The role of EUS in ampullary lesions: is the answer black and white?

Analysis of risk factors associated with acute pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common adverse event (AE) of endoscopic papillectomy (EP). Prophylactic plastic pancreatic stent (PPS) placement appears to prevent AP. We evaluated factors associated with post-EP AP by a retrospective analysis of patients with tumors of the duodenal papilla who underwent EP from January 2008 to November 2016 at 2 tertiary care centers. Clinical, laboratory, endoscopic ultrasound parameters, and PPS placement were evaluated. Seventy-two patients underwent EP (37 men), with mean age of 60.3 (31–88) years. Mean main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter was 0.44 (0.18–1.8) cm. Mean tumor size was 1.8 (0.5–9.6) cm. Tumors were staged as uT1N0, uT2N0, and uT1N1 in 87.5%, 11.1%, and 1.4%. Thirty-eight AEs occurred in 33 (45.8%) patients, with no mortality. Total bilirubin, tumor size, MPD diameter, and PPS placement had odds ratios (ORs) of 0.82, 0.14, 0.00, and 6.43 for AP. Multivariate analysis (PPS placement × MPD diameter) showed ORs of 4.62 (95%CI, 1.03–21.32; p = 0.049) and 0.000 (95%CI, 0.00–0.74; p = 0.042) for AP. In conclusion, patients with jaundice, large tumors, and dilated MPD seem less likely to have post-EP AP. PPS placement was associated with a higher risk of AP, which may question its use.

Surgical versus endoscopic resection of large sessile duodenal and papillary lesions

BACKGROUND

Data on the endoscopic resection of duodenal and papillary lesions less than 15 mm in size have been well supported by systematic studies. However, for large sessile lesions of the duodenum or papilla (LSL-D/P), surgery is often performed despite significant morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and costs between endoscopic and surgical resection of such lesions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical resection of LSL-D/P at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University from 2013 to 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Endoscopic and surgical outcomes and costs were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 68 lesions were evaluated (47.1% of patients were male; mean lesion size 25 mm); 46 were treated by endoscopic resection, and 22 were managed by surgical resection. At the initial procedure, complete resection was achieved in 93.4%. Major complications (perforation, delayed bleeding, pancreatitis, infections and admission to the ICU) occurred in 15.3% of the endoscopic group and 22.6% of the surgical group. For recurrence at the first surveillance endoscopic examination, there was a 12.1% recurrence rate in the endoscopic group and a 5.3% recurrence rate in the surgical group (P = 0.654). Compared with surgical resection, regardless of lesion location, endoscopic resection had a shorter procedural time and hospital stay, a lower morbidity rate and was less costly.

CONCLUSION

In centers specialized in complex endoscopic resection, patients with LSL-D/P would likely benefit from advanced endoscopic management, which offers a lower morbidity profile and reduced costs.

Does ampullary adenoma size predict invasion on EUS? Does invasion on EUS predict presence of malignancy?

Background and study aims: It is common practice to perform ampullectomy without endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for ampullary lesions < 1 cm but no data exists to support it. No studies have explored whether EUS findings of invasion correlate with malignancy or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) on pathology. We explored the association between adenoma size, pathology results, and invasion on EUS.  Patients and methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study at a large tertiary care academic hospital. Chart review was performed for 161 patients with benign ampullary lesions on endoscopic biopsy (identified by pathology records). The primary outcomes were mean size (mm) of adenomas and pathology findings with and without intraductal and/or duodenal wall invasion on EUS.  Results: Invasion was identified by EUS in 41 (34.1 %) of 120 patients who underwent EUS. The mean size of the lesion in these patients was 20.9 mm (± 11.6 mm) compared to 13.9 mm (± 11.3 mm, P = 0.0001) in patients without invasion. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC 0.73, 95 % CI 0.63 - 0.83) revealed 100 % sensitivity for absence of invasion on EUS in lesions less than 6.5 mm. Invasion on EUS had sensitivity of 63.0 % (95 % CI 47.0 % - 77.0 %) and specificity 88.0 % (95 % CI 78.0 % - 95.0 %) for presence of malignancy, HGD or invasion on pathology. Conclusions: EUS should be considered for ampullary lesions > 6.5 mm. This study provides evidence to support the practice of ampullectomy without EUS for smaller adenomas. EUS evidence of invasion is highly specific for pathologic malignancy, HGD, or invasion (which preclude endoscopic ampullectomy).

Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND

Periampullary cancer includes cancer of the head and neck of the pancreas, cancer of the distal end of the bile duct, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, and cancer of the second part of the duodenum. Surgical resection is the only established potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Other imaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), PET-CT, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have been used to detect local invasion or distant metastases not visualised on CT scanning which could prevent unnecessary laparotomy. No systematic review or meta-analysis has examined the role of different imaging modalities in assessing the resectability with curative intent in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, PET scan, and EUS performed as an add-on test or PET-CT as a replacement test to CT scanning in detecting curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases up to 5 November 2015. Two review authors independently screened the references and selected the studies for inclusion. We also searched for articles related to the included studies by performing the "related search" function in MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) and a "citing reference" search (by searching the articles that cite the included articles).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of MRI, PET scan, PET-CT, and EUS in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies - 2) tool. Although we planned to use bivariate methods for analysis of sensitivities and specificities, we were able to fit only the univariate fixed-effect models for both sensitivity and specificity because of the paucity of data. We calculated the probability of unresectability in patients who had a positive index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) and in those with negative index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) using the mean probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies and the positive and negative likelihood ratios derived from the model. The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of the index test compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies (34 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Both studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of EUS in assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic cancers. There was low concerns about applicability for most domains in both studies. The overall risk of bias was low in one study and unclear or high in the second study. The mean probability of unresectable disease after CT scan across studies was 60.5% (that is 61 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan had unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary estimate of sensitivity of EUS for unresectability was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.97) and the summary estimate of specificity for unresectability was 0.80 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). The positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 4.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 18.6) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.8) respectively. At the mean pre-test probability of 60.5%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a positive EUS (EUS indicating unresectability) was 86.9% (95% CI 60.9% to 96.6%) and the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a negative EUS (EUS indicating resectability) was 20.0% (5.1% to 53.7%). This means that 13% of people (95% CI 3% to 39%) with positive EUS have potentially resectable cancer and 20% (5% to 53%) of people with negative EUS have unresectable cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on two small studies, there is significant uncertainty in the utility of EUS in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. No studies have assessed the utility of EUS in people with periampullary cancer.There is no evidence to suggest that it should be performed routinely in people with pancreatic cancer or periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan.

Approach to the endoscopic resection of duodenal lesions

Duodenal polyps or lesions are uncommonly found on upper endoscopy. Duodenal lesions can be categorized as subepithelial or mucosally-based, and the type of lesion often dictates the work-up and possible therapeutic options. Subepithelial lesions that can arise in the duodenum include lipomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and carcinoids. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine needle aspiration is useful in the characterization and diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. Duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors and large or multifocal carcinoids are best managed by surgical resection. Brunner's gland tumors, solitary Peutz-Jeghers polyps, and non-ampullary and ampullary adenomas are mucosally-based duodenal lesions, which can require removal and are typically amenable to endoscopic resection. Several anatomic characteristics of the duodenum make endoscopic resection of duodenal lesions challenging. However, advanced endoscopic techniques exist that enable the resection of large mucosally-based duodenal lesions. Endoscopic papillectomy is not without risk, but this procedure can effectively resect ampullary adenomas and allows patients to avoid surgery, which typically involves pancreaticoduodenectomy. Endoscopic mucosal resection and its variations (such as cap-assisted, cap-band-assisted, and underwater techniques) enable the safe and effective resection of most duodenal adenomas. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is possible but very difficult to safely perform in the duodenum.