BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The purpose of this study was to identify possible associated factors that may have contributed to failure to detect a pancreatic neoplasm during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examinations by experienced endosonographers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was organized, and 20 cases of pancreatic neoplasms missed by nine experienced endosonographers were identified. Careful analysis of each case was carried out to identify the factors that might have led to the missed diagnosis on EUS. RESULTS: Twelve patients with a missed pancreatic neoplasm had EUS features of chronic pancreatitis. Other factors that might have increased the likelihood of a false-negative EUS examination included a diffusely infiltrating carcinoma (n = 3), a prominent ventral/dorsal split (n = 2), and a recent episode (within the previous 4 weeks) of acute pancreatitis (n = 1). Five patients with a negative initial EUS underwent a follow-up EUS after 2-3 months, with a pancreatic mass being found in all cases. Three patients had a diffusely infiltrating pancreatic adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is not a foolproof method of detecting a pancreatic neoplasm. Possible associated factors that may increase the likelihood of a false-negative EUS examination include chronic pancreatitis, a diffusely infiltrating carcinoma, a prominent ventral/dorsal split and a recent episode (< 4 weeks) of acute pancreatitis. If there is a high clinical suspicion of pancreatic neoplasm, if EUS and other imaging methods are negative, and if the patient does not undergo surgery, this study suggests that a repeat EUS after 2-3 months may be useful for detecting an occult pancreatic neoplasm.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The purpose of this study was to identify possible associated factors that may have contributed to failure to detect a pancreatic neoplasm during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examinations by experienced endosonographers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was organized, and 20 cases of pancreatic neoplasms missed by nine experienced endosonographers were identified. Careful analysis of each case was carried out to identify the factors that might have led to the missed diagnosis on EUS. RESULTS: Twelve patients with a missed pancreatic neoplasm had EUS features of chronic pancreatitis. Other factors that might have increased the likelihood of a false-negative EUS examination included a diffusely infiltrating carcinoma (n = 3), a prominent ventral/dorsal split (n = 2), and a recent episode (within the previous 4 weeks) of acute pancreatitis (n = 1). Five patients with a negative initial EUS underwent a follow-up EUS after 2-3 months, with a pancreatic mass being found in all cases. Three patients had a diffusely infiltrating pancreatic adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is not a foolproof method of detecting a pancreatic neoplasm. Possible associated factors that may increase the likelihood of a false-negative EUS examination include chronic pancreatitis, a diffusely infiltrating carcinoma, a prominent ventral/dorsal split and a recent episode (< 4 weeks) of acute pancreatitis. If there is a high clinical suspicion of pancreatic neoplasm, if EUS and other imaging methods are negative, and if the patient does not undergo surgery, this study suggests that a repeat EUS after 2-3 months may be useful for detecting an occult pancreatic neoplasm.
Authors: Renu Regunathan; Jenny Woo; Mark C Pierce; Alexandros D Polydorides; Mohammad Raoufi; Sasan Roayaie; Myron Schwartz; Daniel Labow; Dongsuk Shin; Rei Suzuki; Manoop S Bhutani; Lezlee G Coghlan; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Sharmila Anandasabapathy; Michelle Kang Kim Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Leticia Perondi Luz; Mohammad Ali Al-Haddad; Michael Sai Lai Sey; John M DeWitt Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-06-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Manoop S Bhutani; Pramoda Koduru; Virendra Joshi; John G Karstensen; Adrian Saftoiu; Peter Vilmann; Marc Giovannini Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) Date: 2015-04
Authors: Ronald E Kumon; Michael J Pollack; Ashley L Faulx; Kayode Olowe; Farees T Farooq; Victor K Chen; Yun Zhou; Richard C K Wong; Gerard A Isenberg; Michael V Sivak; Amitabh Chak; Cheri X Deng Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 9.427