BACKGROUND: The accuracy of EUS in the locoregional assessment of ampullary lesions is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare EUS with ERCP and surgical pathology for the evaluation of intraductal extension and local staging of ampullary lesions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent EUS primarily for the evaluation of an ampullary lesion between 1998 and 2012. INTERVENTION: EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of EUS sensitivity/specificity for intraductal and local extension with ERCP and surgical pathology by using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and outcomes of the subgroup referred for endoscopic papillectomy. RESULTS: We identified 119 patients who underwent EUS for an ampullary lesion, of whom 99 (83%) had an adenoma or adenocarcinoma. Compared with ERCP (n = 90), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS for any intraductal extension was 56%/97% (AUROC = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.89). However, when using surgical pathology as the reference (n = 102), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS (80%/93%; AUROC = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and ERCP (83%/93%; AUROC = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99) were comparable. The overall accuracy of EUS for local staging was 90%. Of 58 patients referred for endoscopic papillectomy, complete resection was achieved in 53 (91%); in those having intraductal extension by EUS or ERCP, complete resection was achieved in 4 of 5 (80%) and 4 of 7 (57%), respectively. LIMITATION: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: EUS and ERCP perform similarly in evaluating intraductal extension of ampullary adenomas. Additionally, EUS is accurate in T-staging ampullary adenocarcinomas. Future prospective studies should evaluate whether EUS can identify characteristics of ampullary lesions that appropriately direct patients to endoscopic or surgical resection.
BACKGROUND: The accuracy of EUS in the locoregional assessment of ampullary lesions is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare EUS with ERCP and surgical pathology for the evaluation of intraductal extension and local staging of ampullary lesions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent EUS primarily for the evaluation of an ampullary lesion between 1998 and 2012. INTERVENTION: EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of EUS sensitivity/specificity for intraductal and local extension with ERCP and surgical pathology by using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and outcomes of the subgroup referred for endoscopic papillectomy. RESULTS: We identified 119 patients who underwent EUS for an ampullary lesion, of whom 99 (83%) had an adenoma or adenocarcinoma. Compared with ERCP (n = 90), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS for any intraductal extension was 56%/97% (AUROC = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.89). However, when using surgical pathology as the reference (n = 102), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS (80%/93%; AUROC = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and ERCP (83%/93%; AUROC = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99) were comparable. The overall accuracy of EUS for local staging was 90%. Of 58 patients referred for endoscopic papillectomy, complete resection was achieved in 53 (91%); in those having intraductal extension by EUS or ERCP, complete resection was achieved in 4 of 5 (80%) and 4 of 7 (57%), respectively. LIMITATION: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: EUS and ERCP perform similarly in evaluating intraductal extension of ampullary adenomas. Additionally, EUS is accurate in T-staging ampullary adenocarcinomas. Future prospective studies should evaluate whether EUS can identify characteristics of ampullary lesions that appropriately direct patients to endoscopic or surgical resection.
Authors: Douglas G Adler; Waqar Qureshi; Raquel Davila; S Ian Gan; David Lichtenstein; Elizabeth Rajan; Bo Shen; Marc J Zuckerman; Robert D Fanelli; Trina Van Guilder; Todd H Baron Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Eugene P Ceppa; Rebecca A Burbridge; Kristy L Rialon; Philip A Omotosho; Dawn Emick; Paul S Jowell; Malcom Stanley Branch; Theodore N Pappas Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M E Cannon; S L Carpenter; G H Elta; T T Nostrant; M L Kochman; G G Ginsberg; B Stotland; E F Rosato; J B Morris; F Eckhauser; J M Scheiman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Lilian C Azih; Brett L Broussard; Milind A Phadnis; Martin J Heslin; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Shayam Varadarajulu; Juan Pablo Arnoletti Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Wiriyaporn Ridtitid; Damien Tan; Suzette E Schmidt; Evan L Fogel; Lee McHenry; James L Watkins; Glen A Lehman; Stuart Sherman; Gregory A Coté Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: William A Ross; Sanjeev M Wasan; Douglas B Evans; Robert A Wolff; Leonard V Trapani; Gregg A Staerkel; Thomas Prindiville; Jeffrey H Lee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jared J Rejeski; Sarba Kundu; Matthew Hauser; Jason D Conway; John A Evans; Rishi Pawa; Girish Mishra Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.628