BACKGROUND: The utility of a repeated EUS by experts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To define the utility of a repeated EUS for the same indication. DESIGN: A retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary-referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. PATIENTS: Consecutive subjects, with and without cancer, who, between January 2000 and September 2006, underwent an initial EUS elsewhere within 6 and 12 weeks of a repeated EUS at our hospital. INTERVENTIONS: A repeated EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical impact of a repeated EUS. RESULTS: Of 8936 EUS examinations, 73 repeated procedures (0.8%) were identified, and 24 were excluded. The 49 initial EUS procedures (26 men, median age 59 years) were done in Indiana (n = 44) or another state (n = 5) by one of 15 physicians in private practice (n = 48) or at a teaching hospital (n = 1). An EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) was performed during an initial EUS in 21 patients (no biopsy diagnostic for cancer) and was not attempted in 14 patients. The principle indication for a repeated EUS (n = 35) was for an EUS-FNA after the initial tissue sampling was benign, nondiagnostic, or not done. A second EUS had no clinical impact in 18 patients (37%). In the remaining 31 patients (63%), a repeated EUS provided a new or changed clinical diagnosis (n = 12), the initial diagnosis of primary pancreatic cancer (n = 5) or GI stromal tumor (GIST) (n = 1) after a previous nondiagnostic biopsy; or the initial diagnosis of primary (n = 4) or metastatic (n = 2) pancreatic cancer, metastatic esophageal cancer (n = 1), hilar cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1), GIST (n = 1), or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (n = 1), or an initial aspiration of a pancreatic cyst (n = 3) after a previous EUS-FNA was not able to be performed. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective design; a small number of nonpancreatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a repeated EUS at a tertiary-referral center had a clinical impact in 63% of patients when performed by experts for a similar clinical indication.
BACKGROUND: The utility of a repeated EUS by experts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To define the utility of a repeated EUS for the same indication. DESIGN: A retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary-referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. PATIENTS: Consecutive subjects, with and without cancer, who, between January 2000 and September 2006, underwent an initial EUS elsewhere within 6 and 12 weeks of a repeated EUS at our hospital. INTERVENTIONS: A repeated EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical impact of a repeated EUS. RESULTS: Of 8936 EUS examinations, 73 repeated procedures (0.8%) were identified, and 24 were excluded. The 49 initial EUS procedures (26 men, median age 59 years) were done in Indiana (n = 44) or another state (n = 5) by one of 15 physicians in private practice (n = 48) or at a teaching hospital (n = 1). An EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) was performed during an initial EUS in 21 patients (no biopsy diagnostic for cancer) and was not attempted in 14 patients. The principle indication for a repeated EUS (n = 35) was for an EUS-FNA after the initial tissue sampling was benign, nondiagnostic, or not done. A second EUS had no clinical impact in 18 patients (37%). In the remaining 31 patients (63%), a repeated EUS provided a new or changed clinical diagnosis (n = 12), the initial diagnosis of primary pancreatic cancer (n = 5) or GI stromal tumor (GIST) (n = 1) after a previous nondiagnostic biopsy; or the initial diagnosis of primary (n = 4) or metastatic (n = 2) pancreatic cancer, metastatic esophageal cancer (n = 1), hilar cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1), GIST (n = 1), or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (n = 1), or an initial aspiration of a pancreatic cyst (n = 3) after a previous EUS-FNA was not able to be performed. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective design; a small number of nonpancreatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a repeated EUS at a tertiary-referral center had a clinical impact in 63% of patients when performed by experts for a similar clinical indication.
Authors: Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Björn Lindkvist; Jose Lariño-Noia; Ihab Abdulkader-Nallib; J Enrique Dominguez-Muñoz Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.623
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: Mark Nicaud; Wei Hou; Dennis Collins; Mihir S Wagh; Shailendra Chauhan; Peter V Draganov Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 2.260