Value of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) in the diagnosis of neoplastic tumor(-like) pancreatic lesions in daily clinical practice

Quantitative Software Analysis of Endoscopic Ultrasound Images of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most accurate imaging modality for the evaluation of different types of pancreatic cystic lesions. Our aim was to analyze EUS images of pancreatic cystic lesions using an image processing software. We specified the echogenicity of the lesions by measuring the gray value of pixels inside the selected areas. The images were divided into groups (serous cystic neoplasm /SCN/, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms /Non-SCN/ and Pseudocyst) according to the pathology results of the lesions. Overall, 170 images were processed by the software: 81 in Non-SCN, 30 in SCN and 59 in Pseudocyst group. The mean gray value of the entire lesion in the Non-SCN group was significantly higher than in the SCN group (27.8 vs. 18.8; p < 0.0005). The area ratio in the SCN, Non-SCN and Pseudocyst groups was 57%, 39% and 61%, respectively; significantly lower in the Non-SCN group than in the SCN or Pseudocyst groups (p < 0.0005 and p < 0.0005, respectively). The lesion density was also significantly higher in the Non-SCN group compared to the SCN or Pseudocyst groups (4186.6/mm2 vs. 2833.8/mm2 vs. 2981.6/mm2; p < 0.0005 and p < 0.0005, respectively). The EUS image analysis process may have the potential to be a diagnostic tool for the evaluation and differentiation of pancreatic cystic lesions.

Total pancreatectomy for recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis: a critical review of patient selection criteria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Critical review of the indications for total pancreatectomy and highlight limitations in current diagnostic criteria for chronic pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

The diagnosis of noncalcific chronic pancreatitis remains controversial because of an overreliance on nonspecific imaging and laboratories findings. Endoscopic ultrasound, s-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and/or endoscopic pancreatic function testing are often used to diagnose noncalcific chronic pancreatitis despite the fact that there is no gold standard for this condition. Abdominal pain is not specific for chronic pancreatitis and is more likely to be encountered in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders based on the high incidence of these conditions. The duration of pain and opioid analgesic use results in central sensitization that adversely affects pain outcomes after total pancreatectomy. An alcoholic cause is associated with poorer pain outcomes after total pancreatectomy.

SUMMARY

The lack of a gold standard for noncalcific chronic pancreatitis limits the diagnostic accuracy of imaging and laboratory tests. The pain of chronic pancreatitis is nonspecific and is affected by duration, preoperative opioid use, and cause. These factors will need to be considered in the development of future selection criteria for this morbid surgery.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

[Pancreatitis: An update]

BACKGROUND

Acute and chronic pancreatitis are becoming increasingly more severe diseases in the western world with far-reaching consequences for the individual patient as well as the socioeconomic situation. This article gives an overview of the contribution of radiological imaging to the diagnostics and therapy of both forms of the disease.

RESULTS

Acute pancreatitis can be subdivided into severe (20%) and mild manifestations. The diagnostics should be performed with computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessing necrosis or potential infections only in severe forms of pancreatitis. In chronic pancreatitis transabdominal ultrasound should initially be adequate for assessment of the pancreas. For the differential diagnosis between pancreatic carcinoma and chronic pancreatitis, MRI with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) followed by an endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is the method of choice.

CONCLUSION

For the primary diagnosis for acute and chronic pancreatitis ultrasound examination is the modality of first choice followed by radiological CT and MRI with MRCP examinations.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for tumor node staging and vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The accurate staging of pancreatic cancer (PanCa) is crucial in the development of a stage-specific treatment plan for PanCa patients. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the tumor node (TN) staging and evaluation of vascular invasion in PanCa.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy parameters was performed to evaluate the EUS-based TN staging, and vascular invasion by PanCa was compared to the results of intraoperative staging or to the histopathology of resected specimens.

RESULTS

Twenty studies with 726 PanCa cases were identified from 281 articles. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 0.72, 0.90, 6.27, 0.28, and 24.69, respectively, for T1-2 staging and 0.90, 0.72, 3.58, 0.16, and 24.69, respectively, for T3-4 staging. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.62, 0.74, 2.54, 0.51, and 6.67, respectively, for N staging (positive vs. negative) and 0.87, 0.92, 7.16, 0.20, and 56.19, respectively, for vascular invasion. The area under the curve was 0.90, 0.90, 0.79, and 0.94 for T1-2 staging, T3-4 staging, N staging, and vascular invasion, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS is a reliable and accurate diagnostic tool for the TN staging and evaluation of vascular invasion in PanCa. The nodal staging accuracy using EUS is less satisfactory.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: from the past to the future

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a technique which allows the study of cells obtained through aspiration in different locations near the gastrointestinal tract. EUS-FNA is used to acquire tissue from mucosal/submucosal tumors, as well as peri-intestinal structures including lymph nodes, pancreas, adrenal gland, gallbladder, bile duct, liver, kidney, lung, etc. The pancreas and lymph nodes are still the most common organs targeted in EUS-FNA. The overall accuracy of EUS is superior to computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting pancreatic lesions. In most cases it is possible to avoid unnecessary surgical interventions in advanced pancreatic cancer, and EUS is considered the preferred method for loco-regional staging of pancreatic cancer. FNA improved the sensitivity and specificity compared to EUS imaging alone in detection of malignant lymph nodes. The negative predictive value of EUS-FNA is relatively low. The presence of a cytopathologist during EUS-FNA improves the diagnostic yield, decreasing unsatisfactory samples or need for additional passes, and consequently the procedural time. The size of the needle is another factor that could modify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. Even though the EUS-FNA technique started in early nineteen's, there are many remarkable progresses culminating nowadays with the discovery and performance of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. Last, but not least, identification and quantification of potential molecular markers for pancreatic cancer on cellular samples obtained by EUS-FNA could be a promising approach for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.