Acute portal vein thrombosis after EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cancer: case report

Efficacy and safety of pancreatic juice cytology by using synthetic secretin in the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is difficult to detect in its early stages with the poorest prognosis of all cancers. To improve the prognosis, a precise diagnosis is needed when we suspect PDAC. Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is a widely accepted modality for the diagnosis of PDAC, its sensitivity is 85-89%, and approximately 10% of PDAC cases cannot be diagnosed. The main causes that interrupt the diagnosis of PDAC by using EUS-FNA are tumor size, presence of a vessel or the main pancreatic duct along the puncture route, and difficulty in withdrawing anticoagulant. Pancreatic juice cytology (PJC), the sensitivity of which is 33.3-65.8%, is a method for the diagnosis of PDAC cases in which carrying out of EUS-FNA is difficult. To diagnose PDAC appropriately, we need to improve the diagnostic ability of PJC.

METHODS

We examined PJC using synthetic secretin for 138 cases of pancreatic tumor and pancreatic non-cancerous diseases.

RESULTS

Sensitivity of PJC improved from 50.9% to 74.0% as a result of synthetic secretin loading, and 13 PDAC cases that had not been able to be diagnosed with EUS-FNA could be diagnosed pathologically by PJC. Although there were 12 patients with mild pancreatitis (8.7%) as a complication, all were relieved with conservative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Adding synthetic secretin to PJC is useful for cases in which it is difficult to carry out EUS-FNA for PDAC.

Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: diagnosis, natural history, and therapeutic challenges

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a frequent complication in cirrhosis and its prevalence increases with disease severity. Several factors are involved in the development and progression of PVT. The challenge for the management of PVT is the precise evaluation of the bleeding risk as opposed to life-threatening extension of thrombosis. Nevertheless, the impact on the progression and outcome of liver disease is unclear. A critical evaluation of the available data discloses that treating PVT in cirrhotics is safe and effective. However, there are open issues, such as which anticoagulant could represent a safer therapeutic option, and when and for how long this treatment should be administered to cirrhotic patients with PVT.

Role of the preoperative usefulness of the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic diseases

Pancreatic cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death and has the lowest survival rate of any solid cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is currently capable of providing a cytopathological diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies with a higher diagnostic power, with a sensitivity and specificity of 85%-89% and 98%-99%, compared to pancreatic juice cytology (PJC), whose sensitivity and specificity are only 33.3%-93% and 83.3%-100%. However, EUS-FNA is not effective in the cases of carcinoma in situ and minimally invasive carcinoma because both are undetectable by endoscopic ultrasonography, although PJC is able to detect them. As for the frequency of complications such as post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, EUS-FNA is safer than PJC. To diagnose pancreatic cancer appropriately, it is necessary for us to master both procedures so that we can select the best methods of sampling tissues while considering the patient’s safety and condition.

Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: Controversies and latest developments

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is encountered in liver cirrhosis, particularly in advanced disease. It has been a feared complication of cirrhosis, attributed to significant worsening of liver disease, poorer clinical outcomes and potential inoperability at liver transplantation; also catastrophic events such as acute intestinal ischaemia. Optimal management of PVT has not yet been addressed in any consensus publication. We review current literature on PVT in cirrhosis; its prevalence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, impact on the natural history of cirrhosis and liver transplantation, and management. Studies were identified by a search strategy using MEDLINE and Google Scholar. The incidence of PVT increases with increasing severity of liver disease: less than 1% in well-compensated cirrhosis, 7.4%-16% in advanced cirrhosis. Prevalence in patients undergoing liver transplantation is 5%-16%. PVT frequently regresses instead of uniform thrombus progression. PVT is not associated with increased risk of mortality. Optimal management has not been addressed in any consensus publication. We propose areas for future research to address unresolved clinical questions.

Portal vein thrombosis

Portal vein thrombosis is an important cause of portal hypertension. PVT occurs in association with cirrhosis or as a result of malignant invasion by hepatocellular carcinoma or even in the absence of associated liver disease. With the current research into its genesis, majority now have an underlying prothrombotic state detectable. Endothelial activation and stagnant portal blood flow also contribute to formation of the thrombus. Acute non-cirrhotic PVT, chronic PVT (EHPVO), and portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis are the three main variants of portal vein thrombosis with varying etiological factors and variability in presentation and management. Procoagulant state should be actively investigated. Anticoagulation is the mainstay of therapy for acute non-cirrhotic PVT, with supporting evidence for its use in cirrhotic population as well. Chronic PVT (EHPVO) on the other hand requires the management of portal hypertension as such and with role for anticoagulation in the setting of underlying prothrombotic state, however data is awaited in those with no underlying prothrombotic states. TIPS and liver transplant may be feasible even in the setting of PVT however proper selection of candidates and type of surgery is warranted. Thrombolysis and thrombectomy have some role. TARE is a new modality for management of HCC with portal vein invasion.

Review article: portal vein obstruction--epidemiology, pathogenesis, natural history, prognosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

Portal vein obstruction may be due to portal vein thrombosis (PVT) or its sequale, the portal cavernoma. PVT is a common complication in liver cirrhosis, however, it may also occur as a primary vascular disorder, in absence of any liver disease.

AIM

To review the current knowledge on nomenclature, etiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic workup and management of adult patients with obstruction in the portal vein, either as a primary vascular disease in adults, or as a complication of liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

A structured search in PubMed was performed using defined keywords (portal vein obstruction, extra-hepatic portal vein obstruction, PVT and portal cavernoma), including full text articles and abstracts in English language.

RESULTS

Several causes, operating both at local and systemic level, might play an important role in the pathogenesis of PVT. Frequently, more than one risk factor could be identified; however, occasionally no single factor is discernible. Diagnosis of portal vein obstruction depends on clinical presentation, imaging and laboratory investigations. Prompt treatment greatly affects the patient's outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal vein obstruction occurring either due to thrombosis in the portal vein or due to the portal cavernoma, can contribute to significant morbidity and mortality in patients with or without cirrhosis. In recent years our understanding of etio-pathogenesis of portal vein obstruction has evolved tremendously, which has led to significant improvement in treatment outcomes. There are still areas where more studies are needed to better clarify the management issues of portal vein obstruction.

Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience

BACKGROUND

Several studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions, but they have included only limited patient populations. This study aimed to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in a large number of pancreatic lesions, and to describe the factors that influence it.

METHODS

From March 1997 to May 2010, 944 consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions were evaluated retrospectively. Factors affecting EUS-FNA accuracy were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 996 solid pancreatic lesions were sampled by EUS-FNA. The overall sampling adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of these lesions were 99.3 % (989/996) and 91.8 % (918/996), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating malignant from benign lesions were 91.5 % (793/867) and 97.7 % (126/129), respectively. The diagnostic performance was significantly higher when both cytological and cell-block examinations were carried out than with only cytological examination. In multivariate analysis, final diagnosis, location of lesion, lesion size, availability of on-site cytopathological evaluation, and experience of EUS-FNA procedure were independent factors affecting the accuracy of EUS-FNA. On-site cytopathological evaluation and lesion size were found to be the most weighted factors affecting diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid lesions yielded a high accuracy and low complication rate. Both cytological and cell-block preparations and on-site cytopathological evaluation contributed to improve the accuracy. The diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA was less for smaller lesions, and repeated procedures may be needed if malignancy is suspected.

Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has gained wide acceptance as an important, minimally invasive diagnostic tool in gastroenterology, pulmonology, visceral surgery and oncology. This review focuses on data regarding risks and complications of non-interventional diagnostic EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Measures to improve the safety of EUS und EUS-FNB will be discussed. Due to the specific mechanical properties of echoendoscopes in EUS, there is a low but noteworthy risk of perforation. To minimize this risk, endoscopists should be familiar with the specific features of their equipment and their patients’ specific anatomical situations (e.g., tumor stenosis, diverticula). Most diagnostic EUS complications occur during EUS-FNB. Pain, acute pancreatitis, infection and bleeding are the primary adverse effects, occurring in 1% to 2% of patients. Only a few cases of needle tract seeding and peritoneal dissemination have been reported. The mortality associated with EUS and EUS-FNB is 0.02%. The risks associated with EUS-FNB are affected by endoscopist experience and target lesion. EUS-FNB of cystic lesions is associated with an increased risk of infection and hemorrhage. Peri-interventional antibiotics are recommended to prevent cyst infection. Adequate education and training, as well consideration of contraindications, are essential to minimize the risks of EUS and EUS-FNB. Restricting EUS-FNB only to patients in whom the cytopathological results may be expected to change the course of management is the best way of reducing the number of complications.

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is characterized by an increase in portal pressure (> 10 mmHg) and could be a result of cirrhosis of the liver or of noncirrhotic diseases. When portal hypertension occurs in the absence of liver cirrhosis, noncirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) must be considered. The prognosis of this disease is much better than that of cirrhosis. Noncirrhotic diseases are the common cause of portal hypertension in developing countries, especially in Asia. NCPH is a heterogeneous group of diseases that is due to intrahepatic or extrahepatic etiologies. In general, the lesions in NCPH are vascular in nature and can be classified based on the site of resistance to blood flow. In most cases, these disorders can be explained by endothelial cell lesions, intimal thickening, thrombotic obliterations, or scarring of the intrahepatic portal or hepatic venous circulation. Many different conditions can determine NCPH through the association of these various lesions in various degrees. Many clinical manifestations of NCPH result from the secondary effects of portal hypertension. Patients with NCPH present with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, splenomegaly, ascites after gastrointestinal bleeding, features of hypersplenism, growth retardation, and jaundice due to portal hypertensive biliopathy. Other sequelae include hyperdynamic circulation, pulmonary complications, and other effects of portosystemic collateral circulation like portosystemic encephalopathy. At present, pharmacologic and endoscopic treatments are the treatments of choice for portal hypertension. The therapy of all disorders causing NCPH involves the reduction of portal pressure by pharmacotherapy or portosystemic shunting, apart from prevention and treatment of complications of portal hypertension.

The role of linear array EUS for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies in the current situation

Over the last few decades, the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies has greatly increased by allowing earlier diagnosis and appropriate staging. The development of linear array EUS also allows fine needle aspiration (FNA) to be carried out under real-time EUS guidance and offers definitive diagnosis, which has fundamentally changed the diagnostic approach to pancreatic malignancies. Moreover, linear array EUS with the EUS-FNA technique has a therapeutic application that has expanded the role of this procedure in the management of pancreatic malignancies. This review will focus on the features of linear array EUS and discuss the current role of linear array EUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic cancer

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) represents the combination of endoscopy and intraluminal ultrasonography. This allows use of a high-frequency transducer (5-20 MHz) that, due to the short distance to the target lesion, provides ultrasonographic images of higher resolution than those obtained from other imaging modalities, including multiple-detector-row-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. EUS is now a widely accepted modality for diagnosing pancreatic diseases. However, the most important limitation of EUS has been the lack of specificity in differentiating between benign and malignant changes. In 1992, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of lesions in the pancreas head was introduced into clinical practice, using a curved linear-array echoendoscope. Since then, EUS has evolved from EUS imaging to EUS-FNA and wider applications. Interventional EUS for pancreatic cancer includes EUS-FNA, EUS-guided fine needle injection, EUS-guided biliary drainage and anastomosis, EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, radiofrequency ablation, brachytherapy, and delivery of a growing number of anti-tumor agents. This review focuses on interventional EUS, including EUS-FNA and therapeutic EUS for pancreatic cancer.

Review article: the modern management of portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is an important cause of portal hypertension. It may occur as such with or without associated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Information on its management is scanty.

AIM

To provide an update on the modern management of portal vein thrombosis. Information on portal vein thrombosis in patients with and without cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma is also updated.

METHODS

A pubmed search was performed to identify the literature using search items portal vein thrombosis-aetiology and treatment and portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

Portal vein thrombosis occurs because of local inflammatory conditions in the abdomen and prothrombotic factors. Acute portal vein thrombosis is usually symptomatic when associated with cirrhosis and/or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis. Anticoagulation should be given for 3-6 months if detected early. If prothrombotic factors are identified, anticoagulation should be given lifelong. Chronic portal vein thrombosis usually presents with well tolerated upper gastrointestinal bleed. It is diagnosed by imaging, which demonstrates a portal cavernoma in place of a portal vein. Anticoagulation does not have a definite role, but bleeds can be treated with endotherapy or shunt surgery. Rarely liver transplantation may be considered.

CONCLUSION

Role of anticoagulation in chronic portal vein thrombosis needs to be further studied.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the combination of endoscopy and intraluminal ultrasonography. This allows use of a high frequency transducer, which, due to the short distance to the target lesion, enables ultrasonographic images of high resolution to be obtained. Endoscopic ultrasonography is now a widely accepted modality for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases. It can be used to determine the depth of invasion of gastrointestinal malignancies, and often for visualizing lesions more precisely than other imaging modalities. The most important early limitation of EUS was the lack of specificity in the differentiation between benign and malignant changes. In 1992, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lesions in the pancreas head has been made possible using a curved linear array echoendoscope. Since then, many researchers have expanded the indication of EUS-FNA to various kinds of lesions and also for a variety of therapeutic purposes. In this review, we particularly focus on the present and future roles of interventional EUS, including EUS-FNA and therapeutic EUS.

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is characterized by an increase in portal pressure (>10 mm Hg) and could be a result of cirrhosis of the liver or noncirrhotic diseases. Noncirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH), as it generally is termed, is a heterogeneous group of diseases that is due to intrahepatic or extrahepatic etiologies. In general, the lesions in NCPH are vascular in nature and can be classified based on the site of resistance to blood flow. Noncirrhotic portal fibrosis and extrahepatic portal vein obstruction are two diseases that are common in developing countries; they most often present only with features of portal hypertension and not of parenchymal dysfunction. These are described in detail.

Review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology

This review, based on the Hennepin County Medical Center experience and review of the literature, vastly covers the up-to-date role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in evaluating tumorous lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. Emphasis is given to the tumoral and nodal staging of esophageal, pulmonary, and pancreatic cancer. This review also discusses technical, pathological, and gastroenterologic aspects and the role of the pathologist and endosonographer in the evaluation of these lesions, as well as the corresponding FNA cytology and differential diagnosis.

Review article: portal vein thrombosis -- new insights into aetiology and management

Portal vein thrombosis may occur in the presence or absence of underlying liver disease, and a combination of local and systemic factors are increasingly recognized to be important in its development. Acute and chronic portal vein thrombosis have traditionally been considered separately, although a clear clinical distinction may be difficult. Gastrooesophageal varices are an important complication of portal vein thrombosis, but they follow a different natural history to those with portal hypertension related to cirrhosis. Consensus on optimal treatment continues to be hampered by a lack of randomized trials, but recent studies demonstrate the efficacy of thrombolytic therapy in acute thrombosis, and the apparent safety and benefit of anticoagulation in patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis.