AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), fluid tumor markers and cytology in distinguishing benign from (pre)malignant pancreatic cystic lesions. METHODS: 46 consecutive patients, referred to a gastroenterologist and surgeon for a symptomatic or incidental pancreatic cyst, were reviewed. EUS, cytology, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA 19-9) levels were compared with the final diagnosis, based on surgical pathology and/or imaging follow-up of at least 12 mo. Cysts were classified as benign (pseudocyst, serous cystadenoma) or malignant/pre-malignant (mucinous cystic neoplasm). Receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 years; 29% were male and median cyst diameter was 3 cm. Final outcome was obtained in 41 (89%) patients. Twenty-three (56%) of these 41 had surgical pathology. Twenty-three (56%) had benign lesions and 18 (44%) had malignant/pre-malignant lesions. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value of EUS alone to distinguish benign from malignant/premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions were 50%, 56%, 36% and 54% and for cytology were 71%, 96%, 92% and 85%, respectively. The corresponding values for the ROC-derived ideal cutoffs were 75%, 90%, 75%, 90% for CA 19-9 (> 37 U/mL) and 70%, 85%, 79% and 78% for CEA (> 3.1 ng/mL). Subgroup analysis of those with surgical pathology yielded almost identical performance and cutoffs. CONCLUSION: Cytology and cyst fluid tumor marker analysis is a very useful tool in distinguishing benign from (pre)malignant pancreatic cystic lesions.
AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), fluid tumor markers and cytology in distinguishing benign from (pre)malignant pancreatic cystic lesions. METHODS: 46 consecutive patients, referred to a gastroenterologist and surgeon for a symptomatic or incidental pancreatic cyst, were reviewed. EUS, cytology, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA 19-9) levels were compared with the final diagnosis, based on surgical pathology and/or imaging follow-up of at least 12 mo. Cysts were classified as benign (pseudocyst, serous cystadenoma) or malignant/pre-malignant (mucinous cystic neoplasm). Receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 years; 29% were male and median cyst diameter was 3 cm. Final outcome was obtained in 41 (89%) patients. Twenty-three (56%) of these 41 had surgical pathology. Twenty-three (56%) had benign lesions and 18 (44%) had malignant/pre-malignant lesions. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value of EUS alone to distinguish benign from malignant/premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions were 50%, 56%, 36% and 54% and for cytology were 71%, 96%, 92% and 85%, respectively. The corresponding values for the ROC-derived ideal cutoffs were 75%, 90%, 75%, 90% for CA 19-9 (> 37 U/mL) and 70%, 85%, 79% and 78% for CEA (> 3.1 ng/mL). Subgroup analysis of those with surgical pathology yielded almost identical performance and cutoffs. CONCLUSION: Cytology and cyst fluid tumor marker analysis is a very useful tool in distinguishing benign from (pre)malignant pancreatic cystic lesions.
Authors: Robert Sedlack; Aboud Affi; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Ian D Norton; Jonathan E Clain; Maurits J Wiersema Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R Matthew Walsh; David P Vogt; J Michael Henderson; Gregory Zuccaro; John Vargo; John Dumot; Brian Herts; Charles V Biscotti; Nancy Brown Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Moon Hee Song; Sung Koo Lee; Myung-Hwan Kim; Hyun Ju Lee; Kyu-Pyo Kim; Hyun Jun Kim; Sang Soo Lee; Dong Wan Seo; Young Il Min Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: William R Brugge; Kent Lewandrowski; Elizabeth Lee-Lewandrowski; Barbara A Centeno; Tara Szydlo; Susan Regan; Carlos Fernandez del Castillo; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ignacio Fuente; Marcos Gonzalez; Martin de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Oscar Mazza; Eduardo de Santibañes; Rodrigo Sanchez Claria Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2019-09
Authors: Mario Testini; Angela Gurrado; Germana Lissidini; Pietro Venezia; Luigi Greco; Giuseppe Piccinni Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17
Authors: Renata Talar-Wojnarowska; Marek Pazurek; Lukasz Durko; Malgorzata Degowska; Grazyna Rydzewska; Jacek Smigielski; Adam Janiak; Marek Olakowski; Paweł Lampe; Piotr Grzelak; Ludomir Stefanczyk; Ewa Malecka-Panas Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 2.967