A rare non-oncological pancreatic mass: eosinophilic pancreatitis diagnosis through EUS-FNA

A case of eosinophilic pancreatitis in a patient with ulcerative colitis

Eosinophilic pancreatitis (EP) is very rare and characterised by infiltration of eosinophils into the pancreatic parenchyma. A 40-year-old man was diagnosed with total-colitis-type ulcerative colitis at the age of 15 years. He was then diagnosed with steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis. He was given golimumab, which resulted in remission. Ten months after beginning golimumab, he was urgently hospitalised with a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Hence, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy was performed to obtain a definitive diagnosis. Pathologically, abundant infiltration of eosinophils was observed in the edematous intralobular stroma of the pancreas. He was diagnosed with EP, and treated with corticosteroids.

Eosinophilic pancreatitis with serum IgG4-positivity, potentially associated with autoimmune pancreatitis

A 70-year-old man presented with unprovoked weight loss and intermittent left upper quadrant tenderness for one-and-a-half month. Computed tomography revealed irregular cystic lesions in the pancreatic tail. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) revealed pancreatic tail enlargement and giant, thick-walled cysts surrounding the pancreatic tail with no connection with the pancreatic duct. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration was performed on the enlarged pancreatic parenchyma and thickened cyst wall. Both biopsies showed hyper eosinophilia and few plasma cells. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography revealed an irregular narrowing of the main pancreatic duct. Pancreatic juice cytology revealed substantial eosinophilia. Blood sampling showed an elevated eosinophil count and immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) and immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels at the initial examination. We considered the patient to have eosinophilic pancreatitis (EP) with autoimmune pancreatitis, or alternately, EP with IgG4-related retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF). Upon prednisolone administration, the abdominal pain improved, the peripheral blood eosinophil count decreased to zero, IgG4 and IgE levels decreased, pancreatic enlargement improved, and the cystic lesions disappeared. The condition did not recur within the following 3 years. Both EP and EP with IgG4-related RPF are rare etiologies of pancreatitis, and this case is very instructive.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic mass without ROSE: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is an established diagnostic procedure for solid pancreatic mass. However, the diagnostic yield between fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields between FNA and FNB using conventional FNA and Franseen needles of the same size 22-gauge needle, in patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-TA without rapid onsite cytopathology evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

All cases of EUS-TA by FNA or FNB for solid pancreatic mass between January 2017 and October 2020 in a single-centre university hospital were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures were performed without an onsite cytologist. Before the endoscopist finished the procedure, macroscopic onsite evaluation (MOSE) was confirmed. The diagnostic yield and the average number of needle passes between FNB and FNA were then compared.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients (FNA, n = 77; FNB, n = 74) with solid pancreatic mass detected by cross-sectional imaging underwent EUS-TA. The mean age was 62.3 ± 12.8 years, with 88 (58.3%) males. Age, sex, mass location, tumour size and disease stage from imaging were not significantly different between the two groups. The diagnostic performance was higher in EUS-FNB (94.6%) than in EUS-FNA (89.6%). The mean number of needle passes was clearly fewer in FNB than in FNA (2.8 vs. 3.8, p < 0.001). The total procedure time was shorter in FNB (34.7 min) than in FNA (41 min). The adverse event rate between FNB and FNA was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of solid pancreatic mass was higher in FNB using the Franseen needle than in FNA using the conventional FNA needle in a centre where ROSE is unavailable, without serious adverse event. In addition, FNB had fewer needle passes and shorter total procedure time.

Eosinophilic pancreatitis presenting as rupture of a pancreatic cystic lesion into the chest cavity

A 71-year-old man was receiving follow-up examination because of a retention cyst in the pancreatic body that extended to the dorsal extrahepatic area, but presented to the Emergency Department at our hospital with dyspnea and cough. Chest X-ray showed a large amount of left-sided pleural effusion and abdominal computed tomography (CT) showed reduction in size of the cystic lesion. Biochemical testing of the pleural effusion revealed high levels of pancreatic enzymes. We, therefore, diagnosed rupture of the pancreatic cystic lesion into the chest cavity. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) demonstrated stenosis of the pancreatic duct and leakage of contrast medium at the cystic lesion. CT after ERCP revealed leakage of contrast medium from the cystic lesion through the dorsal extrahepatic area into the chest cavity. Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage was performed, but the cystic lesion and pleural effusion remained unimproved. Distal pancreatectomy was, therefore, performed. Microscopic examination revealed eosinophilic infiltration of the pancreatic parenchyma, leading to a diagnosis of eosinophilic pancreatitis (EP). Pancreatic retention cyst secondary to chronic pancreatitis associated with eosinophilic infiltration was considered to have ruptured into the chest cavity. EP is a rare etiology of pancreatitis and few cases have been reported. This case was thus considered valuable.

Eosinophils in the pathogenesis of pancreatic disorders

Eosinophils comprise approximately 1-4% of total blood leukocytes that reside in the intestine, bone marrow, mammary gland, and adipose tissues to maintain innate immunity in healthy individuals. Eosinophils have four toxic granules known as major basic protein (MBP), eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), eosinophil peroxidase (EPO), and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), and upon degranulation, these granules promote pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases like allergy, asthma, dermatitis, and gastrointestinal disorders. Additionally, the role of eosinophils is underscored in exocrine disorders including pancreatitis. Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an inflammatory disorder that occurs due to the alcohol consumption, blockage of the pancreatic duct, and trypsinogen mutation. Eosinophil levels are detected in higher numbers in both CP and pancreatic cancer patients compared with healthy individuals. The mechanistic understanding of chronic inflammation-induced pancreatic malignancy has not yet been reached and requires further exploration. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, evaluation, and management of eosinophil-associated pancreatic disorders and further summarizes current evidence regarding risk factors, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnostic evaluation, treatment, and prognosis of eosinophilic pancreatitis (EP) and pancreatic cancer.

Eosinophilic pancreatitis presenting as possible malignancy

Eosinophilic pancreatitis is a rare form of chronic pancreatitis that is often mistaken for malignancy due to nonspecific presenting symptoms and noncontributory auxiliary exams. This clinical case report highlights a unique presentation of chronic pancreatitis. A middle-aged man developed abdominal pain, and repeat imaging showed an interval increase in size of a known pancreatic lesion. A core biopsy showed benign pancreatic tissue with eosinophilic-rich inflammation; IgE levels were also elevated. The patient was started on a prednisone taper, and repeat computed tomography 3 months later showed a decreased size of the pancreatic lesion. Correct and timely diagnosis of eosinophilic pancreatitis may avoid invasive unnecessary surgical procedures and allow for earlier initiation of appropriate therapy.

Eosinophilic pancreatitis: a review of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment

Eosinophilic pancreatitis (EP) is an extremely rare disease caused by purely eosinophilic infiltration of the pancreas. EP is prone to being misdiagnosed as pancreatic cancer, causing unnecessary economic and physical harm to the patient. We report three cases of EP that were cured by steroids without relapse from 2017 to now. The clinical data of the three patients, including clinical manifestations, serological manifestations, imaging (ultrasound, computed tomography, and MRI), pathological diagnosis and treatment, and telephone follow-up of all patients, were retrospectively analysed. In addition, a literature search was conducted on the Web of Science and PubMed databases using key terms related to EP, considering case reports with no restrictions on the date of publication or language. In conclusion, we analysed 19 cases and determined the diagnostic criteria for EP. The diagnostic algorithm for EP can be used to diagnose EP easily. We hope that our standards and algorithm can reduce the rate of misdiagnosis and contribute to clinical diagnosis and treatment. In addition, we expect to evaluate more EP cases to test our diagnostic criteria and design a systematic diagnostic flow chart.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results  A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P  = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P  = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P  = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P  = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P  = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P  = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P  = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P  = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 % ; P  = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41-4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion  EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

Eosinophilic pancreatitis versus pancreatitis associated with eosinophilic gastroenteritis - a systematic review regarding clinical features and diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Over the past years, eosinophil infiltration involving the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas leading to eosinophilic pancreatitis, eosinophilic gastroenteritis and hypereosinophilic syndrome has been reported in the literature. We aimed to analyze and compare the features involving patients with eosinophilic pancreatitis and pancreatitis associated with eosinophilic gastroenteritis and to determine if there is a connection between the two disorders or if they in fact meet the diagnostic criteria for hypereosinophilic syndrome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The following search was performed in March 2019 on PubMed (MEDLINE) database using the medical terms "pancreatitis", "eosinophilic pancreatitis", "eosinophilic gastroenteritis" and "hypereosinophilic syndrome".

RESULTS

The search revealed 119 publications from 1970 onwards. A total of 83 papers were excluded, and the remaining 36 publications, consisting in case reports and case series, were analyzed. From 45 patients, 20 subjects with eosinophilic gastroenteritis developed pancreatitis, 20/45 had eosinophilic pancreatitis, and 5/45 hypereosinophilic syndrome involving the pancreas. There was no significant difference regarding clinical, laboratory and imaging features between the three groups, despite the multiple theories that explain the association of pancreatic and gastrointestinal eosinophilic infiltration. Although there was a strong resemblance between the three groups, histological evidence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal infiltration guided the treatment towards a less invasive way, while subjects with eosinophilic pancreatitis underwent pancreatic surgery to exclude potentially malignant lesions.

CONCLUSION

Although there are various theories that explain pancreatitis development in patients with eosinophilic gastroenteritis, hypereosinophilia diagnostic work-up should be taken into account in all patients with high number of blood eosinophils, even in those with eosinophilic pancreatitis in order to establish the diagnosis using a minimally invasive approach and to apply an adequate treatment.