Small and potentially resectable focal pancreatic lesions noted on CT/MRI scans in nonjaundiced patients: likelihood of neoplasia and utility of EUS

Assessing NODM Patients for Early PDAC Diagnosis: Incidence of NODM Before PDAC Diagnosis and Subsequent PDAC Risk

BACKGROUND

New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus (NODM) is often an early manifestation of pancreatic cancer (Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma, PDAC). However, there is limited information about (1) the duration prior to PDAC diagnosis when the annual incidence of NODM starts significantly exceeding that in age-matched controls, (2) the percentage of PDAC patients diagnosed with NODM in the years preceding, and (3) the risk of PDAC following NODM in time when the PDAC risk is significantly higher than in controls.

METHODS

Using the nationwide VA database, we evaluated the annual incidence of NODM for 15 years preceding the PDAC diagnosis and in the age- and sex-matched controls (1:5 matching). In the second part, we evaluated the long-term risk and predictors of PDAC in NODM patients and controls.

RESULTS

The case-control study comprised 8198 PDAC patients and 40,992 matched controls. The higher annual incidence of NODM in PDAC patients was statistically significant up to 15 years before PDAC diagnosis. 69.2% of PDAC patients had NODM in the preceding 15 years versus 38.0% of controls. PDAC risk in the 15 years following NODM was 0.60% compared to 0.13% in the controls (aHR 3.83, 95% CI 3.68-3.98, p < 0.001). The risk of PDAC is more pronounced in the 1 year following NODM (aHR 9.07, 95% CI 8.33-9.87) than the subsequent 5 years (aHR 2.98, 95% CI 2.82-3.15).

CONCLUSION

NODM pre-dates PDAC diagnosis in most patients with PDAC. Further evaluation of NODM patients for PDAC has the potential to become a feasible strategy for diagnosing more early-stage resectable PDACs.

Early detection of pancreatic tumors by advanced EUS imaging

The early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) dramatically improves outcome. All available state-of-the-art imaging methods allow early detection with EUS being the best technique for exclusion of PDAC and detection of very early PDAC. Etiological differentiation of small SPL is important to guide individually tailored patients' management including radical surgery in resectable PDAC, medical (neoadjuvant or palliative intended) treatment in patients with non-resectable malignancy, pancreatic parenchyma saving strategies in some non-PDAC, and follow-up in particular in low-grade PanNEN or other small benign lesions. Multimodality EUS imaging including B-Mode assessment, elastography, contrast-enhancement and EUS-guided sampling is the most appropriate technique for diagnosis and risk assessment of small SPL. We present a review discussing modern (endoscopic) ultrasound imaging techniques including contrast enhanced ultrasound and elastography for the early detection and characterization of solid pancreatic lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?

Endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue acquisition (EUS‐TA) is now an established technique to obtain the pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but the diagnosis of small SPLS by EUS‐TA can still be difficult. We conducted a literature review and a meta‐analysis on the diagnostic yield of EUS‐TA according to the tumor size. In a meta‐analysis of 33 studies with 6883 cases, a pooled odds ratio (OR) of sensitivity was significantly higher in SPLs of >20 mm (OR 1.64, p = 0.02) and in SPLs of >10 mm (OR 3.05, p = 0.01), but not in SPLs of >30 mm (OR 1.18, p = 0.46). The meta‐analysis of accuracy also showed a similar trend: OR of 1.59 in SPLs of >20 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 3.27 in SPLs of >10 mm (p < 0.01) and OR of 1.03 in SPLs of >30 mm (p = 0.87). The use of a 25‐gauge needle tended to improve sensitivity in small SPLs, though not statistically significant: OR of 1.25 and 2.82 in studies with and without a 25‐gauge needle (p = 0.08). The use of fine needle biopsy needles, slow pull method, and rapid on‐site evaluation did not significantly improve sensitivity in small SPLs. EUS‐TA for small SPLs, especially neuroendocrine neoplasms, is reported to have a high risk of adverse events. In summary, the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS‐TA for small (<20 mm) SPLs still needs improvement, and the best needle and technique for small SPLs should be further investigated.

Modern ultrasound imaging of pancreatic tumors

In patients with solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), the differential diagnosis must be evaluated to determine whether radical surgery, pancreatic parenchyma-saving strategies, or follow-up is indicated. Contrast-enhanced (endoscopic) ultrasonography and elastography facilitate the further characterization of SPLs. The majority of cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma exhibit hypoenhancement with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Elastographically soft SPLs are benign with very few exceptions, whereas stiffer SPLs can be malignant or benign. This article reviews the current use of modern ultrasound imaging techniques, including contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and elastography, for the detection and characterization of SPLs. In particular, the unexcelled diagnostic potential of multiparametric endoscopic ultrasonography to detect and characterize small SPLs is highlighted.

Elastography of the Pancreas, Current View

Ultrasound elastography (USE) of the pancreas allows pancreatic tissue stiffness assessment by virtual palpation. Two main types of USE are used. For the pancreas strain elastography applying by endoscopic ultrasound has been established for the characterisation of small solid pancreatic lesions (SPL). In larger SPL >30 mm the results are less convincing mainly due to the heterogenicity of the lesions but also by concomitant changes of the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma. The current role of shear wave elastography has to be determined. This article reviews the current use of elastography of the pancreas.

Endoscopic ultrasound elastography of small solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of malignancy in patients with small solid pancreatic lesions is low; however, early diagnosis is crucial for successful treatment of these cases. Therefore, a method to reliably distinguish between benign and malignant small solid pancreatic lesions would be highly desirable. We investigated the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography in this setting.

METHODS

Patients with solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 15 mm in size and a definite diagnosis were included. Lesion stiffness relative to the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma, as qualitatively assessed and documented at the time of EUS elastography, was retrospectively compared with the final diagnosis obtained by fine-needle aspiration/biopsy or surgical resection.

RESULTS

218 patients were analyzed. The average size of the lesions was 11 ± 3 mm; 23 % were ductal adenocarcinoma, 52 % neuroendocrine tumors, 8 % metastases, and 17 % other entities; 66 % of the lesions were benign. On elastography, 50 % of lesions were stiffer than the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma (stiff lesions) and 50 % were less stiff or of similar stiffness (soft lesions). High stiffness of the lesion had a sensitivity of 84 % (95 % confidence interval 73 % - 91 %), specificity of 67 % (58 % - 74 %), positive predictive value (PPV) of 56 % (50 % - 62 %), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89 % (83 % - 93 %) for the diagnosis of malignancy. For the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 96 % (87 % - 100 %), 64 % (56 % - 71 %), 45 % (40 % - 50 %), and 98 % (93 % - 100 %), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with small solid pancreatic lesions, EUS elastography can rule out malignancy with a high level of certainty if the lesion appears soft. A stiff lesion can be either benign or malignant.

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.

Novel Diagnostic and Predictive Biomarkers in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly lethal disease for a multitude of reasons including very late diagnosis. This in part is due to the lack of understanding of the biological behavior of PDAC and the ineffective screening for this disease. Significant efforts have been dedicated to finding the appropriate serum and imaging biomarkers to help early detection and predict response to treatment of PDAC. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) has been the most validated serum marker and has the highest positive predictive value as a stand-alone marker. When combined with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA 125), CA 19-9 can help predict the outcome of patients to surgery and chemotherapy. A slew of novel serum markers including multimarker panels as well as genetic and epigenetic materials have potential for early detection of pancreatic cancer, although these remain to be validated in larger trials. Imaging studies may not correlate with elevated serum markers. Critical features for determining PDAC include the presence of a mass, dilated pancreatic duct, and a duct cut-off sign. Features that are indicative of early metastasis includes neurovascular bundle involvement, duodenal invasion, and greater post contrast enhancement. 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18-FDG) radiotracer uptake and changes following treatment may predict patient overall survival following treatment. Similarly, pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values may predict prognosis with lower ADC lesions having worse outcome. Although these markers have provided significant improvement in the care of pancreatic cancer patients, further advancements can be made with perhaps better combination of markers or discovery of unique marker(s) to pancreatic cancer.

Differential diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is typically diagnosed at a late stage. Little is known about the incidental finding of early-stage PDAC. The aim of the current study was to determine the etiology of small solid pancreatic lesions (≤15 mm) to optimize clinical management.

METHODS

Inclusion criterion for the retrospective study analysis was the incidental finding of primarily undetermined small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm in 394 asymptomatic patients. Final diagnoses were based on histology or cytology obtained by imaging-guided biopsy (and at least 12-month follow-up) and/or surgery. Contrast-enhanced US or contrast-enhanced EUS was performed in 219 patients.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses of 394 patients were as follows: 146 PDACs, 156 neuroendocrine tumors, 28 metastases into the pancreas from other primary sites, and 64 various other etiologies. Contrast-enhanced US allowed differential diagnosis of PDAC and non-PDAC in 189 of 219 patients (86%).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 40% of patients with small solid pancreatic lesions had very early stage PDAC. Approximately 60% of small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm are not PDAC and, therefore, do not require radical surgery. Without preoperative diagnosis, an unacceptably large proportion of patients would be exposed to radical surgery with significant morbidity and mortality.

Increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma after acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is often the initial presentation of pancreatic cancer (pancreatic adenocarcinoma [PaCa]). We evaluated the risk of PaCa after AP.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients with AP who sought care in the Veterans Health Administration from 1998 through 2007. We excluded patients with pre-existing PaCa or recurrent AP and those who had the first episode of acute pancreatitis, from 1998 through 2000.

RESULTS

Of 495,504 patients with Veterans Health Administration inpatient and outpatient records, 5720 were diagnosed with AP (1.15%) and 710 were diagnosed with PaCa (0.14%), from 2000 through 2007. Seventy-six patients had AP within 2 years before being diagnosed with PaCa (10.7% of all patients with cancer diagnosed during that period). The risk for PaCa was greatest in the first year after AP (14.5 per 1000 patient-years) and then decreased rapidly. Risk for PaCa was negligible in patients <40 years old. The incidence of PaCa within the first year after AP was 7.69 per 1000 patient-years in fifth decade of life and reached 28.67 after the seventh decade. Time to diagnosis of PaCa after AP was ≤2 months for 34 patients, 3-12 months for 35 patients, 13-24 months for 7 patients, and >24 months for 10 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of patients with PaCa initially present with AP; the diagnosis of cancer is often delayed by up to 2 years. We suggest that PaCa be routinely considered as a potential etiology of AP in patients ≥40 years old.

Clinical approach to the patient with a solid pancreatic mass

Diagnosis and clinical work-up of a solid pancreatic mass is a challenging problem. Patients' history, laboratory parameters, computed tomography magnetic resonance imaging, and endosonography are the cornerstones in diagnosis. Biopsy is indicated in selected patients. The main goal of surgical indication is to select patients with suspected malignancy who are resectable, but avoid unnecessary resections. About 5 % of patients resected due to suspicion of malignancy finally present with a benign histology. Autoimmune pancreatitis is the most frequent cause of such unnecessary resections.