BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) often need interval surveillance, including repeat EUS, but the role of repeat FNA with fluid analysis is poorly defined. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the potential clinical significance of serial carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in the surveillance for PCNs. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent EUS-FNA for PCNs were studied retrospectively. EUS-FNA findings were compared between index and prior procedures among patients who underwent repeat EUS-FNA. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients with PCNs underwent EUS-FNA. Eighty-seven of those patients had prior EUS-FNA with cyst fluid analysis. Patients with repeat FNA were significantly more likely to have multiple cysts (57% vs 41%; P = .008), multilocular cysts (75% vs 62%; P = .042), connection to pancreatic duct (33% vs 18%; P = .005), and higher initial CEA levels (94.8 vs 25.6 ng/mL; P = .003) compared with patients who had only a single FNA. A comparison of prior and index FNAs did not show significant differences in EUS or cyst fluid analysis findings. After log transformation, the association between CEA level at prior and index FNA was moderate (R2 = 0.626; P < .001), but cystic fluid CEA classification with a cutoff value of 192 ng/mL changed in 17 patients (20%), without significant changes in EUS findings. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat surveillance EUS-FNA resulted in stable CEA levels in the majority of patients, with spurious fluctuations of CEA in approximately 20% of patients. These data call into question any clinical significance attributed to an isolated interval rise in CEA level, especially in light of a stable EUS examination.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) often need interval surveillance, including repeat EUS, but the role of repeat FNA with fluid analysis is poorly defined. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the potential clinical significance of serial carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in the surveillance for PCNs. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent EUS-FNA for PCNs were studied retrospectively. EUS-FNA findings were compared between index and prior procedures among patients who underwent repeat EUS-FNA. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients with PCNs underwent EUS-FNA. Eighty-seven of those patients had prior EUS-FNA with cyst fluid analysis. Patients with repeat FNA were significantly more likely to have multiple cysts (57% vs 41%; P = .008), multilocular cysts (75% vs 62%; P = .042), connection to pancreatic duct (33% vs 18%; P = .005), and higher initial CEA levels (94.8 vs 25.6 ng/mL; P = .003) compared with patients who had only a single FNA. A comparison of prior and index FNAs did not show significant differences in EUS or cyst fluid analysis findings. After log transformation, the association between CEA level at prior and index FNA was moderate (R2 = 0.626; P < .001), but cystic fluid CEA classification with a cutoff value of 192 ng/mL changed in 17 patients (20%), without significant changes in EUS findings. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat surveillance EUS-FNA resulted in stable CEA levels in the majority of patients, with spurious fluctuations of CEA in approximately 20% of patients. These data call into question any clinical significance attributed to an isolated interval rise in CEA level, especially in light of a stable EUS examination.
Authors: Yousuke Nakai; Takuji Iwashita; Do Hyun Park; Jason B Samarasena; John G Lee; Kenneth J Chang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Walter Gwang-Up Park; Ranjan Mascarenhas; Mario Palaez-Luna; Thomas C Smyrk; Dennis O'Kane; Jonathan E Clain; Michael J Levy; Randall K Pearson; Bret T Petersen; Mark D Topazian; Santhi S Vege; Suresh T Chari Journal: Pancreas Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Nuzhat A Ahmad; Michael L Kochman; Colleen Brensinger; William R Brugge; Douglas O Faigel; Frank G Gress; Michael B Kimmey; Nicholas J Nickl; Thomas J Savides; Michael B Wallace; Maurits J Wiersema; Gregory G Ginsberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Simeon Springer; Yuxuan Wang; Marco Dal Molin; David L Masica; Yuchen Jiao; Isaac Kinde; Amanda Blackford; Siva P Raman; Christopher L Wolfgang; Tyler Tomita; Noushin Niknafs; Christopher Douville; Janine Ptak; Lisa Dobbyn; Peter J Allen; David S Klimstra; Mark A Schattner; C Max Schmidt; Michele Yip-Schneider; Oscar W Cummings; Randall E Brand; Herbert J Zeh; Aatur D Singhi; Aldo Scarpa; Roberto Salvia; Giuseppe Malleo; Giuseppe Zamboni; Massimo Falconi; Jin-Young Jang; Sun-Whe Kim; Wooil Kwon; Seung-Mo Hong; Ki-Byung Song; Song Cheol Kim; Niall Swan; Jean Murphy; Justin Geoghegan; William Brugge; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Richard Schulick; Barish H Edil; Volkan Adsay; Jorge Paulino; Jeanin van Hooft; Shinichi Yachida; Satoshi Nara; Nobuyoshi Hiraoka; Kenji Yamao; Susuma Hijioka; Schalk van der Merwe; Michael Goggins; Marcia Irene Canto; Nita Ahuja; Kenzo Hirose; Martin Makary; Matthew J Weiss; John Cameron; Meredith Pittman; James R Eshleman; Luis A Diaz; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; Rachel Karchin; Ralph H Hruban; Bert Vogelstein; Anne Marie Lennon Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Clifford S Cho; Andrew J Russ; Agnes G Loeffler; Robert J Rettammel; Gregory Oudheusden; Emily R Winslow; Sharon M Weber Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Won Jae Yoon; Ebubekir S Daglilar; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Vicente Morales-Oyarvide; Martha B Pitman; William R Brugge Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Koen de Jong; Jeanin E van Hooft; C Yung Nio; Dirk J Gouma; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Marco J Bruno; Paul Fockens Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 2.423