Lawrence A Shirley1, Jon Walker2, Somashekar Krishna2, Samer El-Dika2, Peter Muscarella3, E Christopher Ellison4, Carl R Schmidt5, Mark Bloomston6. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 410 W. 10th Ave, N924 Doan Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. lawrence.shirley@osumc.edu. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 410 W. 10th Ave, N924 Doan Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. 6. Division of Surgical Oncology, 21st Century Oncology, Ft. Myers, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The work-up of cystic lesions of the pancreas often involves endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA). In addition to CEA and amylase measurement, fluid is routinely sent for cytologic examination. We evaluated the utility of cytologic findings in clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of patients who underwent EUS-guided pancreatic cyst aspiration were reviewed. Findings from axial imaging and EUS were compared to cyst fluid cytology as well as fluid amylase and CEA. All results were then compared to final diagnosis, determined by clinical analysis for those patients not resected, and surgical pathology report for those who underwent resection. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were reviewed. Of 48 patients with suspicious findings on imaging, cytology yielded diagnostic information in 89.6 % of cases (43 patients). However, in the 119 patients where no suspicious components were revealed on imaging, fluid cytology yielded no significant diagnostic results in any case. In all cases where mucin was noted on cytologic review, thick fluid was also seen at the time of aspiration. DISCUSSION: In our cohort of patients with cystic pancreatic lesions, cytologic analysis of pancreatic cyst fluid yielded no diagnostic benefit over radiologic findings alone. In such cases where fluid is to be aspirated, specimens that would otherwise be sent for cytologic evaluation would be better served for other purposes, such as molecular analysis or banking for future research.
BACKGROUND: The work-up of cystic lesions of the pancreas often involves endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA). In addition to CEA and amylase measurement, fluid is routinely sent for cytologic examination. We evaluated the utility of cytologic findings in clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of patients who underwent EUS-guided pancreatic cyst aspiration were reviewed. Findings from axial imaging and EUS were compared to cyst fluid cytology as well as fluid amylase and CEA. All results were then compared to final diagnosis, determined by clinical analysis for those patients not resected, and surgical pathology report for those who underwent resection. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were reviewed. Of 48 patients with suspicious findings on imaging, cytology yielded diagnostic information in 89.6 % of cases (43 patients). However, in the 119 patients where no suspicious components were revealed on imaging, fluid cytology yielded no significant diagnostic results in any case. In all cases where mucin was noted on cytologic review, thick fluid was also seen at the time of aspiration. DISCUSSION: In our cohort of patients with cystic pancreatic lesions, cytologic analysis of pancreatic cyst fluid yielded no diagnostic benefit over radiologic findings alone. In such cases where fluid is to be aspirated, specimens that would otherwise be sent for cytologic evaluation would be better served for other purposes, such as molecular analysis or banking for future research.
Authors: Dushyant V Sahani; Rajagopal Kadavigere; Michael Blake; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Gregory Y Lauwers; Peter F Hahn Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ning Zhong; Lizhi Zhang; Naoki Takahashi; Vladislav Shalmiyev; Marcia Irene Canto; Jonathan E Clain; John C Deutsch; John DeWitt; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Ferga C Gleeson; Michael J Levy; Shawn Mallery; Massimo Raimondo; Elizabeth Rajan; Tyler Stevens; Mark Topazian Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jian Wu; Hanno Matthaei; Anirban Maitra; Marco Dal Molin; Laura D Wood; James R Eshleman; Michael Goggins; Marcia I Canto; Richard D Schulick; Barish H Edil; Christopher L Wolfgang; Alison P Klein; Luis A Diaz; Peter J Allen; C Max Schmidt; Kenneth W Kinzler; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Ralph H Hruban; Bert Vogelstein Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 17.956
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: Nicole A Belsley; Martha B Pitman; Gregory Y Lauwers; William R Brugge; Vikram Deshpande Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-04-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jose Lariño-Noia; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Daniel de la Iglesia-Garcia; J Enrique Dominguez-Muñoz Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2018 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.628