The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma

Utility of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosis of small pancreatic carcinomas

The aim of our study was to assess the utility of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) for the depiction and differential diagnosis of pancreatic tumors focusing in particularly those 2 cm or smaller. We compared different diagnostic procedures, contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (CE-CT) and EUS with the use of power Doppler (PD-EUS) and CE-EUS for detection and differential diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. The study included 156 consecutive patients with suspected pancreatic tumors, who underwent CE-CT, and EUS followed by PD-EUS and CE-EUS. CE-EUS was performed by power Doppler mode using sonographic contrast agent Levovist. Thirty-six of 156 patients examined had tumors of < or =2 cm. EUS had significantly higher sensitivity (94.4%) for detection of pancreatic carcinomas of 2 cm or less in comparison to CE-CT (50%). For small pancreatic tumor of 2 cm or less, sensitivities for differentiating ductal carcinomas from other tumors were 50.0%, 11.0% and 83.3% for CE-CT, PD-EUS and CE-EUS. CE-EUS was significantly more sensitive than PD-EUS and CE-CT. EUS and subsequent CE-EUS are more sensitive than CE-CT in the detection and the differentiation of small pancreatic tumors.

PET and PET/CT for Pancreatic Malignancies

FDG PET imaging is useful for preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in whom CT fails to identify a discrete tumor mass or in whom FNAs are nondiagnostic. FDG PET imaging is useful for M staging and restaging by detecting CT occult metastatic disease, allowing noncurative resection to be avoided in this group of patients. FDG PET can differentiate post-therapy changes from recurrence and holds promise for monitoring neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The technique is less useful in periampullary carcinoma and marginally helpful in staging except for M staging. As with other malignancies, FDG PET is complementary to morphologic imaging with CT, therefore, integrated PET/CT imaging provides optimal images for interpretation and thus more optimal patient care.

Detection of B7-H4 and p53 in pancreatic cancer: potential role as a cytological diagnostic adjunct

OBJECTIVES

This study compared p53 expression with B7-H4, a novel cancer biomarker, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) resection specimens and in a pilot series of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirations (EUS-FNAs).

METHODS

B7-H4 and p53 expression were evaluated by immunoperoxidase methods in 36 PDA and 15 EUS-FNA specimens and were scored for intensity and proportion of positive cells; cases were then assigned a final sum score.

RESULTS

B7-H4 was detected in 33 (92%) of 36 PDA sections, 8 (89%) of 9 cytologically positive EUS-FNAs, and 1 (20%) of 5 cytologically negative EUS-FNAs. p53 was detected in 30 (83%) of 36 PDA sections, 4 (44%) of 9 cytologically positive EUS-FNAs, and 1 (20%) of 5 cytologically negative cases. One EUS-FNA case that was cytologically atypical but not diagnostic of malignancy expressed B7-H4 and p53. Some benign tissue components (intercalated cells/ducts, main pancreatic ducts, and acinar cells) were also positive for B7-H4 and/or p53. Overall expression of B7-H4 in benign tissues, however, was relatively low compared with that seen in most carcinoma cases.

CONCLUSIONS

B7-H4 was expressed more often in PDA than was p53. Despite potentially problematic expression in benign/normal cells, the 2 markers target different cellular components and demonstrate potential diagnostic use for detection of PDA in resected and EUS-FNA specimens.

Endoscopic ultrasound delivery of an antitumor agent to treat a case of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

A 72-year-old white male presented to a University Digestive Disease Center with epigastric pain and weight loss. A CT scan suggested that the patient had a mass in his pancreas and he was referred for further diagnostic work-up, staging and treatment.

INVESTIGATIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.

DIAGNOSIS

Locally advanced, unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

MANAGEMENT

Opioid analgesics and EUS-guided celiac neurolysis (transgastric injection of bupivacaine and alcohol on both sides of the celiac artery) for pain relief. Five once-weekly intratumoral injections of TNFerade (GenVec, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD) by EUS-guided fine needle injection, in combination with chemoradiation (5 FU/XRT), as part of a multicenter clinical trial. Repeat fine-needle aspiration followed by surgical resection of the tumor.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: sampling, pitfalls, and quality management

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) is an accurate and versatile technique in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract lesions as well as other organ sites. EUS FNA is performed ideally with cytopathologic adequacy evaluation, and diagnosis at the time of tissue procurement. In this article, we review the most relevant issues in the process of EUS FNA-based diagnostics. Specifically, we describe the technical aspects of specimen collection, processing, and appropriate selection of ancillary studies. We also illustrate the most commonly encountered diagnostic pitfalls, and methods for their avoidance. Lastly, we discuss quality management, which emphasizes the communication between the endoscopist and the pathologist.

Evolution of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Accurate Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neoplasms

In the era of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), a minimally invasive, safe, and accurate cytologic examination of a variety of intra-abdominal neoplasms has become possible. To assess the efficacy of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of primary pancreatic tumors, a 10-year retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients diagnosed between 1996 and 2005 was undertaken. Comparisons were made between early (1996–2000) and late (2001–2005) periods regarding diagnostic modalities used and the concordance of EUS-FNA cytology with macroscopic tissue histology. Although macroscopic biopsy diagnostic yield did not change over time, yield from EUS-FNA increased from 40 per cent to 95 per cent ( P = 0.001). Because of improved accuracy of FNA cytology, only six per cent of tumors required additional macroscopic tissue histology in the late period versus 35 per cent in the early period ( P = 0.001). There was 100 per cent concordance between the cytologic and histologic diagnoses in the late period versus only 33 per cent in the early period ( P = 0.032). We conclude that 1) the frequency of pathologically diagnosed pancreatic tumors doubled over 10 years, 2) utilization of EUS-FNA significantly increased the accuracy of cytologic diagnosis, and 3) as a result, the need for macroscopic tissue biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms has been obviated.

[I Brazilian consensus of endoscopic ultrasonography]

BACKGROUND

In the last 20 years, several papers have focused on demonstrating the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings on the management of different clinical scenarios in digestive disease. This fact is an indirect evidence of the difficulty of popularization of the method. On other hand, the limited availability of endoscopic ultrasonography in Brazil is a direct evidence of this limitation. This was the rationale for the organization of a consensus meeting on endoscopic ultrasonography. It was aimed to identify the best evidence that support the use of endoscopic ultrasonography in gastroenterology.

METHODS

A panel of experts on endoscopic ultrasonography was selected based on the files of the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Societies and on the registries of endoscope manufacturers. Two members of the meeting selected the relevant topics that were transformed into questions. The topics and the questions were debated among the experts five months before the consensus meeting. The experts were asked to perform systematic reviews in order to answer the questions so it could be possible to grade the answers based on the strength of the evidence. During the two days of the meeting the answers were presented, debated and voted. Consensus was reached when a minimum of 70% of the voters were in agreement. The final consensus report was submitted to the experts' evaluation and approval.

RESULTS

Seventy nine questions were debated by the experts at the pre-Consensus meeting. As the result of this debate 85 questions came out and were assigned to the members of the panel. During the Consensus meeting 22 experts debated and voted 85 answers. Consensus was reached for several clinical scenarios for which the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings were supported by level 1 evidences: differential diagnosis of subepithelial lesions and thickening of gastric folds, staging and diagnosis of unresectable esophageal cancer, indirect signs of peritoneal involvement of gastric cancer, MALT gastric lymphoma and rectal cancer staging, diagnosis of common bile duct and gallbladder stones, diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and differential diagnosis of a solid mass in chronic pancreatitis, differential diagnosis of the pancreatic cyst, prediction of the results of the endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices and diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There are the highest levels of evidences that support the indication of endoscopic ultrasonography for several digestive diseases and even for non-small cell lung cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions: effectiveness in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of pancreatic masses is often difficult. Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration has been proposed as the best single-step strategy.

AIMS

To prospectively evaluate feasibility, effectiveness and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses in a consecutive study of unselected patients.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-three patients were enrolled in two referral Hospitals in Northern Italy. All patients were referred either due to the presence of imaging test abnormalities (suspected or evident masses, or features indirectly suggesting the presence of a mass) or due to clinical or biochemical findings suggesting pancreatic cancer in the absence of positive imaging. All patients underwent linear array endoscopic ultrasound and, when indicated, fine needle aspiration. All procedures were recorded prospectively. The final diagnosis was established at the end of follow-up or when the patients underwent surgery or died.

RESULTS

Fine needle aspiration was indicated in 246 of 293 cases (84%), considered technically feasible in 232 of 246 cases (94%) and gave adequate samples for histopathological diagnosis in 204 of 232 cases (88%). Endoscopic ultrasound sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 79, 60 and 72%, respectively; the corresponding figures for endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration were 80, 86 and 82%. There was good agreement with final diagnosis for endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (kappa 0.673, 95%CI 0.592-0.753), greater than that for endoscopic ultrasound alone (kappa 0.515, 95%CI 0.425-0.605). There was one case of intracystic haemorrhage and one case of transient hyperthermia (0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses seems to be feasible, effective and safe in this consecutive study of patients.

Diagnosis of pancreatic tumors by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic solid tumors larger or smaller than 3 cm, and cystic lesions.

METHODS

From January/1997 to December/2006, 611 patients with pancreatic tumors were subjected to EUS-FNA. The final diagnosis was obtained either by surgery (356 cases) or after a mean clinical follow-up of 11.8 mo in the remaining patients.

RESULTS

There were 405 solid tumors, 189 cystic lesions and 17 mixed. Pancreatic specimens for cytological assessment were successfully obtained by EUS-FNA in 595 (97.4%) cases. There were 352 (57.6%) malignancies and 259 (42.4%) benign tumors. Among the malignancies, pancreatic adenocarcinomas accounted for 67% of the lesions. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were, respectively, 78.4%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 77.2% and 87.2%. Specifically for solid tumors, the same parameters for neoplasms larger and smaller than 3 cm were, respectively, 78.8% vs 82.4%, 100% vs 98.4%, 100% vs 99%, 54.8% vs 74.1% and 83.1% vs 87.8%. For cystic lesions, the values were, respectively, 72.2%, 99.3%, 97.5%, 91% and 92.2%.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA can be used to sample pancreatic tumors in most patients. Even though the negative predictive value is inadequate for large solid tumors, the results are rather good for small solid tumors, especially concerning the sensitivity, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. Among all pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNA for cystic lesions can reveal the best negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy, both higher than 90%.

Assessment of pancreatic neoplasms: review of biopsy techniques

Pancreatic cancer is the 4th leading cause of cancer death annually. Recent technological advances in imaging have led to non-uniformity in the evaluation of pancreatic neoplasms. The following article describes the history behind various biopsy techniques and the rationale for obtaining a biopsy of a pancreatic neoplasm and discusses the benefits and disadvantages of the various pancreatic biopsy techniques, including fine needle aspiration biopsy, Tru-cut needle biopsy, endoscopic brushings/cytology, and endoscopic ultrasound guided biopsies. A treatment algorithm for pancreatic neoplasms is then presented.

Can endosonographers evaluate on-site cytologic adequacy? A comparison with cytotechnologists

BACKGROUND

On-site determination of cytologic adequacy increases the accuracy of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA); however, on-site cytotechnologists are not available to all endosonographers. We hypothesize that experienced endosonographers can accurately assess whether an on-site FNA specimen is adequate.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of on-site cytopathology interpretation of EUS-FNA specimens by comparing endosonographers with a cytotechnologist.

DESIGN

Prospective double-blind controlled trial.

SETTING

Academic medical center with a high-volume EUS practice.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA of lymph nodes or pancreas tumors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 3 endosonographers and 1 cytotechnologist for interpretation of cytologic specimen adequacy and diagnosis compared with a criterion standard of a board-certified cytopathologist.

RESULTS

There were 59 lymph node, 49 pancreas, and 9 liver specimens (117 total). For determination of adequacy, none of the endosonographers were statistically equivalent to the cytotechnologist (P=.004). For determination of suspicious/malignant versus benign specimens, all 3 endosonographers were inferior (P<.001) to the cytotechnologist.

LIMITATIONS

This study represents a small group of trained endosonographers in a high-volume practice and may not be applicable to other settings. The sample size does not allow an accurate evaluation of different biopsy sites (eg, pancreas vs lymph node).

CONCLUSIONS

Even trained endosonographers have variable and, in some cases, inferior abilities to interpret on-site cytologic adequacy compared with cytotechnologists.

Clinical importance of precursor lesions in the pancreas

Three distinct noninvasive precursor lesions to invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas have been described. These include the mucinous cystic neoplasm, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, and pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. The early detection and treatment of these lesions can interrupt the progression of a curable noninvasive precursor to an almost uniformly deadly invasive cancer.

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS for vascular invasion in pancreatic and periampullary cancers: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Vascular invasion (VI) in a patient with pancreatic or periampullary cancers precludes surgery and indicates a poor prognosis. Published data on the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI is varied.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of EUS in diagnosing VI in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers.

DESIGN

Data from EUS studies were pooled according to the Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian Laird methods.

PATIENTS

EUS studies in which VI was confirmed by surgery or angiography were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of EUS.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 29 studies (N = 1308) that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of EUS in diagnosing VI was 73% (95% CI, 68.8-76.9) and the pooled specificity was 90.2% (95% CI, 87.9-92.2). The positive likelihood ratio for diagnosing VI by EUS was 9.1 (95% CI, 4.6-17.9) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5). Diagnostic odds ratio, the odds of having VI in positive as compared with negative EUS studies, was 40.1 (95% CI, 16.1-99.9). The P value for chi(2) heterogeneity for all the pooled estimates was >.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Although EUS is the best noninvasive test to diagnose VI in pancreatic and periampullary cancers, this meta-analysis showed that the specificity (90%) is high but the sensitivity (73%) is not as high as suggested. Further refinements in EUS technologies and interpretation may improve the sensitivity for detecting VI.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of ascites

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study is to report a large single-center experience with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of ascites.

METHODS

Consecutive patients at our institution in whom EUS-guided paracentesis was performed between January 1997 and July 2005 were identified retrospectively. All procedures were performed by or under the supervision of 1 of 5 experienced endosonographers with available on-site cytopathology.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients (33 men; mean age, 67 y) were identified. Previously attempted percutaneous paracentesis was unsuccessful in 3 of 6 patients. Ascites confirmed by EUS FNA was visible in 28 of 54 (52%) computerized tomography, 3 of 11 (27%) transabdominal ultrasound, and 4 of 8 (50%) magnetic resonance imaging examinations before EUS. Transgastric (n = 55) or transduodenal (n = 5) EUS-guided paracentesis (mean, 8.9; range, 1-40 mL) revealed malignancy in 16 (27%) from primary pancreatic (n = 9), gastric (n = 2), urothelial (n = 1), esophageal (n = 1), gallbladder (n = 1), bile duct (n = 1) cancer, and lymphoma (n = 1). The cytology from 2 patients was atypical (1 suspicious for malignancy and 1 considered reactive) and the remaining 42 were benign. Potential complications occurred in 2 of 60 (3%) patients with self-limited fever. Of the 8 of 60 (13%) patients who underwent subsequent surgery, 3 had metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n = 2) and metastatic small intestinal carcinoid (n = 1) to the peritoneum after negative EUS-FNA cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS frequently identifies ascites missed by other imaging studies. EUS-guided paracentesis may identify malignancy in a subset of patients. Negative ascitic fluid cytology from EUS FNA does not exclude possible peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Ribonucleotide reductase subunit M2 mRNA expression in pretreatment biopsies obtained from unresectable pancreatic carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine is an efficacious cytotoxic agent used in the treatment of unresectable pancreatic carcinoma (PC). Recently, gemcitabine resistance has been associated with the ribonucleotide reductase subunit M2 (RRM2). In this prospective study, we hypothesized that RRM2 expression in PC biopsy specimens would be a significant predictor of outcome.

METHODS

RRM2 mRNA expression in 35 endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) samples was quantified using real-time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 35 biopsy specimens could be assessed for RRM2 expression levels. The mean RRM2 expression relative to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase was 0.248 (range, 0.00739 to 0.858). Eighteen patients (64.5%) had low RRM2 levels, and 13 patients (35.5%) had high RRM2 levels with a cutoff of 0.1. The median survival was 8.8 months for patients with low RRM2 levels and 5.0 months for patients with high levels (P < 0.05). In the low RRM2 expression group, a complete response (CR) was observed in one patient, and a partial response (PR) was observed in eight patients. In contrast, in the high RRM2 expression group, PR was observed in one patient, and CR was not observed. The overall response rate between the high and low expression groups was significantly different (50.0% vs. 7.7%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

RRM2 mRNA expression of EUS-FNAB specimens is a key predictive marker of survival in gemcitabine-treated patients with PC.

Changing trends in endosonography: linear imaging and tissue are increasingly the issue

The indications and uses of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are expanding. The role of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is considered an essential aspect of EUS practice. A significant change in the indications and technology used for EUS has occurred. This study was designed to compare the use of radial, linear, and miniprobe endosonography equipment during a 10-year period in a single, large, EUS practice. A retrospective review of an EUS experience at a single high-volume center was performed. In this single-center experience, there has been an increase in the volume of EUS and EUS-FNA. For luminal cancer-staging cases, the radial echoendoscope is the predominant scope used for examination and has not changed significantly. In contrast, for pancreaticobiliary and mediastinal indications, the use of the linear array echoendoscope alone has increased and currently is the preferred scope for examination (33% vs. 76%, P < 0.001; 46% vs. 96%, P < 0.001). In these cases requiring EUS-FNA, the use of the linear array scope alone has increased from 17% to 73%. In this single-center experience, EUS has shifted from an imaging technology to an image-guided biopsy and therapeutic technology. The use of the linear array EUS alone has increased, especially in the evaluation of pancreatobiliary and mediastinal disease and when fine-needle aspiration is performed.

Cumulative sum procedure in evaluation of EUS-guided FNA cytology: the learning curve and diagnostic performance beyond sensitivity and specificity

BACKGROUND

Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) chart, we address two questions: (i) Over time, how will an EUS-FNA (endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration) service maintain an acceptable non-diagnostic rate defined as technical failures, unsatisfactory specimens and atypical and suspicious diagnoses? (ii) Over time, how will EUS-FNA maintain acceptable diagnostic errors (false-positives plus false-negative diagnosis)?

METHODS

The study included all consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA at our institution from July 2000 to October 2003 and were followed up until December 2004. Using a simple spread sheet, we designed CUSUM charts and used them to track trends and assess performance at a preset acceptable rate of 10% and a preset unacceptable rate of 15% for non-diagnostic rate and diagnostic errors. We assessed all cases collectively and then in groups defined by site, size and cytopathologist.

RESULTS

Of 876 patients undergoing EUS-FNA, 83 (9.5%) had non-diagnostic results: 43 (51%) of these diagnoses were 'atypical', 27(33%) were 'suspicious for malignancy', eight (10%) were 'insufficient material for diagnosis' and five (6%) were 'technical failure'. In 585 cases with adequate follow up, there were 26 (6.3%) diagnostic errors: three (0.5%) were false positive and 23 (3.1) were false negative. The overall CUSUM charts for both non-diagnostic rate and for diagnostic error rate start with a small period of learning then cross to a significantly acceptable level at case numbers 121 and 97 respectively. Our diagnostic performance was better in lymph nodes than in the pancreas and other organs and was not significantly different for lesions <or=25 mm compared with lesion >25 mm in diameter. Performance was better for pathologists with prior experience than for pathologists without experience.

CONCLUSION

In the current climate of proficiency testing, error tracking and competence evaluation, there is a great potential for the use of CUSUM charts to assess procedure failure and error tracking in quality control programs, particularly when a new procedure such as EUS-FNA is introduced in the laboratory. Additionally, the method can be used to assess trainee competency and to track the proficiency of practicing cytologists.

The role of CT and endoscopic ultrasound in pre-operative staging of pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in pre-operative staging of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Comparative retrospective study of 86 patients with pancreatic cancer. CT was done in 55 patients, 41 patients were examined by EUS. Each patient underwent surgery and had proven pancreatic cancer by histology. CT and EUS results were correlated to per-operative and histological findings. The main attention was paid to the description of peri-pancreatic lymphadenopathy, para-aortic lymphadenopathy, peri-coeliac lymphadenopathy and tumor relationship to superior mesenteric vein, superior mesenteric artery, portal vein, inferior caval vein and common hepatic artery. A description rate was defined as number of pre-operative findings where the structures and relationships mentioned above were described.

RESULTS

The description rates of peri-pancreatic lymph nodes were 11 (20%) at CT and 36 (88.0%) at EUS. Para-aortic lymphadenopathy was described in 9 (16.0%) cases at CT and none at EUS. Peri-coeliac lymphadenopathy was mentioned only one time (2.0%) at CT contrary to 12 (29.0%) at EUS. Relationship of the tumor to the mesenteric vessels was well depicted in nine (16.0%) at CT versus nine (22.0%) at EUS. Portal vein relationship was well described in two (4.0%) at CT and seven (17%) cases at EUS. This description rate in vena cava inferior was one (2%) at CT and three (7.0%) at EUS, in hepatic artery it was one (2%) at CT and six (15%) at EUS. In the group of CT, resectability or non-resectability were well predicted in 33 (60%) patients and wrong predicted in 22 (40%) patients. In the group of EUS, resectability or non-resectability were well predicted in 34 (83%) patients and wrong predicted in 7 (17%) patients.

CONCLUSION

According to our study, EUS is more accurate in prediction of local PC resectability than CT.

Presence of intratumoral anechoic foci predicts an increased number of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration passes required for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

For reduction in cost, time and risk of complications, the number of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) passes should be minimized. Previous studies have shown that tumor differentiation and site of aspiration will affect the number of passes in patients with pancreatic cancer. There have been no reports that EUS features of pancreatic malignancies per se will influence the number of passes. Our aim was to prospectively assess various factors that would affect the number of passes in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Between May 2003 and December 2004, 41 patients with presumed pancreatic cancer were studied. EUS-guided FNA was performed with an Olympus GF-UC2000P echoendoscope and a 22-gauge needle. On-site assessment of the specimen by a cytopathologist was available during the procedure.

RESULTS

Adenocarcinomas were confirmed in 25 patients. Pancreatic adenocarcinomas with intratumoral anechoic foci required a higher number of diagnostic passes than those without anechoic change (3.40 vs 2.27, P < 0.05). An average of 4.00 FNA passes for diagnosing a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma was also significantly higher than the 2.40 diagnostic passes for a moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and the 2.00 passes for a poorly differentiated one (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The existence of intratumoral anechoic foci was not a rare finding under detailed EUS investigation of pancreatic cancer. Both the existence of intratumoral anechoic foci and the differentiation of the cancer are significant predictive factors for the number of diagnostic EUS-FNA passes.

Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of cancer

Since its development and introduction to clinical practice, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has progressed rapidly from being a purely imaging modality with limited use in the detection of small pancreatic cancers to one that can provide a tissue diagnosis by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and deliver therapy. EUS has now firmly established a place as the investigation of choice in the diagnosis, locoregional staging and management of a wide range of gastrointestinal cancers. With the increasing use of FNA, the accuracy of EUS has substantially improved and may become a stand-alone investigation in some situations. However, it is recommended that a combination of information obtained from other imaging modalities and EUS is needed to maximize the accuracy, in particular to complete staging beyond locoregional stage. In addition to well-established indications, newer applications of EUS are emerging and are no longer limited to the gastrointestinal system. In lung cancer, EUS combined with endobronchial ultrasonography is emerging as an accurate, minimally invasive, nonsurgical alternative to staging of the mediastinum. Furthermore, the ability of EUS to acquire tissue safely and conveniently results in a potential role of the molecular diagnostics to enhance the performance of EUS-guided FNA. Besides a diagnostic role of EUS, there continues to be technological advances in the field of interventional EUS, with many potential applications under investigation. This review focuses on the current and future roles of EUS in the diagnosis and management of cancers.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of histological evaluation of pancreatic tissue samples obtained by a modified method for recovering and processing the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) material in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses.

METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive patients with pancreatic masses were prospectively studied. EUS was performed by the linear scanning Pentax FG-38UX echoendoscope. Three FNAs (22G needle) were carried out during each procedure. The materials obtained with first and second punctures were processed for cytological study. Materials of the third puncture were recovered into 10% formol solution by careful injection of saline solution through the needle, and processed for histological study.

RESULTS: Length of the core specimen obtained for histological analysis was 6.5 ± 5.3 mm (range 1-22 mm). Cytological and histological samples were considered as adequate in 51 (82.3%) and 52 cases (83.9%), respectively. Overall sensitivity of both pancreatic cytology and histology for diagnosis of malignancy was 68.4%. Contrary to cytology, histology was able to diagnose tumours other than adenocarcinomas, and all cases of inflammatory masses. Combination of cytology and histology allowed obtaining an adequate sample in 56 cases (90.3%), with a global sensitivity of 84.21%, specificity of 100% and an overall accuracy of 90.32%. The complication rate was 1.6%.

CONCLUSION: Adequate pancreatic core specimens for histological examination can be obtained by EUS-guided FNA. This technique is mainly useful for the diagnosis of different types of pancreatic tumours and evaluation of benign diseases.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of undifferentiated carcinoma with osteoclast-like giant cells of the pancreas: A report of 2 cases with literature review

Undifferentiated carcinoma with osteoclast-like giant cells of the pancreas is rare. Histologically it mimics the giant cell tumor of the bone and may be associated with a ductal adenocarcinoma. We recently encountered two such cases, both of which were biopsied by EUS-guided FNA. Abundant multinucleated osteoclast-like giant cells and many uniform mononuclear cells were present in case 1 so that the diagnosis was made. In case 2, many mononuclear tumor cells with vacuolated and basophilic cytoplasm were present, and rare osteoclast-like giant cells were seen. A diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was made. In both cases, no conspicuous nuclear pleomorphism was noted in the mononuclear cells or the multinucleated giant cells. The histology of case 2 revealed a pure undifferentiated carcinoma with osteoclast-like giant cells. In addition, a liver biopsy revealed globular amyloidosis. To our knowledge, this is the first report of pancreatic undifferentiated carcinoma with osteoclast-like giant cells sampled by EUS-guided FNA and the first case of hepatic globular amyloidosis associated with this tumor.

Minimizing complications of endoscopic ultrasound and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration have become important tools in evaluation of patients who have various gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal disorders, and are being increasingly utilized at many centers. With over 10 years of worldwide published clinical data, the collective experience suggests that EUS is a safe tool. There are various measures that may be undertaken to help minimize the risks. In light of ongoing advances in interventional techniques and recognition of new procedural indications, the safety of all types of procedures and efforts to minimize EUS-related complications need to be periodically reexamined.

EUS-guided paracentesis for the diagnosis of malignant ascites

BACKGROUND

EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) have well-defined roles in the diagnosis and staging of GI and pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Malignant ascites usually represents peritoneal carcinomatosis, increases disease stage, and portends a poor prognosis. There are limited data regarding the yield of EUS-guided paracentesis (EUS-P) for the diagnosis of malignant ascites.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the usefulness of EUS-P for the diagnosis of malignant ascites.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

SETTING

Tertiary referral academic center.

PATIENTS

Those presenting for EUS examination for suspected or proven malignancy over a 16-month period were evaluated prospectively for the presence of ascites.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-P was performed via a transgastric or transduodenal approach if ascites was detected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-P for diagnosing malignant ascites.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty-nine patients were studied. Twenty-five patients with ascites who met inclusion criteria comprised the study cohort. The mean volume of ascites aspirated was 6.8 mL (range, 1-20 mL). Sixty-four percent (16 of 25) of EUS-P samples revealed malignant cytology. Of the group with negative ascitic cytology, 67% (6 of 9) had a proven malignancy. There was one false-negative cytology result. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS-P for diagnosing malignant ascites was 94%, 100%, 100%, and 89%, respectively. The complication rate was 4%; 1 patient developed bacterial peritonitis after EUS-P.

LIMITATIONS

The study did not address cost savings in patient care based on the diagnosis of malignant ascites.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-P is highly sensitive and specific for diagnosing malignant ascites. The finding of malignant ascites significantly alters patient management, so an active search for ascites and use of EUS-P should be incorporated into the diagnosis and staging of upper GI and pancreaticobiliary malignancy.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirate DNA analysis to differentiate malignant and benign pancreatic masses

OBJECTIVES

Accurate diagnosis of malignant and benign pancreatic masses can be challenging, potentially delaying treatment for cancer and subjecting patients with benign disease to unnecessary surgery. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirate (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses remains inconclusive in a subset of patients. The role of EUS-FNA molecular analysis in this context is studied.

METHODS

Patients with benign pancreatic masses (6 cases, 4 autoimmune pancreatitis, 2 focal chronic pancreatitis) and malignant pancreatic masses (15) with inconclusive cytology (5 cases) and positive cytology (10 controls) were selected. All cases had definitive pathology. Representative cells were microdissected from each EUS-FNA sample and subjected to PCR for analysis of 16 microsatellite allele loss markers situated at 1p, 3p, 5q, 9p, 9q, 10q, 17p, 17q, 21q, and 22q. Loss of heterozygosity analysis used fluorescent capillary electrophoresis for quantitative determination of allelic imbalance. k-ras-2 point mutation analysis was also performed. Mean fractional mutation rate (FMR) was calculated and compared for each group.

RESULTS

All malignant cases carried multiple mutations (FMR 0.50), regardless of positive cytology (FMR 0.52) or suspicious cytology (FMR 0.47) (p = NS). Five of the 6 benign cases carried no mutations whereas 1 case of autoimmune pancreatitis and coexisting PanIN lesions exhibited a k-ras mutation (FMR 0.01). The mean FMR for the malignant and benign samples was significantly different (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Broad panel microsatellite loss and k-ras point mutation analysis can be reliably performed on EUS-FNA samples from pancreatic masses and improves the diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, it accurately differentiates between malignant and benign pancreatic masses.

Multicentre retrospective study on endoscopic ultrasound complications

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography, both conventional and interventional, has been used increasingly during the past 20 years and is deemed a safe technique. Its complication rate, however, has been studied to only a limited extent. This multicentre investigation sought to establish the complication rate for a large number of endoscopic ultrasonography procedures.

METHODS

By means of a questionnaire, we collected data from six centres on the number of endoscopic ultrasonography examinations performed and divided them into conventional and interventional examinations of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Information was obtained on technical modalities such as instruments and sedation and, for interventional endoscopic ultrasonography, indications, pre-procedural exams and technical details (needle calibre, number of passes) had to be specified. Complications were classified as mild, moderate, severe or fatal and their onset as immediate, early or late. Variables that entered into the analysis of complication rate included type of endoscopic ultrasonography instrument used, type and site of lesion biopsied, number of needle passes and operator experience.

RESULTS

Eleven thousand five hundred thirty nine endoscopic ultrasonographic procedures were reported, of which 10,731 were conventional and 808 interventional. No deaths occurred; there were 14 (0.12%) complications, 5 (0.046%) of them following conventional endoscopic ultrasonography and 9 (1.11%) after interventional endoscopic ultrasonography. Seven complications were mild, four moderate and three severe.

CONCLUSIONS

Both conventional and interventional endoscopic ultrasonography were confirmed to be acceptably safe techniques.

Ultrasonography of the pancreas. 6. Endoscopic imaging

EUS is a high-resolution technique for pancreatic imaging. EUS has applictions in detecting and staging pancreatic tumors, EUS guided FNA of the pancreas for tissue diagnosis, and evaluation of chronic pancreatitis as well as EUS guided therapy such as celiac plexus block. This is a review of EUS imaging (EUS) of the pancreas covering technical aspects, clinical indications, advantages, and pitfalls as well as emerging trends in the field.

A randomized comparison of EUS-guided FNA versus CT or US-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing pancreatic cancer by EUS-FNA is a potentially appealing alternative to percutaneous biopsy.

AIM

To compare EUS-FNA with CT or US-guided FNA for diagnosing pancreatic cancer.

DESIGN

Single center, prospective, randomized, cross-over.

SETTING

Duke University Medical Center.

POPULATION

Eighty-four patients referred with suspicious solid pancreatic mass lesions randomized to CT/US-FNA (n = 43) or EUS-FNA (n = 41).

INTERVENTION

Patients underwent an imaging procedure/FNA. If cytology was nondiagnostic, cross over to the other modality was offered. Final outcome was determined by clinical follow-up every 6 months for 2 years and/or surgical pathology for patients with negative FNA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA versus CT/US-FNA for pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

There were 16 true positive (TP) by CT/US-FNA and 21 TP by EUS-FNA. Sixteen of the 20 CT/US-FNA negative patients crossed over to EUS-FNA; 12 underwent FNA, 4 had no mass at EUS. Seven of the 12 had positive EUS-FNA. Eight EUS-FNA negative crossed over to CT/US; 4 had no mass at CT/US, 3 remained true negative throughout follow-up, 1 had chronic pancreatitis at surgery. The sensitivity of CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA for detecting malignancy was 62% and 84%, respectively. A comparison of the accuracy for CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA was not statistically significant (P = .074, chi(2)).

LIMITATIONS

Failure to meet target enrollment resulted in an inability to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the 2 modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA is numerically (though not quite statistically) superior to CT/US-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.

Review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology

This review, based on the Hennepin County Medical Center experience and review of the literature, vastly covers the up-to-date role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in evaluating tumorous lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. Emphasis is given to the tumoral and nodal staging of esophageal, pulmonary, and pancreatic cancer. This review also discusses technical, pathological, and gastroenterologic aspects and the role of the pathologist and endosonographer in the evaluation of these lesions, as well as the corresponding FNA cytology and differential diagnosis.

Evidence-based diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer

Only 20% of patients who present with pancreatic cancer will be amenable to potentially curative resection. Therefore, it is necessary to reliably identify patients who might benefit from major surgical intervention by employing the appropriate staging methods. In this review, the pros and cons of each imaging technique are discussed and an algorithm for single and combined use of the different imaging modalities is proposed. To date, contrast-enhanced multi-detector row helical CT (MDR-CT) together with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) remain the first staging methods of choice. MDR-CT has a high sensitivity for identifying vascular invasion and EUS is able to detect lesions as small as 2-3 mm. ERCP is performed mainly in patients with biliary obstruction with the option for therapeutic intervention during the same session. MRI with MR-angiography, MRCP, PET/CT and staging laparoscopy are additional modalities which might give further information in cases of equivocal findings by MDR-CT and EUS. The role of tumour markers such as CA 19-9 and CEA is reserved for monitoring and diagnosing post-surgery recurrence. Cytological or histological confirmation should usually be performed in patients that are not eligible for surgery prior to the commencement of palliative radio- or chemotherapy. In the routine clinical setting, MDR-CT and EUS play the predominant roles by providing the most cost-effective and accurate means for diagnosing and staging most cases of pancreatic cancer.

Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided FNA is effective for establishing tissue diagnosis in suspected pancreatic cancer. However, data on the frequency of major complications following EUS-FNA are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency of major complications after EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary University based referral center for pancreatico-biliary disorder.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic over a 42-month period. All immediate complications were recorded by the endosonographer. Late complications were assessed at 72 hours and at 30-days after the procedure.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Major complications were defined as acute pancreatitis, bleeding, infection, perforation, use of reversal medication, hospitalization or death.

RESULTS

A total of 355 consecutive patients with a solid pancreatic mass underwent EUS FNA. Major complications were encountered in 9 patients (2.54%, 95% CI 1.17-4.76). Acute pancreatitis occurred in 3 of 355 (0.85 %, 95% CI 0.17-2.45); 2 patients were hospitalized, and 1 patient recovered with outpatient analgesics. Three patients were admitted for severe pain after the procedure; all were treated with analgesics and subsequently discharged with no sequela. Two patients (0.56%, 95% CI 0.07-2.02) developed fever and were admitted for intravenous antibiotics; 1 patient recovered with intravenous antibiotics and the other required surgical debridement for necrosis. One patient required the use of reversal medication. Overall, 1.97% (95% CI 0.80-4.02) of the patients were hospitalized for complications (range 1-16 days). None of the patients experienced clinically significant hemorrhage, perforation, or death. No clear predisposing risk factors were identified.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of surgical gold standard and referral to a tertiary center.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses infrequently leads to major complications. Our results can be used by endosonographers to counsel patients before EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas: cytomorphological evaluation with emphasis on adequacy assessment, diagnostic criteria and contamination from the gastrointestinal tract

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) has been proved to be safe, efficient and reliable in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. This study evaluated specimen adequacy, diagnostic criteria of various pancreatic neoplasms and contamination from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

METHODS

EUS-guided FNA of the pancreas and subsequent surgical resections performed at the University of California Irvine Medical Center during February 1996-October 2000 were retrospectively selected. Modified Papanicolaou staining method was used for immediate evaluation and cell block prepared.

RESULTS

A total of 267 cases were available for review, including 147 (55.1%) positive/suspicious, 10 (3.7%) atypical, 96 (36.0%) negative and 14 (5.2%) unsatisfactory cases. Eighty-six (58.5%) positive/suspicious cases had histological confirmation and 12 (8.3%) had lymph node or distant metastases by cytology. Three atypical, two negative, and two unsatisfactory cases proved to have adenocarcinoma. Contamination from duodenum, stomach or pancreas was found in 77 positive/suspicious, three atypical and 90 negative cases. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values were 94.6%, 100%, 95.6%, 100%, 82% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS FNA is efficient and accurate in the diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms in adequate samples. Contamination from the GI tract should be well recognized to avoid misinterpretation.

Power Doppler endoscopic ultrasonography for the differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses is variable in the literature, being as low as 75% in some studies. The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of power Doppler EUS for the differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis.

METHODS

We included 42 consecutive patients with pancreatic tumor masses (27 men and 15 women) examined by EUS between January 2002 and August 2004. Endoscopic ultrasonographic procedures included power Doppler EUS as well as EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in all patients. Final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was confirmed in 29 patients on the basis of a combination of information provided by imaging tests, follow-up of at least 6 months, and laparotomy in 18 patients for diagnostic or palliative reasons.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity of the absence of power Doppler signals inside the suggestive pancreatic mass were 93% and 77%, respectively, with accuracy of 88%. Moreover, the addition of the information provided by the presence of peripancreatic collaterals improved the sensitivity and specificity to 97% and 92%, with accuracy of 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

Power Doppler EUS provides useful information for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses. The results were in concordance with previous studies that showed a hypovascular pattern of pancreatic carcinoma, as well as the formation of collaterals in advanced cases due to the invasion of the splenic or portal veins. Further studies of dynamic EUS with contrast agents are necessary to better characterize pancreatic masses.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: cytomorphological and immunocytochemical evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is increasingly used in preoperative localization and diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms including neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). The objective of the present study was to identify the cytological features of pancreatic NETs obtained by EUS-FNA.

METHODS

The study group consisted of nine cases of pancreatic tumours correctly diagnosed or strongly suggestive of NETs based on EUS-FNA. Cytological smears were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical data and immunocytochemical stains applied to the cell block preparations were also reviewed and examined.

RESULTS

All cases except one showed characteristic cytomorphological features sufficient for their recognition and separation from pancreatic adenocarcinoma and other lesions. The most helpful cytological features that facilitated the cytological diagnosis of NET were a richly cellular aspirate with a monotonous, poorly cohesive population of small cells with a speckled or dusty chromatin pattern and plasmacytoid morphology. The neuroendocrine differentiation of these tumours was further confirmed by immunocytochemistry.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is a valuable method in the recognition of pancreatic NETs. By adherence to the characteristic cytomorphological criteria of pancreatic NET together with collection of suitable material for ancillary immunocytochemical stains, cytopathologists could reach a correct diagnosis in most instances.

Subsequent resection of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma after chemoradiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of subsequent resection of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma after chemotherapy and external-beam radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1996 and January 2001, 33 consecutive patients (18 males and 15 women, mean age 63 years) with locally advanced PA were treated with chemotherapy and concurrent external-beam radiotherapy. Radiotherapy delivered 45-50.4 Gy, in a classical manner (N=27) or on a split-course (N=6). Chemotherapy was made of 5FU by continuous infusion for all patients during 5 weeks and cisplatin at the 1st and 5th weeks (N=22). Tumor resectability was reassessed at the end of the chemoradiotherapy; surgical resection of tumour was attempted in patients whose tumor demonstrated reduction in size, and supplementary radiotherapy of 10 to 15 Gy was delivered to the others.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine percent of patients experienced grade 3 acute toxicity. WHO criteria response to chemoradiotherapy four weeks after the end of treatment were: 4 partial responders (12%), 6 minor responders (18%), 14 stable disease (42%), 9 progression (28%). Ten patients underwent exploratory laparotomy, in one case vascular encasement did not allow for tumor resection, and in another patient, there was peritoneal carcinomatosis. In the 8 remaining patients, surgical (R0) resection was possible. In one patient histological examination showed fibrosis with no residual tumour. After a median follow-up period of 40 months, median survival was 16 months (66% and 37% of survival at 1 and 2 years respectively). In operated and non-operated patients, survival rates at 24 months were 73% and 12.5% respectively. At 1 year, 80% of the patients treated with radiochemotherapy developed recurrence, metastatic recurrence in 88%. Initial laparotomy, split course radiotherapy were poor outcome factors whereas chemotherapy appears to be a favorable outcome factor.

CONCLUSION

Subsequent resection of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma is possible after chemoradiotherapy allowing for a prolonged survival in some patients.

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound in discrimination between focal pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer

AIM

To evaluate the contrast-enhanced endosonography as a method of differentiating inflammation from pancreatic carcinoma based on perfusion characteristics of microvessels.

METHODS

In 86 patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis (age: 62+/-12 years; sex: f/m 38/48), pancreatic lesions were examined by conventional endoscopic B-mode, power Doppler ultrasound and contrast-enhanced power mode (Hitachi EUB 525, SonoVue, 2.4 mL, Bracco) using the following criteria for malignant lesions: no detectable vascularisation using conventional power Doppler scanning, irregular appearance of arterial vessels over a short distance using SonoVue contrast-enhanced technique and no detectable venous vessels inside the lesion. A malignant lesion was assumed if all criteria were detectable [gold standard endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration cytology, operation]. The criteria of chronic pancreatitis without neoplasia were defined as no detectable vascularisation before injection of SonoVue, regular appearance of vessels over a distance of at least 20 mm after injection of SonoVue and detection of arterial and venous vessels.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of conventional EUS were 73.2% and 83.3% respectively for pancreatic cancer. The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced EUS increased to 91.1% in 51 of 56 patients with malignant pancreatic lesion and the specificity increased to 93.3% in 28 of 30 patients with chronic inflammatory pancreatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound improves the differentiation between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma.

Cytologic features and diagnostic pitfalls of primary ampullary tumors by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-guided FNAB) is highly sensitive and specific in cytologic diagnosis and clinical staging of malignant neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, liver, and lymph nodes. However, no study has been performed to evaluate its accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the cytomorphologic features of suspected primary ampullary tumors.

METHODS

All EUS-guided FNABs of suspected primary ampullary lesions at the University of California Irvine Medical Center (Orange, CA) from January 1998 to September 2004 were retrospectively retrieved. The number of passes necessary to arrive at a preliminary diagnosis during adequacy assessment was documented. The cytologic features were analyzed with endosonographic correlation. Follow-up information was also collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were found, 17 men and 18 women. The mean age of the patients was 68.9 years (range, 34-87 yrs). Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 13 patients. Atypical cells were found in six patients, four of which were suspicious for adenocarcinoma and two of which were consistent with reactive atypia. Adenoma was diagnosed in two patients and carcinoid tumor in one. Thirteen patients had a diagnosis that was negative for malignant cells. The average number of aspiration passes was 2.4 (range, 1-6 passes). Follow-up information was available in 27 patients. There were three false-negative results and no false-positive results. The sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and the negative predictive values were 82.4%, 100%, 100%, and 76.9%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was 88.8%. The consistent cytologic features in specimens that were positive or suspicious for adenocarcinoma included high cellularity, single cells, 3-dimensional cell balls, high nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio, prominent nucleoli, coarse/uneven distribution of chromatin, and necrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided FNAB was accurate, sensitive, and specific in the assessment of suspected primary ampullary masses. Adenoma presented a diagnostic challenge and endosonographic correlation was instrumental to increase the diagnostic accuracy.

International survey of knowledge of indications for EUS

BACKGROUND

The knowledge level for EUS indications among gastroenterologists across different locations and practices is not known. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge of EUS indications among a diverse group of gastroenterologists, both nationally and internationally.

METHODS

A web-based survey was designed to assess knowledge of EUS with respect to 4 organ systems: esophagus, gastroduodenum, hepatopancreatobiliary, and colorectum. The survey was distributed by electronic mail (e-mail) to members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 3848 physicians, of whom 2848 had an active e-mail address. There were 323 respondents (11.3%), of whom 210 were U.S. members and 113 international. Overall, the mean score for the different organ systems for all respondents was highest for gastroduodenum (93% correct) and lowest for colorectum (71%) compared with esophagus (79%) and hepatopancreatobiliary (83%) systems. The mean total score was higher for U.S. respondents (84% correct) compared with international respondents (79%, p < 0.0001). Endosonographers fared better than those who were not endosonographers (85% vs. 81%, p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge levels of colorectal applications of EUS are poorest among the 4 organ systems studied. Future educational initiatives should focus on applications of EUS in this category. Studies are required to assess the impact of this education on the appropriateness of EUS referral patterns.