Endoscopic ultrasound and pancreatic cystic lesions-diagnostic and therapeutic applications

Basic Principles and Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Differentiation of Pancreatic Cancer from Other Pancreatic Lesions: A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Pancreatic lesions consist of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions and often pose a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to similar clinical and radiological features. In recent years, pancreatic lesions have been discovered more frequently as incidental findings due to the increased utilization and widespread availability of abdominal cross-sectional imaging. Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish an early and appropriate diagnosis with meticulous differentiation in an attempt to balance unnecessary treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and missing the opportunity for early intervention in malignant lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important diagnostic modality for the identification and risk stratification of pancreatic lesions due to its ability to provide detailed imaging and acquisition of tissue samples for analysis with the help of fine-needle aspiration/biopsy. The recent development of EUS-based technology, including contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound, real-time elastography-endoscopic ultrasound, miniature probe ultrasound, confocal laser endomicroscopy, and the application of artificial intelligence has significantly augmented the diagnostic accuracy of EUS as it enables better evaluation of the number, location, dimension, wall thickness, and contents of these lesions. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the role of the different types of EUS available for the diagnosis and differentiation of pancreatic cancer from other pancreatic lesions while discussing their key strengths and important limitations.

Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Review of the Current State of Diagnosis and Surveillance

Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are both common and often incidental. These encompass a range of pathologies with varying degrees of concern for malignancy. Although establishing a diagnosis is helpful for determining malignant potential, many PCLs are either too small to characterize or demonstrate nonspecific morphologic features. The most salient modalities involved in diagnosis and surveillance are magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector computerized tomography, and endoscopic ultrasound. Fine needle aspiration has a role in conjunction with molecular markers as a diagnostic tool, particularly for identifying malignant lesions. Although several major consensus guidelines exist internationally, there remains uncertainty in establishing the strength of the association between all PCLs and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and in showing a benefit from extended periods of imaging surveillance. No consensus exists between the major guidelines, particularly regarding surveillance duration, frequency, or endpoints. This review paper discusses PCL subtypes, diagnosis, and compares the major consensus guidelines with considerations for local adaptability along with questions regarding current and future priorities for research.

Pancreatic Incidentaloma

Pancreatic incidentalomas (PIs) represent a clinical entity increasingly recognized due to advances in and easier access to imaging techniques. By definition, PIs should be detected during abdominal imaging performed for indications other than a pancreatic disease. They range from small cysts to invasive cancer. The incidental diagnosis of pancreatic cancer can contribute to early diagnosis and treatment. On the other hand, inadequate management of PIs may result in overtreatment and unneeded morbidity. Therefore, there is a strong need to evaluate the nature and clinical features of individual PIs. In this review, we summarize the major characteristics related to PIs and present suggestions for their management.

Feasibility and safety of microforceps biopsy in the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The tissue acquisition and diagnostic yield of cyst fluid cytology is low-to-moderate and rarely provides a specific diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare the tissue acquisition and diagnostic tissue yield of microforceps biopsy (MFB) with cyst fluid cytology.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, data of 42 patients who had cysts both aspirated by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) and biopsy specimens were then obtained with an MFB device, were collected. Cytology analysis of cyst fluid and histologic analysis of biopsy specimens were done. Acquisition yield was defined as percentage of patients with tissue present in the aspirate or biopsy. Diagnostic tissue yield was evaluated at 3 levels: the ability of differentiation between mucinous and/or nonmucinous cysts, detection of high risk for malignancy, and specific cyst type diagnosis.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 69 years. Sixteen pancreatic cysts (38.1%) were located in the head, 17 (40.5%) in the body, and 9 (21.4%) in the tail. The mean cyst size was 28.2 mm (12-60 mm); 25 of 42 (60%) were septated. The EUS-FNA tissue (fluid) acquisition yield was 88.1% (37/42). The MFB tissue acquisition yield was 90.4% (38/42). The diagnostic cytology yield to differentiate between mucinous and/or nonmucinous cysts was 47.6% (20/42), and the MFB histologic yield to differentiate between mucinous and/or nonmucinous cysts was 61.9% (26/42) (P = .188). The percentage of cysts at high risk for malignancy by cytology was 54.7% (23/42), and MFB was 71.5% (30/42) (P = .113). However, the ability of MFB to provide a specific cyst type diagnosis was 35.7% (15/42), and that for cytology was 4.8% (2/42) (P = .001). Surgical histology was concordant with that of MFB in 6 of 7 patients (85%), and with that of cytology in 1 of 7 patients (15%).

CONCLUSION

The cyst tissue acquisition yield for MFBs was 90%. Although cytology of cyst fluid and MFB were comparable in distinguishing mucinous and nonmucinous cysts and detecting cysts at high risk for malignancy, MFB was far superior to cytology for providing a specific cyst diagnosis.

Incidents and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic value and safety mainly regarding incidents of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs).

METHODS

A total of 150 consecutive patients with suspected PCLs were prospectively enrolled from April 2015 to November 2016. We finally enrolled 140 patients undergoing EUS-FNA. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and pathological diagnosis, which is regarded as the gold standard, for PCLs. Patients undergoing EUS-FNA at least 1 wk preoperatively were monitored for incidents and adverse events to evaluate its safety.

RESULTS

There were 88 (62.9%) women and 52 (37.1%) men among 140 patients, with a mean age of 50.1 (± 15.4) years. There were 67 cysts located in the head/uncinate of the pancreas and 67 in the body/tail, and 6 patients had at least 1 cyst in the pancreas. There were 75 patients undergoing surgery and 55 undergoing EUS-FNA with interval at least 1 wk before other operations, with 3 patients undergoing the procedure twice. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant lesions was 97.3% (73/75), while the accuracy of characterizing PCL subtype was 84.0% (63/75). The incident rate was 37.9% (22/58), whereas only 1 AE was observed in 58 cases.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA is effective and safe for diagnosis of PCLs, however procedure-related incidents are common. Caution should be taken in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of detailed structures of pancreatic cystic neoplasms

AIM

To evaluate the advantages of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the assessment of detailed structures of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) compared to computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

All patients with indeterminate PCNs underwent CT, MRI, and EUS. The detailed information, including size, number, the presence of a papilla/nodule, the presence of a septum, and the morphology of the pancreatic duct of PCNs were compared among the three imaging modalities. The size of each PCN was determined using the largest diameter measured. A cyst consisting of several small cysts was referred to as a mother-daughter cyst. Disagreement among the three imaging modalities regarding the total number of mother cysts resulted in the assumption that the correct number was the one in which the majority of imaging modalities indicated.

RESULTS

A total of 52 females and 16 males were evaluated. The median size of the cysts was 42.5 mm by EUS, 42.0 mm by CT and 38.0 mm by MRI; there was no significant difference in size as assessed among the three imaging techniques. The diagnostic sensitivity and ability of EUS to classify PCNs were 98.5% (67/68) and 92.6% (63/68), respectively. These percentages were higher than those of CT (73.1%, P < 0.001; 17.1%, P < 0.001) and MRI (81.3%, P = 0.001; 20.3%, P < 0.001). EUS was also able to better assess the number of daughter cysts in mother cysts than CT (P = 0.003); however, there was no significant difference between EUS and MRI in assessing mother-daughter cysts (P = 0.254). The papilla/nodule detection rate by EUS was 35.3% (24/68), much higher than those by CT (5.8%, 3/52) and MRI (6.3%, 4/64). The detection rate of the septum by EUS was 60.3% (41/68), which was higher than those by CT (34.6%, 18/52) and by MRI (46.9%, 30/64); the difference between EUS and CT was significant (P = 0.02). The rate of visualizing the pancreatic duct using EUS was 100%, whereas using CT and MRI it was less than 10%.

CONCLUSION

EUS helps visualize the detailed structures of PCNs and has many advantages over CT and MRI. EUS is valuable in the diagnosis and assessment of PCNs.

Therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreaticobiliary disease: A comprehensive review

With the development of technology and accessories, the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from diagnostics to therapeutics. In order to characterise the therapeutic role of EUS, we searched Web of Knowledge database and reviewed articles associated with therapeutic EUS. There are two modalities for the therapeutic purpose: drainage and fine-needle injection. EUS-guided drainage is a promising procedure for the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collection and biliary obstruction; EUS-guided fine-needle injections such as celiac plexus neurolysis, for the purpose of pain relief for pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, has emerged as a promising procedure. The aim of the study was to perform a comprehensive and conscientious review on the techniques, complications and clinical outcomes of those EUS-based procedures.

Single-step versus 2-step management of huge pancreatic pseudocysts: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Single-step endoscopic ultrasonography-guided puncture through the stomach to insert a double-pigtail stent to drain a pseudocyst usually resulted in a high infection rate. The 2-step method, which combines the single-step method with a nasocystic drain, was created to help alleviate infections. Our study compared the 2 management strategies.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2011, patients with huge pancreatic pseudocysts were randomized into either a single-step or a 2-step treatment. Complications from infections and long-term results assessed during follow-up for the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were enrolled-23 in the single-step group and 24 in the 2-step group. There were significant differences in the infection rates (56.52 vs 20.83, P < 0.05), the average days of hospitalization (22.96 ± 2.82 days vs 10.38 ± 1.35 days, P < 0.05), postoperative hospital stay (15.31 ± 3.82 days vs 7.21 ± 1.61 days, P < 0.05), and the disappearance time of the pseudocyst (14.10 ± 2.33 weeks vs 11.70 ± 2.21 weeks, P < 0.05) between the 2 groups; however, there was no significant difference in the pseudocyst recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferred treatment of a huge pancreatic pseudocyst is a combined endoscopic ultrasonography method using 2 double-pigtail stents and a nasocystic drain.

Combined EUS-Guided Abdominal Cavity Drainage and Cystogastrostomy for the Ruptured Pancreatic Pseudocyst

Background. Endoscopic-Ultrasonography- (EUS-) guided puncture and drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst is currently one of the most widely accepted nonsurgical treatments. To date, this technique has only been used for pancreatic pseudocysts adhesive to the gastric wall. This study introduces the technique of EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage and additional EUS-guided peritoneal drainage for the ruptured pseudocyst. Methods. Transmural puncture and drainage of the cyst were performed with a 19 G needle, cystotome, and 10 Fr endoprosthesis. Intraperitoneal drainage was performed with a nasobiliary catheter when rupture of pseudocyst occurred. The entire procedure was guided by the echoendoscope. Results. A total of 21 patients, 8 men and 13 women, with a mean age of 36 years, were included in this prospective study. All of the pseudocysts were successfully drained by EUS. Peritoneal drainage was uneventfully performed in 4 patients. There were no severe complications. Complete pseudocyst resolution was established in all patients. Conclusion. The technique of EUS-guided transmural puncture and drainage, when combined with abdominal cavity drainage by a nasobiliary catheter, allows successful endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts without adherence to gastric wall.