30 men, 12 women; mean age 73.5 years, range, 49–92 years) were identified. Before EUS-P, previous and/or present diagnosis of malignancy had been made in 38 of 42 (90.5%) patients. Ascites confirmed by EUS-P was visible in 14 of 42 (33.3%) CT before EUS. The mean volume of ascites obtained was 12.0 ml (range 1–50 ml). Thirty-one percent (13 of 42) had a proven malignancy. There were two false-negative cytology results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-P for diagnosing malignant ascites was 86.7%, 100%, 100%, 93.1%, and 95.2%, respectively. There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusion: EUS-P
is GSK-3 activity a safe and effective procedure for diagnosing malignant ascites. Nevertheless, negative ascitic fluid cytology from EUS-P does not rule out the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Key Word(s): 1. EUS; 2. EUS-guided paracentesis; 3. ascites; 4. malignant ascites Presenting Author: SU JIN HONG Additional Authors: SHIN HEE KIM, JAE PIL HAN, HEE YOON JANG, MOON HAN CHOI, YUN NAH LEE, BONG MIN KO Corresponding Author: SU JIN HONG Affiliations: Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine Objective: A dual focus two-stage optical lens technology was recently introduced. In the near focus mode, endoscopists can perform a close examination of mucosal tissue and capillary networks. The
aim of this study was to investigate the magnifying images on the near Masitinib (AB1010) focus method (NFM) compared to those on the conventional magnification method (CMM) under narrow band imaging (NBI) in the patients with gastric epithelial tumors. Methods: An experienced endoscopist performed endoscopies by using NFM and CMM in the 20 enrolled patients with gastric epithelial tumors, respectively. We selected 40 images of 40 sessions of endoscopies in the patients. Ten endoscopists asynchronously reviewed for image quality. The image quality was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (from poor, 1, to excellent, 5) for mucosal microsurface structure, subepithelial microvascular architecture, and demarcation line. All of the enrolled patients received endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).