BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are limited data evaluating the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). We assessed the impact of EUS on management of known or suspected malignancies. METHODS: Physicians requesting EUS were contacted before the examination and asked: "How would you manage this patient if EUS were not available?" Pre-EUS responses were recorded on standardized forms, and compared with management recommendations as determined by the same requesting physician after EUS. Endosonographers performing the study were blinded to the pre-EUS responses. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from requesting physicians before and after EUS in 90 patients. Requesting physicians were composed of surgeons (33%), non-EUS-performing gastroenterologists (58%), oncologists (3%), internists (4%), and a pulmonologist (1%). After EUS, referring clinicians altered management plans in 46 of 90 patients (51%). By anatomic site, management changes occurred in 12 of 22 patients (56%) undergoing esophageal EUS, 9 of 15 (60%) undergoing gastric EUS, 21 of 43 (49%) undergoing pancreatic EUS, and 4 of 10 (40%) undergoing rectal EUS. There were no significant differences in the frequency of post-EUS management changes with respect to examination site (P = .76). EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) altered management in 9 of 20 (45%) patients. Management changes involved less complex or decreased risk-associated approaches in the majority (70%), and included 14 of 50 (28%) patients in whom surgical procedures were no longer planned. CONCLUSIONS: Based on EUS examination findings, clinicians requesting EUS alter patient management in one half of cases, and more often pursue a less-complicated approach. EUS substantially impacts clinical care, and should be used in appropriate settings to guide patient management.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are limited data evaluating the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). We assessed the impact of EUS on management of known or suspected malignancies. METHODS: Physicians requesting EUS were contacted before the examination and asked: "How would you manage this patient if EUS were not available?" Pre-EUS responses were recorded on standardized forms, and compared with management recommendations as determined by the same requesting physician after EUS. Endosonographers performing the study were blinded to the pre-EUS responses. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from requesting physicians before and after EUS in 90 patients. Requesting physicians were composed of surgeons (33%), non-EUS-performing gastroenterologists (58%), oncologists (3%), internists (4%), and a pulmonologist (1%). After EUS, referring clinicians altered management plans in 46 of 90 patients (51%). By anatomic site, management changes occurred in 12 of 22 patients (56%) undergoing esophageal EUS, 9 of 15 (60%) undergoing gastric EUS, 21 of 43 (49%) undergoing pancreatic EUS, and 4 of 10 (40%) undergoing rectal EUS. There were no significant differences in the frequency of post-EUS management changes with respect to examination site (P = .76). EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) altered management in 9 of 20 (45%) patients. Management changes involved less complex or decreased risk-associated approaches in the majority (70%), and included 14 of 50 (28%) patients in whom surgical procedures were no longer planned. CONCLUSIONS: Based on EUS examination findings, clinicians requesting EUS alter patient management in one half of cases, and more often pursue a less-complicated approach. EUS substantially impacts clinical care, and should be used in appropriate settings to guide patient management.
Authors: Rinkesh K Bansal; Narendra S Choudhary; Rajesh Puri; Saurabh K Patle; Suraj Bhagat; Mukesh Nasa; Amit Bhasin; Haimanti Sarin; Mridula Guleria; Randhir Sud Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-10-04