R A Erickson1, A A Garza. 1. Department of Medicine, Scott & White Clinic and Memorial Hospital, Scott, Sherwood and Brindley Foundation, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Temple, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration have been shown to aid in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma, whether the general use of these new techniques impacts the overall management and survival of pancreatic cancer, is less clear. METHODS: Clinical data on all patients diagnosed with pancreatic carcinoma were assessed for two equal time periods during which computerized tomography-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy was used (1/93-5/95) and then during which endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration was used (8/95-12/97) for the primary diagnosis of these patients. RESULTS: Comparative data for the computerized tomography era versus the endosonography era showed that 1) pancreatic carcinomas diagnosed: 52 versus 84 patients (stage I-III at diagnosis: 33% vs 54%; p < 0.05); 2) diagnosis by aspiration or biopsy of a pancreatic mass, nodes, liver metastasis, or by operation: 46%, 0%, 19%, 29% versus 52%, 8% (p = 0.02 nodes plus pancreatic masses), 20%, 7% (p = 0.002); 3) pancreatic resections: 13% versus 14%; 4) median survival without liver metastases: 102 versus 205 days (p < 0.02, log-rank test). Endoscopic ultrasound detected carcinomas that were either not seen or only possibly seen by computed tomography in 34%. CONCLUSIONS: More patients (62%) were diagnosed with pancreatic carcinoma when using endoscopic ultrasound and 75% fewer required operations for diagnosis. The 3-month improvement in median survival is probably multifactorial but most likely represents lead bias because of the greater sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound for pancreatic carcinoma. Using endoscopic ultrasound with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in patients with pancreatic carcinoma significantly affects their management and outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Although endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration have been shown to aid in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma, whether the general use of these new techniques impacts the overall management and survival of pancreatic cancer, is less clear. METHODS: Clinical data on all patients diagnosed with pancreatic carcinoma were assessed for two equal time periods during which computerized tomography-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy was used (1/93-5/95) and then during which endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration was used (8/95-12/97) for the primary diagnosis of these patients. RESULTS: Comparative data for the computerized tomography era versus the endosonography era showed that 1) pancreatic carcinomas diagnosed: 52 versus 84 patients (stage I-III at diagnosis: 33% vs 54%; p < 0.05); 2) diagnosis by aspiration or biopsy of a pancreatic mass, nodes, liver metastasis, or by operation: 46%, 0%, 19%, 29% versus 52%, 8% (p = 0.02 nodes plus pancreatic masses), 20%, 7% (p = 0.002); 3) pancreatic resections: 13% versus 14%; 4) median survival without liver metastases: 102 versus 205 days (p < 0.02, log-rank test). Endoscopic ultrasound detected carcinomas that were either not seen or only possibly seen by computed tomography in 34%. CONCLUSIONS: More patients (62%) were diagnosed with pancreatic carcinoma when using endoscopic ultrasound and 75% fewer required operations for diagnosis. The 3-month improvement in median survival is probably multifactorial but most likely represents lead bias because of the greater sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound for pancreatic carcinoma. Using endoscopic ultrasound with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in patients with pancreatic carcinoma significantly affects their management and outcomes.
Authors: Maria Chiara Petrone; Jan-Werner Poley; Matteo Bonzini; Ihab Abdulkader; Katharina Biermann; Genevieve Monges; Guido Rindi; Claudio Doglioni; Marco J Bruno; Marc Giovannini; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Alberto Larghi; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.623