yamamoto satoshi

This study aimed to validate the DFS (direct fast scarlet) staining in the diagnosis of EC (eosinophilic colitis). The study included 50 patients with EC and 60 with control colons. Among the 60 control samples, 39 and 21 were collected from the ascending and descending colons, respectively. We compared the median number of eosinophils and frequency of eosinophil degranulation by HE (hematoxylin and eosin) and DFS staining between the EC and control groups. In the right hemi-colon, eosinophil count by HE was useful in distinguishing between EC and control (41.5 vs. 26.0 cells/HPF, p < 0.001), but the ideal cutoff value is 27.5 cells/HPF (high-power field). However, this method is not useful in the left hemi-colon (12.5 vs. 13.0 cells/HPF, p = 0.990). The presence of degranulation by DFS allows us to distinguish between the groups even in the left hemi-colon (58% vs. 5%, p < 0.001). DFS staining also enabled a more accurate determination of degranulation than HE. According to the current standard to diagnose EC (count by HE staining ≥20 cells/HPF), mucosal sampling from left hemi-colon is problematic since the number of eosinophils could not be increased even in EC. Determination of degranulated eosinophils by DFS may potentiate the diagnostic performance even in such conditions.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to predict whether nonsurgical treatment is likely to succeed in removing pancreatic stones in a given patient and also to determine an optimal maximal number of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) sessions for treatment of pancreatolithiasis in that patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We ascertained the number of ESWL sessions for each of 164 patients undergoing that treatment for pancreatolithiasis between 1992 and 2020. Median follow-up duration was 31 months (range, 0-239), median age was 58 years (22-83), and the male to female ratio was 5.1:1.0. Patients were divided into 2 groups based upon an optimal maximal number of ESWL sessions determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Total stone clearance was achieved in 130 of 164 patients (79%). The median number of ESWL sessions was 3 (1-61). Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined 7 to be the optimal maximal number of sessions. Complete clearance was more frequent (87%) among the 131 patients requiring 7 or fewer ESWL sessions than among the 33 undergoing more (48%, P < 0.001). Seventeen patients (52%) undergoing 8 or more sessions still had residual stones. CONCLUSIONS: If any pancreatic stones persist after 7 ESWL sessions, we recommend transition to medical or surgical treatments.

A 69-year-old woman suspected to have IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis causing bile duct stenosis was transferred from another hospital after diarrhea, eosinophilia, and eosinophilic infiltration were detected and prednisolone was prescribed. Additional biliary imaging suggested primary sclerosing cholangitis, but the IgG4 level and inferior bile duct stenosis were alleviated by steroid therapy, suggesting IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis. Therefore, prednisolone was continued. Bile duct biopsy findings suggesting adenocarcinoma led to a diagnosis of pancreatoduodenectomy. The latter specimen only displayed evidence of primary sclerosing cholangitis, and prednisolone was discontinued. Intractable cholangitis necessitated left hepatectomy, after which serum alkaline phosphatase levels increased and eosinophilic colitis recurred. The reintroduction of prednisolone effectively managed the diarrhea but only temporarily reversed the alkaline phosphatase elevation. When histologic sections from resection specimens were compared, the hepatectomy specimen exhibited greater eosinophil infiltration than the earlier pancreatoduodenectomy specimen, suggesting eosinophilic cholangiopathy superimposed on primary sclerosing cholangitis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine when a coexisting pseudocyst was likely to complicate the nonsurgical treatment of pancreatolithiasis. METHODS: We treated 165 patients with pancreatolithiasis nonsurgically between 1992 and 2020, including 21 with pseudocysts. Twelve patients had a single pseudocyst less than 60 mm in diameter. Pseudocysts in the other nine patients had diameters of at least 60 mm or were multiple. The locations of pseudocysts along the length of the pancreas varied from the area with stone involvement to the pancreatic tail. We compared the outcomes in these groups. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in pain relief, stone clearance, stone recurrence, or the likelihood of adverse events between pseudocyst groups or between patients with vs without pseudocysts. However, 4 of 9 patients with large or multiple pseudocysts required transition to surgical treatment (44%) compared with 13 of 144 patients with pancreatolithiasis and no pseudocyst (9.0%) (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with smaller pseudocysts typically underwent nonsurgical stone clearance successfully with few adverse events, similar to findings in patients with pancreatolithiasis and no pseudocysts. Pancreatolithiasis complicated by large or multiple pseudocysts did not cause more adverse events but was more likely to require transition to surgery compared with pancreatolithiasis without pseudocysts. In patients with large or multiple pseudocysts, early transition to surgery should be considered when nonsurgical treatment is ineffective.