Eun Ji Shin1, Mark Topazian2, Michael G Goggins1, Sapna Syngal3, John R Saltzman4, Jeffrey H Lee5, James J Farrell6, Marcia I Canto1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 6. Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing linear and radial EUS for the detection of pancreatic lesions in an asymptomatic population with increased risk for pancreatic cancer are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To compare pancreatic lesion detection rates between radial and linear EUS and to determine the incremental diagnostic yield of a second EUS examination. DESIGN: Randomized controlled tandem study. SETTING:Five academic centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Asymptomatic high-risk individuals (HRIs) for pancreatic cancer undergoing screening EUS. INTERVENTIONS:Linear and radial EUS performed in randomized order. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pancreatic lesion detection rate by type of EUS, miss rate of 1 EUS examination, and incremental diagnostic yield of a second EUS examination (second-pass effect). RESULTS:Two hundred seventy-eight HRIs were enrolled, mean age 56 years (43.2%), and 90% were familial pancreatic cancer relatives. Two hundred twenty-four HRIs underwent tandem radial and linear EUS. When we used per-patient analysis, the overall prevalence of any pancreatic lesion was 45%. Overall, 16 of 224 HRIs (7.1%) had lesions missed during the initial EUS that were detected by the second EUS examination. The per-patient lesion miss rate was significantly greater for radial followed by linear EUS (9.8%) than for linear followed by radial EUS (4.5%) (P = .03). When we used per-lesion analysis, 73 of 109 lesions (67%) were detected by radial EUS and 99 of 120 lesions (82%) were detected by linear EUS (P < .001) during the first examination. The overall miss rate for a pancreatic lesion after 1 EUS examination was 47 of 229 (25%). The miss rate was significantly lower for linear EUS compared with radial EUS (17.5% vs 33.0%, P = .007). LIMITATIONS: Most detected pancreatic lesions were not confirmed by pathology. CONCLUSION: Linear EUS detects more pancreatic lesions than radial EUS. There was a "second-pass effect" with additional lesions detected with a second EUS examination. This effect was significantly greater when linear EUS was used after an initial radial EUS examination.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing linear and radial EUS for the detection of pancreatic lesions in an asymptomatic population with increased risk for pancreatic cancer are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To compare pancreatic lesion detection rates between radial and linear EUS and to determine the incremental diagnostic yield of a second EUS examination. DESIGN: Randomized controlled tandem study. SETTING: Five academic centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Asymptomatic high-risk individuals (HRIs) for pancreatic cancer undergoing screening EUS. INTERVENTIONS: Linear and radial EUS performed in randomized order. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pancreatic lesion detection rate by type of EUS, miss rate of 1 EUS examination, and incremental diagnostic yield of a second EUS examination (second-pass effect). RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight HRIs were enrolled, mean age 56 years (43.2%), and 90% were familial pancreatic cancer relatives. Two hundred twenty-four HRIs underwent tandem radial and linear EUS. When we used per-patient analysis, the overall prevalence of any pancreatic lesion was 45%. Overall, 16 of 224 HRIs (7.1%) had lesions missed during the initial EUS that were detected by the second EUS examination. The per-patient lesion miss rate was significantly greater for radial followed by linear EUS (9.8%) than for linear followed by radial EUS (4.5%) (P = .03). When we used per-lesion analysis, 73 of 109 lesions (67%) were detected by radial EUS and 99 of 120 lesions (82%) were detected by linear EUS (P < .001) during the first examination. The overall miss rate for a pancreatic lesion after 1 EUS examination was 47 of 229 (25%). The miss rate was significantly lower for linear EUS compared with radial EUS (17.5% vs 33.0%, P = .007). LIMITATIONS: Most detected pancreatic lesions were not confirmed by pathology. CONCLUSION: Linear EUS detects more pancreatic lesions than radial EUS. There was a "second-pass effect" with additional lesions detected with a second EUS examination. This effect was significantly greater when linear EUS was used after an initial radial EUS examination.
Authors: Elizabeth C Verna; Caroline Hwang; Peter D Stevens; Heidrun Rotterdam; Stavros N Stavropoulos; Carolyn D Sy; Martin A Prince; Wendy K Chung; Robert L Fine; John A Chabot; Harold Frucht Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: William M Tierney; Douglas G Adler; Bipan Chand; Jason D Conway; Joseph M B Croffie; James A DiSario; Daniel S Mishkin; Raj J Shah; Lehel Somogyi; Louis Michel Wong Kee Song; Bret T Petersen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Craig A Munroe; Philip Lee; Andrew Copland; Kuan K Wu; Tonya Kaltenbach; Roy M Soetikno; Shai Friedland Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Emmy Ludwig; Sara H Olson; Sharon Bayuga; Jennifer Simon; Mark A Schattner; Hans Gerdes; Peter J Allen; William R Jarnagin; Robert C Kurtz Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: J W Poley; I Kluijt; D J Gouma; F Harinck; A Wagner; C Aalfs; C H J van Eijck; A Cats; E J Kuipers; Y Nio; P Fockens; M J Bruno Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: T Stevens; G Zuccaro; J A Dumot; J J Vargo; M A Parsi; R Lopez; H L Kirchner; E Purich; D L Conwell Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: P Langer; P H Kann; V Fendrich; N Habbe; M Schneider; M Sina; E P Slater; J T Heverhagen; T M Gress; M Rothmund; D K Bartsch Journal: Gut Date: 2009-05-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Ben Boursi; Brian Finkelman; Bruce J Giantonio; Kevin Haynes; Anil K Rustgi; Andrew D Rhim; Ronac Mamtani; Yu-Xiao Yang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Barbara Braden; Sean Burmeister; Silvia Carrara; Xinwu Cui; Milena Di Leo; Yi Dong; Pietro Fusaroli; Uwe Gottschalk; Andrew J Healey; Michael Hocke; Stephan Hollerbach; Julio Iglesias Garcia; André Ignee; Christian Jürgensen; Michel Kahaleh; Masayuki Kitano; Rastislav Kunda; Alberto Larghi; Kathleen Möller; Bertrand Napoleon; Kofi W Oppong; Maria Chiara Petrone; Adrian Saftoiu; Rajesh Puri; Anand V Sahai; Erwin Santo; Malay Sharma; Assaad Soweid; Siyu Sun; Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Peter Vilmann; Hans Seifert; Christian Jenssen Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2019 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.628