Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer by endoscopic ultrasound

Difficulty in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer based on the initial CT report: A retrospective study

The role of computed tomography (CT) in the initial diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC) is well-known. CT reports made by radiologists are important as not all patients with PC are examined by specialists; however, some cases are not identified based on CT reports. Diagnosis via imaging of PC is sometimes difficult, and the diagnostic rate of PC and other pancreatic diseases can vary across radiologists. This study aimed to examine the diagnostic rate of PC in initial CT reports and the details of cases with diagnostic difficulties. This single-centered, retrospective study collected clinical data of 198 patients with histologically diagnosed PC between January 2018 and April 2022. Out of these contrast-enhanced CT was performed in 192 cases. PC was not reported as the main diagnosis in 18 patients (9.4%; 11 men and 7 women). Among these 18 cases, intrapancreatic mass lesions were detected in 3 (1.6%), indirect findings such as bile/pancreatic duct stenosis or dilation were detected in 5 (2.6%), and no PC-related findings were found in 10 (5.2%). The specialists suspected PC in 15 of these 18 cases based on initial CT reports. 17 cases were confirmed by endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration and one by biopsy after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. To improve accuracy of its diagnosis, it is important that specialists provide feedback to diagnostic radiologists regarding the findings they did not report. Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration should be performed by specialists when there is clinical information which indicates pancreatic disease of any kind.

A review of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic solid tumors

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is superior to other imaging modalities in the detection of pancreatic masses, although differentiating the types of pancreatic masses detected on EUS remains challenging. However, the value of contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) using ultrasound contrast agents for this differentiation has been reported. CH-EUS plays a pivotal role in analysis of small lesions that can only be detected with EUS. Recently, CH-EUS was used for staging and/or determining the resectability of pancreatic cancer in several clinical trials. In addition, it is used to estimate the response of pancreatic cancer to chemotherapy and to determine the prognosis in cases of pancreatic cancer and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. It is also postulated that CH-EUS improves the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) through complementary diagnoses using CH-EUS and EUS-FNAB, or CH-EUS-guided EUS-FNAB. Thus, CH-EUS has been employed for various qualitative diagnoses, including differentiation of pancreatic masses. Second-generation contrast agents such as Sonazoid are used clinically for ultrasound diagnostic imaging of liver and breast disease. The positioning of CH-EUS with Sonazoid as a test for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic tumors is an issue for further studies.

The value of endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis in obstructive jaundice of the distal common bile duct

INTRODUCTION

Obstructive jaundice is a common clinical disease of great significance; however, diagnosing it according to etiology, especially in patients with distal obstructive jaundice is difficult. The development of endoscopic ultrasonography has improved diagnostic methods. Endoscopic ultrasonography not only improves the accuracy of conventional endoscopic ultrasound technology in etiological diagnosis, but also offers several special endoscopic ultrasound technologies for diagnosing distal obstructive jaundice of the common bile duct. What's more, endoscopic ultrasonography can be used to treat distal obstructive jaundice of common bile duct.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the diagnostic value and applications of endoscopic ultrasonography for obstructive jaundice of the distal common bile duct.

EXPERT OPINION

This article summarizes the value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the etiological diagnosis, relevant treatment applications of distal obstructive jaundice and the limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography in some etiologies due to the lack of clear comparison with other imaging methods. We also provide new data for the future research direction of endoscopic ultrasonography in distal obstructive jaundice.

Ultrasound diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Advances and widespread use of various diagnostic imaging modalities have dramatically improved our ability to visualize and diagnose pancreatic diseases. In particular, ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases plays an important role from screening to diagnosis as a simple and safe examination method.

METHODS

The basic scanning method of transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography, characterization, and differential diagnosis by ultrasonography including contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for solid pancreatic tumors are reviewed with reference to various papers.

RESULTS

In recent years, the ability to visualize and diagnose pancreatic mass lesions has been dramatically improved with advances in ultrasound equipment. In particular, CEUS using an ultrasound contrast agent has made it possible to evaluate hemodynamics in organs or lesions as well as in the flow signal of arterial blood vessels, and it has played an important role not only in diagnosis of the presence of a lesion but also in the qualitative diagnosis. The enhancement behavior and pattern with CEUS of pancreatic solid tumors is shown in text and Fig. 9. Moreover, the flow chart for diagnosing pancreatic solid tumors with CEUS classifying the enhancement behavior and pattern for pancreatic solid tumors on CEUS is shown (Fig. 10). In meta-analyses, the pooled sensitivity in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinomas and other pancreatic focal masses with CEUS was 86-90%, and the pooled specificity was 75-88%.

CONCLUSION

CEUS is a minimally invasive and useful diagnostic method that can be used to make a simple and quick qualitative diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. CEUS provides a lot of information important for diagnosis, and has led to changes in the conventional diagnostic systems in pancreatic diseases.

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.

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.

Poor 'real-life' negative predictive value of cross-sectional imaging in obstructive jaundice

BACKGROUND

Cross-sectional imaging remains the first-line test for obstructive jaundice despite high miss rates for pancreatobiliary tumours. Improvements in resolution and slice thickness of spiral computed tomography⁄magnetic resonance imaging⁄magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography promised to increase accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the post-test probability of neoplasm is truly altered by the presence or absence of a mass on computed tomography⁄magnetic resonance imaging in obstructive jaundice.

METHODS

The institutional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) database was retrospectively reviewed to stratify patients presenting to EUS over a two-year period for obstructive jaundice (suspicious for malignancy) according to their pre-EUS imaging results. The primary analysis involved the calculation of the positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of imaging with 95% binomial CIs. Test performance of EUS⁄fine-needle aspiration (FNA) was also calculated. Final diagnosis was determined by positive cytology⁄histology; negative EUS was supplemented by clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

The positive predictive value (n = 51) and NPV (n = 53) of pre-EUS imaging was 98% (95% CI 90% to 100%) and 9% (95% CI 3% to 21%), respectively (accuracy 53%), with post-test suspicion of malignancy similar between imaging-positive and -negative groups. EUS demonstrated a mass in 96% of imaging-positive cases versus 85% in imaging-negative cases (exact P = 0.09). Malignant or suspicious FNA cytology was obtained with EUS in 92% of the imaging-positive group, and 62% of the imaging-negative group (75% of subgroup with FNA) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Lack of a definite mass on pre-EUS imaging had low NPV, and was clearly not sufficiently accurate or reassuring in this clinical setting. In suspicious obstructive jaundice, EUS with FNA has a high diagnostic yield regardless of the findings of pre-EUS cross-sectional imaging and, as such, EUS may be a more reasonable first-line test in this high-suspicion setting.

Performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound in the staging of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The optimal approach to pre-operative imaging assessment of pancreatic cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess accuracy and performance characteristics of EUS in determining nodal staging, vascular invasion, and prediction of resectability of pancreatic cancer. A secondary aim was to perform head to head comparison of performance characteristics between EUS and CT for nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability.

DESIGN

Data from EUS studies were pooled according to bivariate generalized random effects model. Pooled estimates for CT were obtained from studies which performed head to head comparison between EUS and CT.

PATIENTS

Patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing pre-operative imaging assessment.

INTERVENTION

EUS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were considered of which 29 met inclusion criteria with a total of 1,330 patients. Pooled summary estimates for EUS-nodal staging were 69% for sensitivity and 81% for specificity. For vascular invasion, sensitivity was 85% and specificity was 91%. The sensitivity and specificity for resectability was 90% and 86%, respectively. CT scan showed lower sensitivity than EUS for nodal staging (24% vs. 58%) and vascular invasion (58% vs. 86%); however, the specificities for nodal staging (88% vs. 85%) and vascular invasion (95% vs. 93%) were comparable in studies where both imaging techniques were performed. The sensitivity and specificity of CT in determining resectability (90% and 69%) was similar to that of EUS (87% and 89%).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS is an accurate pre-operative tool in the assessment of nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration in patients with solid pancreatic neoplasms

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endosonography is a distinct method for evaluating the structural lesions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, particularly the pancreatobilliary region. This procedure has made a fundamental change in the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesion through providing fine needle aspiration. This study aims at evaluating the results and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with pancreatic solid mass.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The present study is an observational, prospective case series nature, evaluated patients with pancreatic solid mass referred to Imam Khomeini educational hospital in Tehran for a duration of one year since November 2010. In order to determine the false negative cases, the patients were followed-up from 6 to 12 months.

RESULTS

EUS-FNA was conducted on all 53 patients without any complication. The majority of patients included in the study were males (68%) and 81% of patients had a mass in the head of pancreas. The result of cytopathology revealed 36 adenocarcinomas (68%), 7 other malignancies (13%), benign lesions (6%) and 7 non-diagnostic cases (13%). The frequency of non-diagnostic results was significantly high in masses smaller than 3 cm (6 vs. 1, P < 0.002). Patients with non-diagnostic result were younger than those with malignant cytopathology (52 ± 7.5 vs. 66 ± 7.5 years, P < 0.001).. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of this procedure concerning Adenocarcinoma were 88%, 100%, 100%, 70% and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS - FNA is an effective and safe procedure in histopathologic diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. This procedure is useful in all pancreatic mass cases including resectable and non-resectable ones.

Advances in diagnosis, treatment and palliation of pancreatic carcinoma: 1990-2010

Several advances in genetics, diagnosis and palliation of pancreatic cancer (PC) have occurred in the last decades. A multidisciplinary approach to this disease is therefore recommended. PC is relatively common as it is the fourth leading cause of cancer related mortality. Most patients present with obstructive jaundice, epigastric or back pain, weight loss and anorexia. Despite improvements in diagnostic modalities, the majority of cases are still detected in advanced stages. The only curative treatment for PC remains surgical resection. No more than 20% of patients are candidates for surgery at the time of diagnosis and survival remains quite poor as adjuvant therapies are not very effective. A small percentage of patients with borderline non-resectable PC might benefit from neo-adjuvant chemoradiation therapy enabling them to undergo resection; however, randomized controlled studies are needed to prove the benefits of this strategy. Patients with unresectable PC benefit from palliative interventions such as biliary decompression and celiac plexus block. Further clinical trials to evaluate new chemo and radiation protocols as well as identification of genetic markers for PC are needed to improve the overall survival of patients affected by PC, as the current overall 5-year survival rate of patients affected by PC is still less than 5%. The aim of this article is to review the most recent high quality literature on this topic.

Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis

The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET), combined (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in diagnosing patients with pancreatic carcinoma. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and some other databases, from January 1966 to April 2009, were searched for initial studies. All the studies published in English or Chinese relating to the diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET, PET/CT and EUS for patients with pancreatic cancer were collected. Methodological quality was assessed. The statistic software called "Meta-Disc 1.4" was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

51 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity estimate for combined PET/CT (90.1%) was significantly higher than PET (88.4%) and EUS (81.2%). The pooled specificity estimate for EUS (93.2%) was significantly higher than PET (83.1%) and PET/CT (80.1%). The pooled DOR estimate for EUS (49.774) was significantly higher than PET (32.778) and PET/CT (27.105). SROC curves for PET/CT and EUS showed a little better diagnostic accuracy than PET alone. For PET alone, when interpreted the results with knowledge of other imaging tests, its sensitivity (89.4%) and specificity (80.1%) were closer to PET/CT. For EUS, its diagnostic value decreased in differentiating pancreatic cancer for patients with chronic pancreatitis. In conclusion, PET/CT was a high sensitive and EUS was a high specific modality in diagnosing patients with pancreatic cancer. PET/CT and EUS could play different roles during different conditions in diagnosing pancreatic carcinoma.

Predictors of malignancy and recommended follow-up in patients with negative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of suspected pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) can characterize and diagnose pancreatic lesions as malignant, but cannot definitively rule out the presence of malignancy. Outcome data regarding the length of follow-up in patients with negative or nondiagnostic EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions are not well-established.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term outcome and provide follow-up guidance for patients with negative EUS-FNA diagnosis of suspected pancreatic lesions based on imaging predictors.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic lesions, but with negative or nondiagnostic FNA results was conducted at a tertiary care referral medical centre. Patient demographics, EUS imaging characteristics and follow-up data were examined.

RESULTS

Seventeen of 55 patients (30.9%) with negative/nondiagnostic FNA were subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy. The risk of cancer was significantly higher for patients who had associated lymph nodes on EUS (P<0.001) and vascular involvement on EUS (P=0.001). The mean time to diagnosis in the group with falsenegative EUS-FNA diagnosis was 66 days. The true-negative EUSFNA patients were followed for a mean of 403 days after negative EUS-FNA results without the development of malignancy.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing EUS-FNA for a suspected pancreatic lesion, a negative or nondiagnostic FNA does not provide conclusive evidence for the absence of cancer. Patients for whom vascular invasion and lymphadenopathy are detected on EUS are more likely to have a true malignant lesion and should be followed closely. When a patient has been monitored for six months or more with no cancer being diagnosed, there appears to be much less chance that a pancreatic malignancy is present.

[Early pancreatic cancer: can the methods currently available identify this disease?]

OBJECTIVES

Call attention of the gastroenterologists and surgeons on the patients with high risk of developing pancreatic carcinoma, and whether or not forms of surveillance and prevention of this disease, which can be applied to daily clinical practice. DATA SURVEY: It was used the database of PubMed (US National Library of Medicine), looked up the publications of recent years for the groups at risk, molecular biological testing and methods of image used in the identification of small tumors of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND

The survival rates of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas remain negligible, even after the significant advances in diagnosis by imaging, treatment and understanding of the molecular biology of this disease. Although embryonic strategies for surveillance and prevention for people with high risk of pancreatic cancer has developed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes how to identify people at high risk of developing this disease and what is the state of the art of genetic counseling and screening through techniques of image available.

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%.

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.

[Pancreas. Part II: Tumors]

Adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant pancreatic tumor, affecting the head in 60-70% of cases. By the time of diagnosis, approximately 80% of tumors are unresectable. Helical CT is very effective in detection and staging of adenocarcinoma, with a sensitivity of 76-92% for detection and an accuracy of 80-90% for staging, but it has limitations in the detection of small cancers (< or =2 cm). Multidetector CT (MDCT) has brought substantial improvements with its inherent 3D imaging capability. Mangafodipir-enhanced MRI is a problem-solving tool in the depiction of small cancers following an equivocal CT imaging result. Gadolinium-enhanced 3D gradient-echo MRI is helpful in the assessment of vascular invasion of cancer and in determining the etiology of cystic lesions. Serous cystadenoma is benign, has a lobulated contour and contains innumerable small cysts of 0.1-2 cm in diameter. Mucinous cystic neoplasms are unilocular or multilocular (fewer than six cysts), and the cyst diameter exceeds 2 cm. The presence of solid nodular components should alert the radiologist to suspect cystadenocarcinoma. Neuroendocrine tumors are mostly hypervascular. Diagnosis of insulinoma is a challenge: they are <2 cm in 90% of cases and mostly hypervascular at CT or MRI. A combination of contrast-enhanced MDCT, MRI, endosonography, and/or somatostatin receptor scintigraphy is used to detect these small tumors. This review summarizes the imaging features of the most common pancreatic tumors and discusses the limitations of CT, MRI and endosonography.

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome and screening for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer risk, including pancreatic, is high in those with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS). It has been suggested that such patients should undergo screening for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The risk of pancreatic cancer in PJS, pancreatic screening and potential screening strategies were reviewed. Cost-effectiveness was assessed according to American Gastroenterology Association guidelines and a risk stratification model proposed by the European Registry of Hereditary Pancreatitis and Familial Pancreatic Cancer.

RESULTS

The risk of pancreatic cancer is increased in PJS but screening would cost over US 35,000 dollars per life saved. Risk stratification reduces cost by 100,000 dollars and costs fall to 50,000 dollars per life saved if deaths from other forms of cancer are avoided.

CONCLUSION

Screening should be performed only on a research basis to evaluate the benefit and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant pancreatic tumor, affecting the head of the pancreas in 60-70% of cases. By the time of diagnosis, at least 80% of tumors are unresectable. Helical computed tomography (CT) is very effective in detecting and staging adenocarcinoma, with a sensitivity of up to 90% for detection and an accuracy of 80-90% for staging, but it has limitations in detecting small cancers. Moreover, it is not very accurate for determining nonresectability because small liver metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and subtle signs of vascular infiltration may be missed. Multidetector-row CT (MDCT) has brought substantial improvements with its inherent ability to visualize vascular involvement in three dimensions. MDCT has been found to be at least equivalent to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting adenocarcinoma. MRI can be used as a problem-solving tool in equivocal CT: MRI may help rule out pitfalls, such as inflammatory pseudotumor, focal lipomatosis, abscess, or cystic tumors. Mangafodipir-enhanced MRI reveals a very high tumor-pancreas contrast, which helps in diagnosing small cancers. Endosonography is, if available, also a very accurate tool for detecting small cancers, with a sensitivity of up to 98%. It is the technique of choice for image-guided biopsy if a histologic diagnosis is required for further therapy.

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.

Pancreatic neoplasms

Patients who present with signs and symptoms suggesting a pancreatic neoplasm typically undergo initial imaging with transabdominal ultrasound or CT. When a pancreatic mass or fullness is identified, it may represent an inflammatory mass, benign process, or malignancy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is performed commonly to further characterize the lesion, obtain a tissue diagnosis, and for staging. This article reviews the role of EUS for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic tumors.

Sampling of the adrenal glands by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has proven to be a valuable modality for the primary diagnosis and staging of gastrointestinal, and perigastrointestinal malignancy. Aside from assessing thoracic and abdominal lymph nodes and the liver for metastases, EUS can assess and sample the adrenal glands, which are frequently involved by metastatic disease, but can also harbor benign primary neoplasms. The cytology files at our institution were reviewed for all cases of EUS-guided FNA of the adrenal glands. Clinical histories, sonographic findings, and cytologic findings of all cases were reviewed. Results were compared with overall EUS-guided FNA performance and the performance of non-EUS-guided FNA of the adrenal. The utility of cell block immunohistochemistry (IHC) in these cases was reviewed. Between 1/1/00 and 5/15/04 there were 24 cases of EUS-guided FNA of the adrenal gland from 22 different patients (13 men; 9 women) at our institution. This represented 1.4% of overall EUS-guided FNA and 77% of adrenal gland FNA. Patient ages ranged from 37 to 86 yr (mean 69 +/- 11 yr). Most patients had other cancers or mass lesions and were being staged at the time of the procedure (19 of 22). Almost all FNAs were of the left adrenal gland (23 of 24). Lesion size ranged from 0.9 to 7.9 cm (mean 2.5 +/- 1.6 cm). Diagnostic material was present in all cases when compared with an overall EUS-guided FNA diagnostic rate of 88%. Material for cell block was present in 21 cases, and IHC was used in 3 cases. Final diagnoses were as follows: cortical tissue consistent with cortical adenoma (19), metastatic adenocarcinoma (3), pheochromocytoma (1), and adrenal cortical carcinoma (1). EUS-guided FNA of the adrenal gland is primarily used in the staging of other malignancies when lesions of the left adrenal are recognized sonographically. Diagnostic tissue is easily obtained, including material for cell block IHC, which allows definitive diagnosis in cases that present difficult differential diagnoses.

Identification and staging of pancreatic tumours using computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasound and mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

Pancreatic malignancy can be staged by a number of different investigations, either alone or in combination. The purpose of the present study was to compare the use of endoscopic ultrasound, CT and mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MRI for the staging of pancreatic malignancy, particularly with respect to determining resectability prior to surgery. Twenty-seven patients referred for the investigation of a suspected pancreatic malignancy were entered into the trial. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT, gadolinium and mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Images were assessed for nodal staging, tumour staging and resectability for each investigation, and the results compared with findings at surgery. The results for the accuracy of MRI, CT and EUS, in detecting T4 disease versus T3 or lower was 78, 79 and 68%, respectively; nodal involvement was 56, 63 and 69%, respectively; and overall resectability (including the T stage, presence of involved nodes and metastases) was 83, 76 and 63%, respectively. There was no significant difference demonstrated between the three tests. The present study suggests that for patients referred for investigation and staging of pancreatic malignancy, EUS and MRI scanning convey little advantage over contrast-enhanced CT. Furthermore, although mangafodipir trisodium improved the conspicuity of pancreatic tumours, it has little influence on T staging.

Comparison of linear array endoscopic ultrasound and helical computed tomography for the staging of periampullary malignancies

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare linear array endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and helical computed tomography (CT) scan in the preoperative local staging evaluation of patients with periampullary tumors.

METHODS

Patients evaluated with EUS and CT for suspected periampullary malignancies from 1996 to 2000 were analyzed. Surgical/pathology staging results were the reference standard.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (28 men and 20 women; mean age, 62 +/- 4.9 years; range, 18-90 years) were identified. Malignancy was histologically confirmed in 44 patients. Parameters evaluated included tumor size, lymph node metastases, and major vascular invasion. EUS was significantly more sensitive (100%), specific (75%), and accurate (98%) than helical CT (68%, 50%, and 67%, respectively) for evaluation of the periampullary mass (P <.05). In addition, EUS detected regional lymph node metastases in more patients than helical CT. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS were 61%, 100%, and 84%, in comparison to 33%, 92%, and 68%, respectively, with CT. Major vascular involvement was noted in 9 of 44 patients. EUS correctly identified vascular involvement in 100% compared with 45% with CT (P <.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Linear array EUS was consistently superior to helical CT in the preoperative local staging of periampullary malignancies.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes: The Hennepin County Medical Center experience

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) allows for the sampling and diagnosis of lesions of the gastrointestinal system and adjacent tissues. It has also proved helpful with the sampling of lymphadenopathy both for the staging of malignancy and for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy of other causes. We review our experience with EUS-guided FNA of lymph nodes. The cytology files were searched at Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) for all cases of lymph nodes sampled by EUS. Clinical history, biopsy site, diagnosis, and follow-up information (including ancillary testing) were reviewed. Between January 1, 2000 and December 5, 2002, 217 lymph nodes from 185 different patients were sampled by EUS at HCMC. Biopsy sites included 62 mediastinal, 9 paraesophageal, and 146 intra-abdominal lymph nodes. Diagnoses were as follows: metastatic non-small cell carcinoma (n = 69); benign, reactive lymph node (n = 76); granulomatous lymphadenopathy (n = 18); malignant lymphoma (n = 7); atypical-suspicious for malignancy (n = 5); metastatic small cell carcinoma (n = 2); necrotic debris (n = 4), and foreign material (n = 1); 35 cases were nondiagnostic (16.1%) in 22 of 185 patients (11.9%). Ancillary tests including flow cytometry, cytogenetics, and cultures were performed. EUS-guided FNA of mediastinal and intra-abdominal lymph nodes provides diagnostic material from which ancillary testing may be performed.

Pancreatic carcinomas smaller than 3.0 cm: endosonography (EUS) in diagnosis, staging and prediction of resectability

BACKGROUND

The size of a pancreatic carcinoma determines prognosis and resection. The aim of this study was to review our clinical experience with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in diagnosing and staging pancreatic tumours <3.0 in diameter.

METHODS

From February 1997 to October 2000 medical records and results of abdominal ultrasound (US), spiral computed tomography (CT) and EUS with fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNA) were reviewed in 17 patients operated for histologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma measuring <or= 3.0 cm in diameter. The mean age of the patients was 64 years (range 42-76 years).

RESULTS

US identified a pancreatic lesion in 11/17 (65%) patients. Spiral CT showed a total of 16/17 (94%) patients with a lesion. EUS identified pancreatic tumour in all patients (100%), and tissue was obtained from 15/17 patients (88%). Mean tumour size was 2.5 cm (range 0.8-3.0 cm). EUS accuracy in evaluating the portal vessels was 78%, superior mesenteric artery 100%, tumour stage (T) 88%, isolated node stage (N) 65% and combined TN staging was 53%. Regarding resectability, EUS sensitivity was 88%, specificity 89%, negative predictive value 89%, positive predictive value 88% and accuracy 88%. Besides cytological material, EUS-FNA histological diagnosis was possible in 12/17 patients (71%). There was only one case of mild post-procedure acute pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is safe and has high diagnostic (100%) and local staging (88%) accuracy in pancreatic cancers <3.0 cm in diameter.

Endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography imaging for pancreaticobiliary pathology: the gastroenterologist's perspective

With advances in noninvasive radiologic technology, additional adjunctive techniques are developing, and the roles for ERCP and EUS are continuously changing. In a diagnostic setting, ERCP is currently best reserved for patients with a high likelihood of needing endoscopic therapy, and EUS is especially useful for cases in which other imaging techniques have been inconclusive or are of inferior diagnostic capability. In a therapeutic setting, ERCP and EUS retain important roles in the management of both benign and malignant pancreatic and biliary disease. Certainly, technological advances also directly affect these modalities and expanded applications for ERCP and EUS for the pancreas and biliary tract are anticipated.

Computer-assisted analysis of lymph nodes detected by EUS in patients with esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

EUS determination of lymph nodal spread of intestinal cancer based on imaging alone is problematic. A noninvasive, reliable means of determining tumor spread to lymph nodes is desirable. This study investigated the feasibility of a computer-assisted evaluation of lymph nodes detected by EUS in patients with esophageal carcinoma.

METHODS

Images were obtained during EUS of esophageal lesions and correlated with histopathologic findings after esophagectomy. Sonographic features of echogenicity, whole-node heterogeneity, and regional variability were assessed by computerized image analysis in patients with benign versus malignant lymphadenopathy.

RESULTS

Malignant lymph nodes were hypoechoic compared with benign lymph nodes (p < 0.04). Whole lymph node heterogeneity was increased in malignant lymph nodes (p < 0.004). Regional variability was greater for benign lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the feasibility of a computer-assisted system for analysis of lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Further refinements of such a system could increase the accuracy of EUS staging of tumors.

Use of a phased vector array US catheter for EUS

BACKGROUND

Existing EUS catheter probes have limited depth of penetration and lack color flow and Doppler capabilities. This study prospectively assessed the feasibility and safety of using a phased vector array US catheter in the human GI tract.

METHODS

Eleven patients underwent EUS with a steerable 9F phased vector array catheter. Images obtained with the catheter were compared with standard EUS images.

RESULTS

The GI wall layers were equally well imaged with the catheter compared with standard echoendoscopes in 90% of the cases. Images of the liver, spleen, pancreatic parenchyma, and pancreatic duct were of equal quality and resolution with both techniques in the majority of patients. Some deeper structures and blood vessels were better visualized with the catheter. No complications were encountered.

CONCLUSION

The steerable phased vector array US catheter is a safe device when used in the GI tract and offers images comparable with those obtained with a dedicated echoendoscope. Further studies are needed to determine the accuracy of tumor staging and clinical utility of this device.

Pancreatic cancer: cost-effectiveness of imaging technologies for assessing resectability

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of imaging strategies for the assessment of resectability in patients with pancreatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision model was developed to calculate costs and benefits (survival) accruing to hypothetical cohorts of patients with known or suspected pancreatic cancer. Results are presented as cost per life-year gained under various scenarios and assumptions of diagnostic test characteristics, surgical mortality, disease characteristics, and costs.

RESULTS

With best estimates for all data inputs, the strategy of computed tomography (CT) followed by laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasonography (US) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $87,502 per life-year gained, compared with best supportive care. This strategy was significantly more cost-effective than CT followed by magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and was significantly less expensive than other imaging strategies while providing a statistically and clinically insignificant difference in life-year gains. A strategy involving no imaging (immediate surgery) was more expensive but less effective than all imaging strategies. A hypothetical perfect test with cost equal to that of CT followed by MR had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $64,401 per life-year gained, compared to best supportive care.

CONCLUSION

Most available imaging tests for assessing resectability of pancreatic cancer do not differ in effectiveness, but a strategy of CT, laparoscopy, and laparoscopic US would consistently result in significantly lower costs than other imaging tests under a wide range of scenarios.

Intraductal papillary-mucinous tumors of the pancreas: differential diagnosis between benign and malignant tumors by endoscopic ultrasonography

OBJECTIVES

Recently, intraductal papillary-mucinous tumor (IPMT) of the pancreas has increasingly been recognized. However, differential diagnosis between benign and malignant IPMT is often difficult using conventional imaging modalities. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for differentiating malignant from benign IPMT.

METHODS

A total of 51 patients with IPMT were preoperatively examined by EUS. The endosonograhic findings were compared with histopathological findings of the resected specimens.

RESULTS

In main duct type IPMT, the diameter of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) was > or =10 mm in seven of the eight malignant tumors, compared with two of the seven benign tumors (p < 0.05). In branch duct type IPMT, three of the four large tumors (>40 mm) with irregular thick septa were malignant lesions. In both main duct type IPMT and branch duct IPMT, eight patients had large mural nodules (>10 mm); seven of the eight tumors were malignant and one of the eight tumors was benign. When the tumor was diagnosed as malignant according to above three findings, EUS was able to differentiate between malignant and benign IPMT with an accuracy of 86%.

CONCLUSIONS

Main duct type tumors with > or =10 mm dilated MPD, branch duct type tumors (>40 mm) with irregular septa, and large mural nodules (>10 mm) strongly suggest malignancy on EUS. EUS would be a useful modality for differentiating between benign and malignant IPMT.

Current status of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography

Endoscopic ultrasonography is firmly established as an imaging modality that can be used for diagnosing and staging both malignant and nonmalignant disorders of the pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, biliary tree, and mediastinum. In the future, as more physicians are trained and as technologic developments continue to advance, endosonography will likely assume a greater role in therapeutic management.

Endoscopic ultrasound for differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic lesions, confirmed by surgery

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound is increasingly used for evaluation of pancreatic cancer. The potential of sonographic morphology to differentiate histology type and biological behaviour of pancreatic lesions is doubtful.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 115 patients with focal pancreatic lesions on endoscopic ultrasound. Morphology was assessed using Olympus UM3/20/200 echoendoscopes. Histologic confirmation of diagnosis was obtained in all patients.

RESULTS

Endoscopic ultrasound correctly diagnosed 18/34 benign and 77/81 malignant lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV for diagnosing malignancy were 95%, 53%, 83%, 83% and 82%, respectively. Endosonographic diagnosis of the lesions (% correct) were: pancreatic cancer, 84 (63.3%); chronic pancreatitis, 14 (71.4%); ampullary cancer, 9 (77.8%); cystadenoma, 5 (80%); ampullary adenoma, 2 (50%); acute pancreatitis, 1 (0). In 13 patients of chronic pancreatitis, diagnosed as cancer, diagnosis was based on absence of sonographic features of chronic pancreatitis (7) or suspected involvement of adjacent structures (6). In 3 patients malignancy was missed owing to features of chronic pancreatitis. Non-suspected neuroendocrine tumours were misjudged in all 10 cases using morphologic criteria as pancreatic cancer (8), cystadenoma and chronic pancreatitis. Accuracy for prediction of metastatic lymph nodes and an advanced pancreatic cancer stage (TxN1 or T3Nx) was 61% and 75%, respectively. On retrospective analysis, a lesion >2 cm, vessel ingrowth, absence of cystic spaces and absence of diffuse pancreatitis were associated with pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

While overall sensitivity was high, specificity of endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of malignancy was low, especially in presence of chronic pancreatitis. In addition, endosonography had only a limited potential to predict the histological type of lesions.

EUS in preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is believed to be highly accurate in the local (T) and nodal (N) staging of pancreatic cancer. However, there are scant data concerning the predictive value of EUS for resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This study was performed to determine the accuracy of TNM staging by EUS in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and to evaluate the role of preoperative TNM staging by EUS for determining resectability in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a cohort of 89 patients evaluated preoperatively with EUS for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 1995 and December 1997. Preoperative TNM classification by EUS was compared with surgical and histopathologic TNM staging. Resectability rates were determined and compared with the preoperative TNM staging by EUS.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of EUS for T and N staging was found to be 69% and 54%, respectively. The overall proportion of tumors that were deemed resectable by EUS and were actually found to be resectable during surgical exploration was 46%. The proportion of tumors staged as T4 N1, T4 N0, T3 N1 and T3 N0 by EUS that were found to be resectable during surgical exploration was 45%, 37%, 44% and 62%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a tertiary referral patient population, EUS is not as accurate as previously reported in the T and N staging of pancreatic cancer. EUS is also not predictive of resectability in stage T3 or T4 pancreatic cancer.

Screening for early pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in hereditary pancreatitis

Patients with hereditary pancreatitis have a 40% lifetime risk of developing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Existing methods of diagnosing pancreatic cancer such as tumor markers, endoscopy, and radiological imaging lack the sensitivity and specificity for early diagnosis, particularly in a background of chronic pancreatitis. Molecular based strategies offer new avenues of screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in these high-risk patients, which may allow the development of highly sensitive and specific diagnostic tests for the early detection of cancer.

Pancreatic surgery

According to epidemiologic studies, the incidence of acute and chronic pancreatitis and carcinoma of the pancreas are increasing worldwide. This is the result not only of improved diagnostic methods introduced in the last decades (eg, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, "all-in-one" magnetic resonance imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) but also of changes in the environment and nutritional behavior. Once a specific diagnosis has been made, the first-choice interventions in acute and chronic inflammatory pancreatic diseases are predominantly organ-and organ function-preserving surgical procedures. In pancreatic cancer, extended radical surgery and multimodal therapies seem to offer the most benefit. This article provides an overview of recently published articles focusing on surgical treatment options in acute and chronic pancreatitis and carcinoma of the pancreas.