The role of routine preoperative EUS when performed after contrast enhanced CT in the diagnostic work-up in patients suspected of pancreatic or periampullary cancer

Assessment of the level III of Inoue by preoperative endoscopic ultrasound and elastography: a novel approach to predict a periarterial divestment technique in borderline resectable (BR) or locally advanced (LA) pancreatic adenocarcinoma-How I do it

BACKGROUND

Periarterial divestment is a surgical technique to approach borderline resectable (BR) or locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with arterial involvement. There are no reports in the literature regarding the role of endoscopic ultrasound and elastography (EUS-EG) in exploring the integrity of Inoue's level III and its correlation with the periarterial divestment technique feasibility. Our research is aimed at exploring the role of EUS-EG in this scenario.

METHODS

We describe our approach to Inoue's level II by EUS-EG in patients with BR and LA pancreatic cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between June 2019 and December 2020, four patients out of 25 were eligible to perform a preoperative EUS-EG. In all cases, Inoue's level III integrity was corroborated by EUS-EG and confirmed posteriorly in the surgical scenario where a periarterial divestment technique was feasible. Vein resections were necessary in all cases, with no need for arterial resection. An R0 (> 1 mm) margin was achieved in all patients, and the histopathological assessment showed the presence of neurovascular tissue at the peripheral arterial margin.

CONCLUSION

Preoperatively, EUS-EG is a novel approach to explore the integrity of Inoue's level III and could be helpful to preclude a periarterial divestment technique in borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma with arterial involvement.

Impact of prior biliary stenting on diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound for mesenteric vascular staging in patients with head of pancreas and periampullary malignancy

Objective

The diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for stratification of head of pancreas and periampullary tumours into resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced tumours is unclear as is the effect of endobiliary stents. The primary aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS for resectability according to stent status.

Design

A retrospective study was performed. All patients presenting with a solid head of pancreas mass who underwent EUS and surgery with curative intent during an 8-year period were included. Factors with possible impact on diagnostic performance of EUS were analysed using logistic regression.

Results

Ninety patients met inclusion criteria and formed the study group. A total of 49 (54%) patients had an indwelling biliary stent at the time of EUS, of which 36 were plastic and 13 were self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). Twenty patients underwent venous resection and reconstruction (VRR). Staging was successfully performed in 100% unstented cases, 97% plastic stent and 54% SEMS, p<0.0001. In successfully staged patients, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for classification of resectability were 70%, 70%, 70%, 42% and 88%. For vascular involvement (VI), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV were 80%, 68%, 69%, 26% and 96%. Increasing tumour size OR 0.53 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.95) was associated with a decrease in accuracy of VI classification.

Conclusions

EUS has modest diagnostic performance for stratification of staging. Staging was less likely to be completed when a SEMS was in situ. Staging EUS should ideally be performed before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and biliary drainage.

"Invisible" pancreatic masses identified by EUS by the "ductal cutoff sign"

Making a tissue diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is best accomplished by EUS and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of the lesion. Typically, a dark, or “hypoechoic” mass will be seen, which presents an obvious target for FNA. For small lesions, computerized tomography (CT) may be negative, but the lesion is still almost always seen on EUS imaging. Rarely, a pancreatic mass will appear isoechoic on EUS imaging. We report three “invisible” pancreatic masses identified only by a cutoff in the pancreatic duct (PD) and/or common bile duct (CBD). No mass, isoechoic or otherwise, was seen. EUS-FNA was performed in the area of ductal narrowing, with a positive identification of adenocarcinoma in these cases.

Contrast-enhanced CT in determining resectability in patients with pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis of the positive predictive values of CT

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a summary positive predictive value (sPPV) of contrast-enhanced CT in determining resectability.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from JAN2005 to DEC2015 were searched and checked for inclusion criteria. Data on study design, patient characteristics, imaging techniques, image evaluation, reference standard, time interval between CT and reference standard, and data on resectability/unresectablity were extracted by two reviewers. We used a fixed-effects or random-effects approach to obtain sPPV for resectability. Several subgroups were defined: 1) bolus-triggering versus fixed-timing; 2) pancreatic and portal phases versus portal phase alone; 3) all criteria (liver metastases/lymphnode involvement/local advanced/vascular invasion) versus only vascular invasion as criteria for unresectability.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included (2171 patients). Most studies were performed in multicentre settings, initiated by the department of radiology and retrospectively performed. The I2-value was 68%, indicating heterogeneity of data. The sPPV was 81% (95%CI: 75-86%). False positives were mostly liver, peritoneal, or lymphnode metastases. Bolus-triggering had a slightly higher sPPV compared to fixed-timing, 87% (95%CI: 81-91%) versus 78% (95%CI: 66-86%) (p = 0.077). No differences were observed in other subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed a sPPV of 81% for predicting resectability by CT, meaning that 19% of patients falsely undergo surgical exploration.

KEY POINTS

• Predicting resectability of pancreatic cancer by CT is 81% (95%CI: 75-86%). • The percentage of patients falsely undergoing surgical exploration is 19%. • The false positives are liver metastases, peritoneal metastases, or lymph node metastases.

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.