BACKGROUND: There is no direct evidence that EUS improves patient outcome. OBJECTIVE: To study the association of undergoing EUS with survival in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: Population-based study. PATIENTS: Persons aged 65 years and older with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer who were captured in the linked Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database between 1994 and 2002 were identified. INTERVENTIONS: Demographic, cancer-specific, and EUS procedural information was extracted, and survival curves were compared for patients who underwent EUS in the peridiagnostic period (1 month before the diagnosis to 3 months after the date of diagnosis: group I) with those who had not undergone EUS (group II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Relative hazard ratios for survival. RESULTS: A total of 8616 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified. Only 610 (7.1%) patients underwent EUS evaluation. In patients with locoregional cancer, the median survival (interquartile range) in group I and II patients was 10 (5-17) and 6 (2-12) months, respectively, P < .0001. There were more patients with early-stage disease in group I than group II (69.3% vs 36.2%, P < .001). Curative-intent surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy were also performed more frequently in the patients in group I. Undergoing EUS, adjusted for age, race, sex, tumor stage, curative-intent surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and comorbidity score, was an independent predictor of improved survival (relative hazard, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.79). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: EUS evaluation is independently associated with improved outcome in patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer, possibly because of detection of earlier cancers and improved stage-appropriate management including more selective performance of curative-intent surgery. Copyright 2010. Published by Mosby, Inc.
BACKGROUND: There is no direct evidence that EUS improves patient outcome. OBJECTIVE: To study the association of undergoing EUS with survival in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: Population-based study. PATIENTS: Persons aged 65 years and older with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer who were captured in the linked Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database between 1994 and 2002 were identified. INTERVENTIONS: Demographic, cancer-specific, and EUS procedural information was extracted, and survival curves were compared for patients who underwent EUS in the peridiagnostic period (1 month before the diagnosis to 3 months after the date of diagnosis: group I) with those who had not undergone EUS (group II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Relative hazard ratios for survival. RESULTS: A total of 8616 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified. Only 610 (7.1%) patients underwent EUS evaluation. In patients with locoregional cancer, the median survival (interquartile range) in group I and II patients was 10 (5-17) and 6 (2-12) months, respectively, P < .0001. There were more patients with early-stage disease in group I than group II (69.3% vs 36.2%, P < .001). Curative-intent surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy were also performed more frequently in the patients in group I. Undergoing EUS, adjusted for age, race, sex, tumor stage, curative-intent surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and comorbidity score, was an independent predictor of improved survival (relative hazard, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.79). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: EUS evaluation is independently associated with improved outcome in patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer, possibly because of detection of earlier cancers and improved stage-appropriate management including more selective performance of curative-intent surgery. Copyright 2010. Published by Mosby, Inc.
Authors: Sachin Wani; Michael B Wallace; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Michael L Kochman; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jeffrey L Tokar Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ryan K Schmocker; David J Vanness; Caprice C Greenberg; Jeff A Havlena; Noelle K LoConte; Jennifer M Weiss; Heather B Neuman; Glen Leverson; Maureen A Smith; Emily R Winslow Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Abhishek D Parmar; Kristin M Sheffield; Yimei Han; Gabriela M Vargas; Praveen Guturu; Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin; Taylor S Riall Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sachin Wani; Daniel Mullady; Dayna S Early; Amit Rastogi; Brian Collins; Jeff F Wang; Carrie Marshall; Sharon B Sams; Roy Yen; Mona Rizeq; Maria Romanas; Ozlem Ulusarac; Brian Brauer; Augustin Attwell; Srinivas Gaddam; Thomas G Hollander; Lindsay Hosford; Sydney Johnson; Vladimir Kushnir; Stuart K Amateau; Cara Kohlmeier; Riad R Azar; John Vargo; Norio Fukami; Raj J Shah; Ananya Das; Steven A Edmundowicz Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Benedetto Mangiavillano; Leonardo Frazzoni; Thomas Togliani; Carlo Fabbri; Ilaria Tarantino; Luca De Luca; Teresa Staiano; Cecilia Binda; Marianna Signoretti; Leonardo H Eusebi; Francesco Auriemma; Laura Lamonaca; Danilo Paduano; Milena Di Leo; Silvia Carrara; Lorenzo Fuccio; Alessandro Repici Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-05-27