Negative predictive value of endoscopic ultrasound in a large series of patients with a clinical suspicion of pancreatic cancer

Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Common Bile Duct Dilation: A Real Breakthrough

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is important for the evaluation of patients with common bile duct (CBD) dilation.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of EUS for CBD dilation in patients with negative initial studies.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that included patients who underwent EUS for CBD dilation (≥ 7 mm if intact anatomy or ≥ 10 mm if prior cholecystectomy) in the absence of pathology on previous ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and/or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP).

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were included, among whom 41 had a positive EUS: 33 choledocholithiasis (30.3%), 6 chronic pancreatitis (5.5%), and 2 ampullary cancer (1.8%). If the EUS was negative, no pathology was found during 1-year follow-up. Older age was associated with positive EUS (79 versus 71 years, p = 0.030). Patients with jaundice, cholelithiasis, and altered liver biochemistry were 16.2 (p = 0.002), 3.1 (p = 0.024), and 2.9 (p = 0.009) times more likely to have positive EUS, respectively. A total of 53 patients had a negative MRCP (48.6%); those with biliary abdominal pain and jaundice were 15.5 (p < 0.001) and 20.0 (p = 0.007) times more likely to have positive EUS, respectively. Considering asymptomatic patients with normal liver tests, CBD diameter ≥ 10 mm in US and ≥ 11 mm in CT can predict a positive EUS (AUC 0.754, p = 0.047 and AUC 0.734, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS is a useful diagnostic method for patients with unexplained CBD dilation, even if negative MRCP, and especially in patients with older age, abdominal pain, jaundice, cholelithiasis, and/or altered liver biochemistry. CBD diameter in US and CT had a moderate discriminative ability in predicting positive EUS in asymptomatic patients without altered liver biochemistry.

Endoscopic Ultrasound in Cancer Staging

The authors review the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the staging of cancers throughout the gastrointestinal tract. EUS offers an advantage over cross-sectional imaging in locoregional tumor staging but is less sensitive in identifying distant metastasis. The addition of FNA increases diagnostic accuracy and provides a tissue diagnosis. EUS combined with cross-sectional imaging is important in accurately staging GI tumors and thereby reducing unnecessary procedures and health care costs.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Indications for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Patients with Pancreatic and Biliary Disease—Novel Interventional Procedures

There is growing evidence supporting the substantial, essential and indispensable role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as a key diagnostic armamentarium for upper GI oncologic surgery. Well described in countless publications, EUS holds that position in gastroenterological expert centers all over Europe. Despite its undisputable contributions to oncologic upper GI surgery, the availability of this technique at the expert level shows up in an irregular spread pattern. Endoscopic ultrasound’s primary use during the first few years after its creation was the detection of pancreatic cancer. From then on, EUS developed in different directions, becoming a diagnostic tool that increasingly better defines its status as a method of minimally invasive therapeutic applications and a useful addition to surgical options. As a result, several surgical interventions could even be replaced by ultrasound-targeted interventions. This process took place in just a few years and was made possible by technical development that sensibly combined high-resolution ultrasound with therapeutic endoscopy. The present article will serve to cover the most prevalent uses with supporting data considering the growing list of suggested indications for EUS while also examining cutting-edge initiatives that might soon become the standard of clinical practice. Endoscopic centers with high expertise are needed to train future experts in the growing field of EUS interventions.

Current Screening Strategies for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a dreaded malignancy with a dismal 5-year survival rate despite maximal efforts on optimizing treatment strategies. Radical surgery is the only potential curative procedure. Unfortunately, the majority of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, which renders them ineligible for curative resection. Early detection of PDAC is thus considered to be the most effective way to improve survival. In this regard, pancreatic screening has been proposed to improve results by detecting asymptomatic stages of PDAC and its precursors. There is now evidence of benefits of systematic surveillance in high-risk individuals, and the current guidelines emphasize the potential of screening to affect overall survival in individuals with genetic susceptibility syndromes or familial occurrence of PDAC. Here we aim to summarize the current knowledge about screening strategies for PDAC, including the latest epidemiological data, risk factors, associated hereditary syndromes, available screening modalities, benefits, limitations, as well as management implications.

Prognosis and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Diagnosed by Endoscopic Ultrasonography but Indeterminate on Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) provides high-resolution images and is superior to computed tomography (CT) scan in diagnosing small pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). As a result, the use of EUS for early detection of PDAC has attracted attention. This study aimed to identify the clinical and radiological characteristics of patients with PDAC diagnosed by EUS but not found on CT scan.

METHODS

The medical records of patients diagnosed with PDAC at 12 tertiary referral centers in Korea from January 2003 to April 2019 were reviewed. This study included patients with pancreatic masses not clearly observed on CT scan but identified on EUS. The clinical characteristics and radiological features of the patients were analyzed, and survival analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients were enrolled. The most common abnormal CT findings other than a definite mass was pancreatic duct dilatation, which was identified in 61 patients (73.5%). All but four patients underwent surgery. The final pathologic stages were as follows: IA (n=31, 39.2%), IB (n=8, 10.1%), IIA (n=20, 25.3%), IIB (n=17, 21.5%), III (n=2, 2.5%), and IV (n=1, 1.4%). The 5-year survival rate of these patients was 50.6% (95% confidence interval, 38.8% to 66.7%). Elevated liver function testing and R1 resection emerged as significant predictors of mortality in the multivariable Cox regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter study demonstrated favorable long-term prognosis in patients with PDAC diagnosed by EUS but indeterminate on CT scan. EUS should be considered for patients with suspected PDAC but indeterminate on CT scan.

Tumor Size Differences Between Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound and Postoperative Pathology for Neoadjuvant-Treated Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Predict Patient Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The assessment of therapeutic response after neoadjuvant treatment and pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been an ongoing challenge. Several limitations have been encountered when employing current grading systems for residual tumor. Considering endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) represents a sensitive imaging technique for PDAC, differences in tumor size between preoperative EUS and postoperative pathology after neoadjuvant therapy were hypothesized to represent an improved marker of treatment response.

METHODS

For 340 treatment-naïve and 365 neoadjuvant-treated PDACs, EUS and pathologic findings were analyzed and correlated with patient overall survival (OS). A separate group of 200 neoadjuvant-treated PDACs served as a validation cohort for further analysis.

RESULTS

Among treatment-naïve PDACs, there was a moderate concordance between EUS imaging and postoperative pathology for tumor size (r = 0.726, P < .001) and AJCC 8th edition T-stage (r = 0.586, P < .001). In the setting of neoadjuvant therapy, a decrease in T-stage correlated with improved 3-year OS rates (50% vs 31%, P < .001). Through recursive partitioning, a cutoff of ≥47% tumor size reduction was also found to be associated with improved OS (67% vs 32%, P < .001). Improved OS using a ≥47% threshold was validated using a separate cohort of neoadjuvant-treated PDACs (72% vs 36%, P < .001). By multivariate analysis, a reduction in tumor size by ≥47% was an independent prognostic factor for improved OS (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

The difference in tumor size between preoperative EUS imaging and postoperative pathology among neoadjuvant-treated PDAC patients is an important prognostic indicator and may guide subsequent chemotherapeutic management.

Current trends in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a dreaded malignancy with a dismal 5-year survival rate despite maximal efforts on optimizing treatment strategies. Currently, early detection is considered to be the most effective way to improve survival as radical resection is the only potential cure. PDAC is often divided into four categories based on the extent of disease: resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced, and metastatic. Unfortunately, the majority of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, which renders them ineligible for curative resection. This is mainly due to the lack of or vague symptoms while the disease is still localized, although appropriate utilization and prompt availability of adequate diagnostic tools is also critical given the aggressive nature of the disease. A cost-effective biomarker with high specificity and sensitivity allowing early detection of PDAC without the need for advanced or invasive methods is still not available. This leaves the diagnosis dependent on radiodiagnostic methods or endoscopic ultrasound. Here we summarize the latest epidemiological data, risk factors, clinical manifestation, and current diagnostic trends and implications of PDAC focusing on serum biomarkers and imaging modalities. Additionally, up-to-date management and therapeutic algorithms are outlined.

The role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluating patients with bile duct dilation of unclear etiology

OBJECTIVE

Bile duct dilation (BDD) of unclear etiology is a common indication for further imaging via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We aimed to assess the yield of EUS in determining BDD etiology in patients with prior non-diagnostic imaging studies.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed at a single, tertiary-care university hospital for patients referred for EUS for BDD with or without pancreatic duct dilation (PDD). EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed if a focal lesion was identified. Cases with an etiology of BDD diagnosed or strongly suggested by prior imaging were excluded. EUS findings believed to represent a structural cause for BDD included a wide range of pancreaticobiliary and luminal pathology as well as patients' clinical factors.

RESULTS

In total, 307 patients were identified. Findings to explain BDD were found by EUS in 213 patients for a diagnostic yield of 69.4%. Patients with jaundice were significantly more likely to receive a diagnosis by EUS than those without (78.8% vs 55.3%, P < 0.01). Notably, 8.1% of patients with normal liver function test (LFT) had a EUS-diagnosed malignancy. Patients' age, narcotic use, concurrent PDD and prior cholecystectomy did not appear to influence the EUS yield.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS continues to play a substantial role in evaluating BDD of unclear etiology, most notably in patients with jaundice. In addition, given that 8.1% of asymptomatic patients without jaundice or abnormal LFT had malignancy diagnosed on EUS, the use of EUS for BDD of unclear etiology remains warranted.

Haemoperitoneum after an endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of a pancreatic lesion in a peritoneal dialysis patient

Haemoperitoneum was observed in a peritoneal dialysis (PD) patient after undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA was performed to evaluate a pancreatic cyst seen on a prekidney transplant evaluation abdominal CT scan. Haemoperitoneum cleared with a PD exchange. In this case report, we discuss aetiologies for bleeding risks in patients with chronic kidney disease and focus on haemoperitoneum in patients receiving PD. We will also explore treatment options to minimise bleeding associated with an abdominal procedure such as EUS-FNA.

Outcomes of biliopancreatic EUS in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy: a multicenter study

Background and study aims  Little is known about outcomes of biliopancreatic endosonography (EUS) in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal (gastrointestinal) anatomy. We aimed to assess the rate of procedural success and EUS-related adverse events (AEs), according to post-surgical anatomies. Patients and methods  Retrospective study including patients with post-surgical altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy who underwent EUS for evaluation of the biliopancreatic region between January 2008 and June 2018 at eight European centers. Results  Of 242 patients (162 males, mean age 66.4 ± 12.5), 86 had (35.5 %) Billroth II, 77 (31.8 %) pancreaticoduodenectomy, 23 (9.5 %) Billroth I, 19 (7.9 %) distal esophagectomy, 15 (6.2 %) total gastrectomy, 14 (5.8 %) sleeve gastrectomy, and eight (3.3 %) Roux-en-Y. Sleeve gastrectomy, Billroth I, and pancreaticoduodenectomy were associated with high rates of success (100 %, 95.7 %, and 92.2 %, respectively). Visualization of the head of the pancreas was significantly impacted by total gastrectomy, Billroth II, and Roux-en-Y (success rates 6.7 %, 53.7 %, and 57.1 %, respectively). Examination of the pancreatic body and tail was impaired in esophagectomy and total gastrectomy (82.4 % and 71.4 %, respectively). Technical success and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) was 78.2 % and 71.3 % (95 % CI, 60.6-80.5), respectively. Four (1.6 %) AEs were observed: one mucosal tearing in a Billroth II patient, one cardiac arrest in a distal esophagectomy patient, one bleed after EUS-TA in a Billroth I patient, and one acute pancreatitis after EUS-TA in a sleeve gastrectomy patient. Conclusions  The yield of bilio-pancreatic EUS is dependent on lesion location and surgery type. Before considering EUS in these patients, one must carefully consider whether the lesion may be approachable by EUS.

Successful use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) on a pancreatic lesion in a peritoneal dialysis patient without interrupting treatment

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), a well-established minimally invasive gastrointestinal procedure, has been used to diagnose and stage cancers of the pancreas. We describe the successful use of EUS-FNA in a peritoneal dialysis (PD) patient to evaluate a pancreatic cyst. The patient continued on PD immediately after the procedure without using hemodialysis. The patient did not experience any complication such as infection, bleeding, or peritoneal fluid leakage.

Endoscopic Ultrasound for Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer

Detection of small pancreatic cancers, which have a better prognosis than large cancers, is needed to reduce high mortality rates. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the most sensitive imaging modality for detecting pancreatic lesions. The high resolution of EUS makes it particularly useful for detecting small pancreatic lesions that may be missed by other imaging modalities. Therefore, EUS should be performed in patients with obstructive jaundice in whom computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) does not identify a definite pancreatic lesion. Interest in the use of EUS for screening individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, including those with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) and familial pancreatic cancer is growing. Contrast-enhanced EUS can facilitate differential diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions as well as malignant cystic lesions. In addition, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration can provide samples of small pancreatic lesions. Thus, EUS and EUS-related techniques are essential for early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Endoscopic foregut surgery and interventions: The future is now. The state-of-the-art and my personal journey

In this paper, I reviewed the emerging field of endoscopic surgery and present data supporting the contention that endoscopy can now be used to treat many foregut diseases that have been traditionally treated surgically. Within each topic, the content will progress as follows: "lessons learned", "technical considerations" and "future opportunities". Lessons learned will provide a brief background and update on the most current literature. Technical considerations will include my personal experience, including tips and tricks that I have learned over the years. Finally, future opportunities will address current unmet needs and potential new areas of development. The foregut is defined as "the upper part of the embryonic alimentary canal from which the pharynx, esophagus, lung, stomach, liver, pancreas, and part of the duodenum develop". Foregut surgery is well established in treating conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), achalasia, esophageal diverticula, Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, gastric-outlet obstruction, and obesity. Over the past decade, remarkable progress in interventional endoscopy has culminated in the conceptualization and practice of endoscopic foregut surgery for various clinical conditions summarized in this paper. Regarding GERD, there are now several technologies available to effectively treat it and potentially eliminate symptoms, and the need for long-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors. For the first time, fundoplication can be performed without the need for open or laparoscopic surgery. Long-term data going out 5-10 years are now emerging showing extended durability. In respect to achalasia, per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) which was developed in Japan, has become an alternative to the traditional Heller's myotomy. Recent meta-analysis show that POEM may have better results than Heller, but the issue of post-POEM GERD still needs to be addressed. There is now a resurgence of endoscopic treatment of Zenker's diverticula with improved technique (Z-POEM) and equipment; thus, patients are choosing flexible endoscopic treatment as opposed to open or rigid endoscopy options. In regard to BE, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) which is well established in Asia, is now becoming more mainstream in the West for the treatment of BE with high grade dysplasia, as well as early esophageal cancer. In combination with all the ablation technologies (radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, hybrid argon plasma coagulation), the entire spectrum of Barrett's and related dysplasia and early cancer can be managed predominantly by endoscopy. Importantly, in regard to early gastric cancer and submucosal tumors (SMTs) of the stomach, ESD and full thickness resection (FTR) can excise these lesions en-bloc and endoscopic suturing is now used to close large defects and perforations. For treatment of patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), endoscopic gastro-jejunostomy is now showing better results than enteral stenting. G-POEM is also emerging as a treatment option for patients with gastroparesis. Obesity has become an epidemic in many western countries and is becoming also prevalent in Asia. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is now becoming an established treatment option, especially for obese patients with body mass index between 30 and 35. Data show an average weight loss of 16 kg after ESG with long-term data confirming sustainability. Finally, in respect to endo-hepatology, there are many new endoscopic interventions that have been developed for patients with liver disease. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy and EUS-guided portal pressure measurement are exciting new frontiers for the endo-hepatologists.

What should be known prior to performing EUS?

Direct referral of patients for EUS - instead of preprocedural consultation with the endosonographer - has become standard practice (like for other endoscopic procedures) as it is time- and cost-effective. To ensure appropriate indications and safe examinations, the endosonographer should carefully consider what information is needed before accepting the referral. This includes important clinical data regarding relevant comorbidities, the fitness of the patient to consent and undergo the procedure, and the anticoagulation status. In addition, relevant findings from other imaging methods to clarify the clinical question may be necessary. Appropriate knowledge and management of the patients' anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antibiotic prophylaxis, and sedation issues can avoid unnecessary delays and unsafe procedures. Insisting on optimal preparation, appropriate indications, and clear clinical referral questions will increase the quality of the outcomes of EUS. In this paper, important practical issues regarding EUS preparations are raised and discussed from different points of view.

Gastroenterology and pancreatic adenocarcinoma: what the radiologist needs to know

In this article, we review the information that radiologists need to know regarding the endoscopic approach to the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. This includes a review of the indications, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound. We also review information regarding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, including the various biliary drainage techniques and the use of endoscopic palliation for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in idiopathic pancreatitis

Recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP) is defined based on the occurrence of two or more episodes of acute pancreatitis. The initial evaluation fails to detect the cause of RAP in 10%-30% of patients, whose condition is classified as idiopathic RAP (IRAP). Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is a diagnostic challenge for gastroenterologists. In view of associated morbidity and mortality, it is important to determine the aetiology of pancreatitis to provide early treatment and prevent recurrence. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an investigation of choice for imaging of pancreas and biliary tract. In view of high diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS, a EUS based management strategy appears to be a reasonable approach for evaluation of patients with a single/recurrent idiopathic pancreatitis. The most common diagnoses by EUS in IAP is biliary tract disease. The present review aims to discuss the role of EUS in the clinical management and diagnosis of patients with IAP. It elaborates the diagnostic approach to IAP in relation to EUS and other different modalities. Controversial issues in IAP like when to perform EUS, whether to perform after first episode or recurrent episodes, comparison among different investigations and the latest evidence significance are detailed.

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.

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Pancreas Cancer in 2016: A Review

In this article, we review our multidisciplinary approach for patients with pancreatic cancer. Specifically, we review the epidemiology, diagnosis and staging, biliary drainage techniques, selection of patients for surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and discuss other palliative interventions. The areas of active research investigation and where our knowledge is limited are emphasized.

Endoscopic ultrasound of pancreatic tumors

Computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are the two most effective techniques for the assessment of pancreatic cancers. CT has revolutionized the field of tumor imaging in pancreatic cancer and is now a well-established imaging technique for diagnosis and staging. However, EUS still plays an important role in several situations, especially when the diagnosis is uncertain or when histopathological confirmation of the lesion is needed. Similarly, regarding cystic lesions, magnetic resonance imaging and CT have very good performances but are often inadequate because the diagnosis can be difficult to establish, while the consequences for the patient are major. New biopsy needles, the use of elastography and ultrasonographic contrast agents, and confocal laser endomicroscopy can also provide additional and essential information to improve diagnosis confidence of pancreatic lesions with EUS.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Technical and Procedural Variables

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has emerged over the last decade as an invaluable diagnostic tool in approaching the different pancreatic lesions. Given the safety and minimal invasiveness of this approach combined with the high diagnostic yield, it became the standard of care when dealing with different pancreatic pathologies. However, some variables regarding this procedure remain not fully understood. These can influence the diagnostic yield of the procedure and include the presence of the on-site cytopathologist, the type and size of the needle used as well as obtaining aspiration versus core biopsy, the number of passes and the sampling technique, and the role of suction and stylet use among others. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase for studies that assessed these variables. Eligible studies were analyzed using several parameters such as technique and procedure, with the aim of reviewing results from an evidence-based standpoint.

Review of current and evolving clinical indications for endoscopic ultrasound

For the first several years after its development, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was primarily limited to identification of pancreatic malignancies. Since this time, the field of EUS has advanced at a tremendous speed in terms of additional clinical diagnostic and therapeutic uses. The combination of ultrasound with endoscopy provides a unique interventional modality that is a minimally invasive alternative to various surgical interventions. Given the expanding recommended indications for EUS, this article will serve to review the most common uses with supporting evidence, while also exploring innovative endeavors that may soon become common clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound in common bile duct dilatation with normal liver enzymes

In recent years, the description of isolated bile duct dilatation has been increasingly observed in subjects with normal liver function tests and nonspecific abdominal symptoms, probably due to the widespread use of high-resolution imaging techniques. However, there is scant literature about the evolution of this condition and the impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnostic work up. When noninvasive imaging tests (transabdominal ultrasound, computed tomography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) fail to identify the cause of dilatation and clinical or biochemical alarm signs are absent, the probability of having biliary disease is considered low. In this setting, using EUS, the presence of pathologic findings (choledocholithiasis, strictures, chronic pancreatitis, ampullary or pancreatic tumors, cholangiocarcinoma), not always with a benign course, has been observed. The aim of this review has been to evaluate the prevalence of disease among non-jaundiced patients without signs of cytolysis and/or cholestasis and the assessment of EUS yield. Data point out to a promising role of EUS in the identification of a potential biliary pathology. EUS is a low invasive technique, with high accuracy, that could play a double cost-effective role: identifying pathologic conditions with dismal prognosis, in asymptomatic patients with negative prior imaging tests, and excluding pathologic conditions and further follow-up in healthy subjects.

Quantitative contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS in differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos)

BACKGROUND

The role of EUS with contrast agents can be expanded through the use of time-intensity curve (TIC) analysis and computer-aided interpretation.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the use of parameters derived from TIC analysis in an artificial neural network (ANN) classification model designed to diagnose pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP).

SETTING

Prospective, multicenter, observational trial-endoscopy units from Romania, Denmark, Germany, and Spain.

PATIENTS

A total of 167 consecutive patients with PC or CP.

INTERVENTIONS

Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), TIC analysis, and ANN processing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for EUS-FNA, CEH-EUS, and the ANN.

RESULTS

After excluding all of the recordings that did not meet the technical and procedural criteria, 112 cases of PC and 55 cases of CP were included. EUS-FNA was performed in 129 patients, and the diagnosis was confirmed by surgery (n = 15) or follow-up (n = 23) in the remaining cases. Its sensitivity and specificity were 84.82% and 100%, respectively, whereas the PPV and NPV were 100% and 76.63%, respectively. The sensitivity of real-time quantitative assessment of CEH-EUS was 87.5%, specificity 92.72%, PPV 96.07%, and NPV 78.46%. Peak enhancement, wash-in area under the curve, wash-in rate, and the wash-in perfusion index were significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were found between rise time, mean transit time, and time to peak. For the ANN, sensitivity was 94.64%, specificity 94.44%, PPV 97.24%, and NPV 89.47%.

LIMITATIONS

Only PC and CP lesions were included.

CONCLUSION

Parameters obtained through TIC analysis can differentiate between PC and CP cases and can be used in an automated computer-aided diagnostic system with good diagnostic results. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01315548.).

Pancreatic cancer: current understanding of molecular and genetic aetiologies

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the few cancers where prognosis has not improved over the past few decades. However, there have been several advances in our understanding of the disease leading to earlier detection and targeted therapeutic treatment. It is now understood that specific somatic and germline mutations lead to the development of the disease, and the risk factors associated with this are clearer. Further, several precursor lesions have been identified which, with early detection and surveillance, allows treatment before the development of carcinoma. PDAC can now be diagnosed with a high sensitivity and specificity following advances in radiology, and treatment can be commenced at an earlier stage of the disease. With continued research we are hopeful that the next decade will see an improved survival rate for all patients with pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with papillary biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic biopsy in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

International consensus diagnostic criteria (ICDC) have been proposed for the diagnostic criteria and algorithm of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). Although endoscopy is important in the diagnosis of AIP, practical patterns of its usage vary considerably worldwide. This study aimed to compare endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with papillary biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsy for diagnosing AIP using ICDC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed and classified 165 Korean patients diagnosed by Korean criteria from June 2007 to October 2013. Among them, 61 patients underwent ERCP with duodenal papillary biopsy (group A) and 62 patients underwent EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy (group B). We analyzed the diagnostic criteria and levels of each criterion, and type of AIP before and after endoscopic procedures.

RESULTS

ERCP with papillary biopsy increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 65.6% (40/61) to 95.1% (58/61) (P < 0.01). EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 50.0% (27/62) to 88.7% (55/62) (P < 0.01). The increases of diagnostic sensitivity in two endoscopic methods were not different statistically. In diagnosing definite AIP, EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy was more useful than ERCP with papilla biopsy (sensitivity; 79.0% vs. 65.6%, P < 0.01). EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy was helpful to classify type 1 and type 2 AIP in some patients. Procedure-related complication (mild pancreatitis) developed in one patient (1.6%) in group A and two patients (3.2%) in group B. ERCP with papillary biopsy was less expensive than EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ERCP with papillary biopsy and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy are safe and play important roles in diagnosing AIP according to the ICDC.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of chronic upper abdominal pain of unknown etiology: a retrospective chart review examining the efficacy of EUS in determining a new diagnosis

GOALS

To explore the utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the evaluation of chronic upper abdominal pain (UAP) of undetermined etiology.

BACKGROUND

Chronic UAP is a common problem with a challenging diagnosis and management. The role of EUS in the diagnosis of UAP may minimize additional testing; however, few studies describe the percentage of new diagnoses yielded in these patients.

STUDY

We conducted a retrospective analysis by reviewing electronic medical records at Scott and White Memorial Hospital, Texas A&M Health Sciences Center for patients with abdominal pain for ≥ 12 months not explained by previous workup referred for EUS for chronic UAP from January 1, 1998 through October 1, 2007. Patients with previous EUS in past 12 months were excluded from the study. Patient demographic data and imaging performed 6 months before and 24 months after EUS were reviewed and results documented.

RESULTS

EUS was successful at diagnosing a new clinical etiology of chronic UAP in 33 patients (8.89%) with previous workup that was unrevealing for a definitive diagnosis. The most frequent diagnoses included pancreaticobiliary tree abnormalities, chronic pancreatitis, and fatty liver disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the fact that the majority of patients UAP with prior imaging will have no identifiable organic etiology found on EUS to explain their pain; however, we suggest that EUS be considered in patients with suspected pancreatic or biliary pathology.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration has become the main technique for evaluating pancreatobiliary disorders and has proved to have a higher diagnostic yield than positron emission tomography, computed tomography (CT) and transabdominal ultrasound for recognising early pancreatic tumors. As a diagnostic modality for pancreatic cancer, EUS has proved rates higher than 90%, especially for lesions less than 2-3 cm in size in which it reaches a sensitivity rate of 99% vs 55% for CT. Besides, EUS has a very high negative predictive value and thus EUS can reliably exclude pancreatic cancer. The complication rate of EUS is as low as 1.1%-3.0%. New technical developments such as elastography and the use of contrast agents have recently been applied to EUS, improving its diagnostic capability. EUS has been found to be superior to the recent multidetector CT for T staging with less risk of overstaying in comparison to both CT and magnetic resonance imaging, so that patients are not being ruled out of a potentially beneficial resection. The accuracy for N staging with EUS is 64%-82%. In unresectable cancers, EUS also plays a therapeutic role by means of treating oncological pain through celiac plexus block, biliary drainage in obstructive jaundice in patients where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is not affordable and aiding radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Unexplained common bile duct dilatation with normal serum liver enzymes: diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound and follow-up of this condition

BACKGROUND

There is scant literature about common bile duct (CBD) dilatation with normal liver function tests (LFTs).

AIMS

The aims of this study were to assess the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in patients with CBD dilatation, normal LFTs, and prior inconclusive imaging tests, and to assess the natural history of these subjects.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our EUS database for patients referred for evaluation of CBD dilatation, normal LFTs, and prior inconclusive imaging. We excluded patients with a prior endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or a history of biliary obstruction, pancreatitis, or jaundice. Follow-up data were retrieved from medical records or by calling the general practitioners, referring specialists, patients, or their closest relatives.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients were enrolled. The mean CBD diameter was 12.5±3.6 mm. The majority of patients (50.8%) were asymptomatic. Abnormal EUS findings were recorded in 12 (21%) subjects: 6 patients had a periampullary diverticulum, 2 had ampullary adenoma, 2 had signs of chronic pancreatitis, 1 had a cancer of the pancreatic head, and 1 had a 7 mm CBD stone. Neither age, sex, prior cholecystectomy, clinical presentation, CBD diameter, nor a dilated main pancreatic duct were predictors of abnormal EUS findings. None of the patients complained of biliary symptoms or showed abnormal LFTs on long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

CBD dilatation with normal liver chemistry is not always a benign condition. Even when prior imaging tests are negative, EUS may allow to diagnose conditions overlooked by standard diagnostic imaging.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic disease

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an important part of modern gastrointestinal endoscopy and now has an integral role in the diagnostic evaluation of pancreatic diseases. Furthermore, as EUS technology has advanced, it has increasingly become a therapeutic procedure, and the prospect of multiple applications of interventional EUS for the pancreas is truly on the near horizon. However, this review focuses on the established diagnostic and therapeutic roles of EUS that are used in current clinical practice. In particular, the diagnostic evaluation of acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, cystic pancreatic lesions and solid masses of the pancreas are discussed. The newer enhanced imaging modalities of elastography and contrast enhancement are evaluated in this context. The main therapeutic aspects of pancreatic EUS are then considered, namely celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis for pain control in chronic pancreatitis and pancreas cancer, and EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections.

Endoscopic ultrasonography for surveillance of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal disease with a genetic susceptibility and familial aggregation found in 3%-16% of patients. Early diagnosis remains the only hope for curative treatment and improvement of prognosis. This can be reached by the implementation of an intensive screening program, actually recommended for individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer development. The aim of this strategy is to identify pre-malignant precursors or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer lesions, curable by surgery. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (FNA) seems to be the most promising technique for early detection of pancreatic cancer. It has been described as a highly sensitive and accurate tool, especially for small and cystic lesions. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, a precursor lesion which is highly represented in high-risk individuals, seems to have characteristics chronic pancreatitis-like changes well detected by EUS. Many screening protocols have demonstrated high diagnostic yields for pancreatic pre-malignant lesions, allowing prophylactic pancreatectomies. However, it shows a high interobserver variety even among experienced endosonographers and a low sensitivity in case of chronic pancreatitis. Some new techniques such as contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS, computer-aided diagnostic techniques, confocal laser endomicroscopy miniprobe and the detection of DNA abnormalities or protein markers by FNA, promise improvement of the diagnostic yield of EUS. As the resolution of imaging improves and as our knowledge of precursor lesions grows, we believe that EUS could become the most suitable method to detect curable pancreatic neoplasms in correctly identified asymptomatic at-risk patients.

Endoscopic ultrasound and pancreatic applications: what the radiologist needs to know

As the technology has improved, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has taken on an important role in the diagnosis of a number of different neoplastic and non-neoplastic pancreatic diseases. EUS can provide high-resolution images with subtle anatomic detail, and has also taken on an important role in the targeted biopsy of the pancreas and adjacent structures. This review seeks to familiarize radiologists with the role of EUS in the diagnosis of chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis, solid pancreatic masses, and cystic pancreatic neoplasms.

When to puncture, when not to puncture: Pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved to become a crucial tool for the evaluation of pancreatic diseases, among them solid pancreatic lesions. However, its ability to determine whether a lesion is malignant or not is difficult to establish based only in the endosonographic image. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows obtaining a cytological and/or histological sample from pancreatic lesions, with a high overall accuracy and low complication rates. Although the clinical usefulness of EUS-FNA for pancreatic diseases is widely accepted, the indications for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic lesions suspected to be malignant is still controversial. This review highlights the diagnostic accuracy and complications of EUS-FNA, focusing on its current indications.

Influence of the safety and diagnostic accuracy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for resectable pancreatic cancer on clinical performance

AIM

To evaluate the safety and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a cohort of pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

Of 213 patients with pancreatic cancer evaluated between April 2007 and August 2011, 82 were thought to have resectable pancreatic cancer on the basis of cross-sectional imaging findings. Of these, 54 underwent EUS-FNA before surgery (FNA+ group) and 28 underwent surgery without preoperative EUS-FNA (FNA- group).

RESULTS

All 54 lesions were visible on EUS, and all 54 attempts at FNA were technically successful. The diagnostic accuracy according to cytology and histology findings was 98.1% (53/54) and 77.8% (42/54), respectively, and the total accuracy was 98.1% (53/54). One patient developed mild pancreatitis after EUS-FNA but was successfully treated by conservative therapy. No severe complications occurred after EUS-FNA. In the FNA+ and FNA- groups, the median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 742 and 265 d, respectively (P = 0.0099), and the median overall survival (OS) was 1042 and 557 d, respectively (P = 0.0071). RFS and OS were therefore not inferior in the FNA+ group. These data indicate that the use of EUS-FNA did not influence RFS or OS, nor did it increase the risk of peritoneal recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, preoperative EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate diagnostic method.

[The role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal disorders]

Endoscopic ultrasound is one of those diagnostic methods in gastrointestinal endoscopy which has developed rapidly in the last decade and has became exceedingly available to visualize the walls of the internal organs in details corresponding to histological layers, or analyze the adjacent structures. Fine needles and other endoscopic accessories can be introduced into the neighbouring tissues under the guidance of endoscopic ultrasound, and diagnostic and minimally invasive therapeutic interventions can be performed. The endoscopic ultrasound became more widely available in Hungary in recent years. This review focuses on the indications, benefits and complications of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound. We recommend this article to gastroenterologists, surgeons, internists, pulmonologists, and to specialists in oncology and radiology. This recommendation was based on the consensus of the Board members of the Endoscopic Ultrasound Section of the Hungarian Gastroenterological Society.

Diagnostic evaluation of solid pancreatic masses

Determining the etiology of a solid pancreatic lesion is a critical first step toward developing an appropriate treatment plan for patients with a benign or malignant pancreatic mass. Technological advances in cross-sectional and endoscopic imaging modalities offer pancreatic imaging options with degrees of resolution that were not available even 15-20 years ago. In most cases, the nature of a solid pancreatic mass can be determined using computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration. Knowledge about the basics of these modalities, as well as their strengths and limitations, plays an important role in understanding how patients with solid pancreatic masses should be evaluated.

Utility of serum CA19-9 levels in the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in an endoscopic ultrasound referral population

PURPOSE

Recent data suggest the use of carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 as a potential marker in the early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when used in the appropriate clinical setting. Here, we assess the utility of CA19-9 in PDAC detection in a select population of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) referrals.

METHODS

Retrospective review of an institutional EUS Pancreas Registry containing cases referred from November 2002 to November 2011 was completed for categorical analyses with CA19-9 level. A separate case-control study for the subset of non-elevated CA19-9 PDAC population was also performed to characterize the clinical features in this unique group of patients.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-three patients had available CA19-9 data in the registry and were included in the study. Compared to the typical PDAC distribution, the proportion of patients with stage I disease was significantly higher in our registry population (P < 0.0001). Elevated CA19-9 levels most often reflected a diagnosis of PDAC relative to other pancreaticobiliary diagnoses. However, we observed that 15 % of patients with PDAC had normal CA19-9 levels. Clinical characteristics for this false-negative PDAC group compared to the true-positive group demonstrated a predilection for detection of cancer in the body/tail of the pancreas (P = 0.03), increased likelihood of lymph node metastases (P = 0.03), and initial presentation with vague abdominal pain or pancreatic mass as an incidental finding on imaging studies (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated CA19-9 demonstrated a greater likelihood of PDAC diagnosis relative to benign pancreatic pathology, and higher levels of CA19-9 were in line with worse PDAC stage. Patients with normal CA19-9 PDAC may represent a unique subclass of patients, presenting with atypical clinical features, and possibly more advanced stage disease at the time of diagnosis. These patients may benefit from more diligent EUS examination or perhaps closer follow-up management.

Autoimmune pancreatitis: role of endoscopy in diagnosis and treatment

This review addresses the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and provides a diagnostic process for patients with suspected AIP. When should AIP be suspected? When can it be diagnosed without endoscopic examination? Which endoscopic approaches are appropriate in suspected AIP, and when? What are the roles of diagnostic endoscopic retrograde pancreatography, endoscopic biopsies, and IgG4 immunostaining? What is the proper use of the steroid trial in the diagnosis of AIP in patients with indeterminate computed tomography imaging? Should biliary stenting be performed in patients with AIP with obstructive jaundice?

Technical Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Pancreatic Cancers: How Can We Get the Best Results with EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration?

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is one of the least invasive and most effective modality in diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma in solid pancreatic lesions, with a higher diagnostic accuracy than cystic tumors. EUS-FNA has been shown to detect tumors less than 3 mm, due to high spatial resolution allowing the detection of very small lesions and vascular invasion, particularly in the pancreatic head and neck, which may not be detected on transverse computed tomography. Furthermore, this minimally invasive procedure is often ideal in the endoscopic procurement of tissue in patients with unresectable tumors. While EUS-FNA has been increasingly used as a diagnostic tool, most studies have collectively looked at all primary pancreatic solid lesions, including lymphomas and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, whereas very few studies have examined the diagnostic utility of EUS-FNA of pancreatic ductal carcinoma only. As with any novel and advanced endoscopic procedure that may incorporate several practices and approaches, endoscopists have adopted diverse techniques to improve the tissue procurement practice and increase diagnostic accuracy. In this article, we present a review of literature to date and discuss currently practiced EUS-FNA technique, including indications, technical details, equipment, patient selection, and diagnostic accuracy.

Use of EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic neoplasm without a definitive mass on CT

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasm is challenging in patients with inconclusive findings on pancreatic multidetector row CT (MDCT).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy and to identify predictors of pancreatic neoplasm by EUS with FNA in this setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review during the study period of January 2002 to December 2010.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Of the 1046 patients who underwent pancreatic EUS, 116 patients were selected because their clinical presentation was suspicious for pancreatic malignancy, but their MDCT findings were inconclusive.

INTERVENTION

EUS with FNA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnostic yield of malignancy and significance of clinical variables.

RESULTS

When surgical pathology or subsequent clinical course was used as the criterion standard, EUS with FNA had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of 87.3%, 98.3%, 98.5%, and 92.1%, respectively, in diagnosing a pancreatic neoplasm that was indeterminate on MDCT. Factors significantly associated with EUS detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were total bilirubin level greater than 2 mg/dL (P < .001), CT finding of pancreatic duct dilation (P < .001), bile duct stricture (P < .001), and tumor size 1.5 cm or larger detected by EUS (P = .004). Among them, pancreatic duct dilation on CT (odds ratio 4.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-11.05), and tumor size 1.5 cm or larger detected by EUS (odds ratio 8.46; 95% confidence interval, 2.02-35.45) were independent risk factors.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design and patient referral bias.

CONCLUSIONS

When MDCT is indeterminate, EUS is a highly sensitive and accurate modality for the detection of pancreatic neoplasm, especially when the tumor is smaller than 2.0 cm.

Current status on the diagnosis and evaluation of pancreatic tumor in Asia with particular emphasis on the role of endoscopic ultrasound

In Asia, the incidence of pancreatic cancer in some countries has been increasing. Owing to most cases being diagnosed late, prognosis for pancreatic cancer remains dismal. It is clear that the future for pancreatic cancer lies in early detection. While the possible presence of pancreatic masses is often first raised by non-invasive abdominal imaging, such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, smaller lesions and locoregional lymph node metastases are often not detectable by these means. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) offers a higher sensitivity (93-100%) for detection of small potentially curable pancreatic masses than other existing imaging modalities. It is also recommended for the evaluation of portal vein confluence, portal vein, celiac axis, and superior mesentric artery origin, and exclusion of resectability. Due to the closer proximity of EUS to the target structure, and lower rate of needle tract seeding, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic mass is considered the most suitable tissue acquisition technique. Lastly, EUS also enables the performance of endoscopic interventions. Its performance can be further enhanced with newer techniques, including contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastrography. It is anticipated that in the near future, molecular technologies may make it possible to detect microscopic amounts of cancer in tissue or blood, predict relapse and survival after therapy, as well as determine optimal therapy.