ERROR! No headcode.htm file found.


Clinical Focus

  • Gastroenterology

Academic Appointments

Professional Education

  • Fellowship: The Brooklyn Hospital Center Gastro and Hepatology Fellowship (2020) NY
  • Fellowship: Thomas Jefferson University Gastro and Hepatology Fellowship (2017) PA
  • Board Certification: American Board of Internal Medicine, Internal Medicine (2014)
  • Residency: Medstar Harbor Hospital Internal Medicine Residency (2013) MD
  • Medical Education: University of Ghana School of Medicine and Dentistry (2008) Ghana


All Publications

  • Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology Facciorusso, A., Mohan, B. P., Crino, S. F., Ofosu, A., Ramai, D., Lisotti, A., Chandan, S., Fusaroli, P. 2021


    OBJECTIVES: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses. Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques.METHODS: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through October 2020 and identified 6 studies, of which 2 randomized controlled trials (recruiting 701 patients). We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).RESULTS: Pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 84.6% (95% CI 80.7%-88.6%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 75.3% (67%-83.5%) with EUS-FNA, with evidence of a significant superiority of the former (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.40; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the superiority of CH-EUS-FNA over EUS-FNA only in larger lesions. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% (85.6%-91.9%) in CH-EUS-FNA group and 83.6% (79.4%-87.8%) in EUS-FNA group (OR 1.52, 1.01-2.31; p=0.05). Pooled sample adequacy was 95.1% (91.1%-99.1%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 89.4% (81%-97.8%) with EUS-FNA (OR 2.40, 1.38-4.17; p=0.02).CONCLUSION: CH-EUS-FNA seems to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

    View details for DOI 10.1080/17474124.2021.1880893

    View details for PubMedID 33481633

  • Author Spotlight: Andrew Ofosu. Digestive diseases and sciences Ofosu, A. n. 2021

    View details for DOI 10.1007/s10620-020-06738-w

    View details for PubMedID 33532970

  • Transarterial chemoembolization as adjuvant treatment after surgery: The cure of huge hepatocellular carcinoma? Hepatobiliary & pancreatic diseases international : HBPD INT Chierici, A., Ofosu, A., Cincione, I., Sacco, R., Cotsoglou, C., Facciorusso, A. 2020

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.hbpd.2020.12.005

    View details for PubMedID 33342662

  • Strongyloides Superinfection After Liver Transplantion. Digestive diseases and sciences Ofosu, A., Higgins, J., Frye, J. S., Kumari, R., Barakat, M. T. 2020

    View details for DOI 10.1007/s10620-020-06696-3

    View details for PubMedID 33219458

  • Comparison of EUS-guided conventional smear and liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN Chandan, S., Mohan, B. P., Khan, S. R., Ofosu, A., Dhaliwal, A. S., Shah, A. R., Bhogal, N., Mashiana, H. S., Mashiana, S. S., Kassab, L. L., Ponnada, S., Facciorusso, A., Bhat, I., Singh, S., Witt, B. L., Adler, D. G. 2020; 08 (11): E1611?E1622


    Background and study aims? Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has limitations of inadequate sampling and false-negative results for malignancy. It has been performed using conventional smear (CS) cytology with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with reasonable diagnostic accuracy. An alternative to ROSE is liquid-based cytology (LBC). Commonly used LBC techniques include precipitation-based (SurePath?) and filtration-based (ThinPrep , CellPrep ). Data regarding the diagnostic efficacy of LBC compared with CS are limited. Methods? Multiple databases were searched through March 2020 to identify studies reporting diagnostic yield of EUS-guided CS and LBC in pancreatic lesions. Pooled diagnostic odds and rates of performance for the cytologic diagnoses of benign, suspicious, and malignant lesions were calculated. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by pooled rates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Results? Nine studies with a total of 1308 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled diagnostic odds of CS cytology were 1.69 (CI 1.02-2.79) and 0.39 (CI 0.19-0.8) for malignant lesions when compared to filtration-based and precipitation-based LBC techniques, respectively. For CS, precipitation-based and filtration-based LBC, pooled diagnostic accuracy was 79.7?%, 85.2?%, 77.3?%, sensitivity was 79.2?%, 83.6?%, 68.3?%, and specificity was 99.4?%, 99.5?%, 99.5?%, respectively. Conclusions? The precipitation-based LBC technique (SurePath?) had superior diagnostic odds for malignant pancreatic lesions compared with CS cytology in the absence of ROSE. It showed superior accuracy and sensitivity, but comparable specificity and PPV. Diagnostic odds of CS cytology in the absence of ROSE were superior to the filtration-based LBC technique (ThinPrep , Cellprep ) for diagnosing malignant pancreatic lesions.

    View details for DOI 10.1055/a-1240-0027

    View details for Web of Science ID 000581031400007

    View details for PubMedID 33140017

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7581473

  • Influence of the Elipse Intragastric Balloon on Obesity and Metabolic Profile: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of clinical gastroenterology Ramai, D. n., Singh, J. n., Mohan, B. P., Madedor, O. n., Brooks, O. W., Barakat, M. n., Ofosu, A. n., Khan, S. R., Chandan, S. n., Dhindsa, B. n., Dhaliwal, A. n., Facciorusso, A. n., McDonough, S. n., Adler, D. G. 2020; Publish Ahead of Print


    Intragastric balloons (IGBs) have been used to bridge the obesity treatment gap with the benefits of being minimally invasive but still required endoscopy. The Elipse IGB is a swallowable balloon that is spontaneously excreted at ?16 weeks. However, studies are limited by small sample sizes. The authors aim to assess clinically relevant endpoints, namely weight loss outcomes, metabolic profile, balloon tolerability, and adverse events.A literature search was performed from several databases from inception to July 2020. The pooled means and proportions of our data were analyzed using a random effects model.Seven studies involving 2152 patients met our eligibility criteria and were included. The mean baseline body mass index ranged from 32.1 to 38.6. The pooled mean difference (MD) in body mass index was 0.88 [confidence interval (CI): 0.58-1.18, I2=98%]. Total body weight loss was 12% (CI: 10.1-14.3, I2=94%) and excess body weight loss was 49.1% (CI: 30.6-67.5, I2=97%). The MD in waist circumference was 0.89 (CI: 0.72-1.05, I2=53%). MD in triglyceride level was 0.66 (CI: 0.21-1.1, I2=96%). Pooled early deflation rate was 1.8% (CI: 0.6-5.1, I2=74%). Our study also showed that the Elipse balloon was associated with less adverse events when compared with other IGBs.This meta-analysis demonstrates that the Elipse intragastric balloon is a safe, effective, and tolerable device for weight loss and obesity with a minimal side effect profile.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001484

    View details for PubMedID 33394629

  • Early- and late-onset pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A population-based comparative study. Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] Ramai, D. n., Lanke, G. n., Lai, J. n., Barakat, M. n., Chandan, S. n., Ofosu, A. n., Dhaliwal, A. n., Adler, D. G. 2020


    Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer related death in the US. We aim to investigate the demographics, clinical outcomes and survival outcomes of patients diagnosed with early-onset (<40 years) and late-onset (>40 years) pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC).Data on PAC between 1975 and 2016 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry.Within the study period, 136,100 patients were identified which included 1181 patients with early-onset PAC and 134,919 patients with late-onset PAC. Both cohorts tend to present with distant metastasis (70.3% vs 57.9%). Both groups also showed an exponential rise in incidence (early-onset 3.69% annual change vs late-onset 6.25% annual change). When stratified by anatomical location, there was a trend of increasing cancer in the head of the pancreas for patients <40 years (3.63% annual change). While late PAC showed increasing cancer in all anatomical locations, the largest increase was observed in the tail of the pancreas (8.62% annual change). Overall, there was a mild difference in survival for early- and late-onset PAC (7 months vs 6 months, respectively, log rank p=0.004). Both age groups showed the worse prognosis when cancer occurred in the tail of the pancreas (6 months vs 4 months, respectively). On cox proportion analysis, patients with late-onset PAC had twice the risk of mortality compared to early-onset PAC (HR 2.06, CI: 1.788-2.370, P=0.001).Our study showed that both early- and late-onset PAC are increasing and while prognosis remains poor. Tumor anatomy showed a growing incidence of early-onset PAC in the head of the pancreas while late-onset PAC showed a rising incidence in the body and tail of the pancreas.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.pan.2020.12.007

    View details for PubMedID 33334692

Stanford Medicine Resources: