OBJECTIVES: Diagnosing chronic pancreatitis remains challenging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is utilized to evaluate pancreatic disease. Abnormal pancreas function test is considered the "nonhistologic" criterion standard for chronic pancreatitis. We derived a prediction model for abnormal endoscopic pancreatic function test (ePFT) by enriching EUS findings with patient demographic and pancreatitis behavioral risk characteristics. METHODS: Demographics, behavioral risk characteristics, EUS findings, and peak bicarbonate results were collected from patients evaluated for pancreatic disease. Abnormal ePFT was defined as peak bicarbonate of less than 75 mEq/L. We fit a logistic regression model and converted it to a risk score system. The risk score was validated using 1000 bootstrap simulations. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included; 61% were female with median age of 48 years (interquartile range, 38-57 years). Abnormal ePFT rate was 39.2% (69/176). Four variables formulated the risk score: alcohol or smoking status, number of parenchymal abnormalities, number of ductal abnormalities, and calcifications. Abnormal ePFT occurred in 10.7% with scores 4 or less versus 92.0% scoring 20 or greater. The model C-statistic was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Number of EUS pancreatic duct and parenchymal abnormalities, presence of calcification, and smoking/alcohol status were predictive of abnormal ePFT. This simple model has good discrimination for ePFT results.
OBJECTIVES: Diagnosing chronic pancreatitis remains challenging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is utilized to evaluate pancreatic disease. Abnormal pancreas function test is considered the "nonhistologic" criterion standard for chronic pancreatitis. We derived a prediction model for abnormal endoscopic pancreatic function test (ePFT) by enriching EUS findings with patient demographic and pancreatitis behavioral risk characteristics. METHODS: Demographics, behavioral risk characteristics, EUS findings, and peak bicarbonate results were collected from patients evaluated for pancreatic disease. Abnormal ePFT was defined as peak bicarbonate of less than 75 mEq/L. We fit a logistic regression model and converted it to a risk score system. The risk score was validated using 1000 bootstrap simulations. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included; 61% were female with median age of 48 years (interquartile range, 38-57 years). Abnormal ePFT rate was 39.2% (69/176). Four variables formulated the risk score: alcohol or smoking status, number of parenchymal abnormalities, number of ductal abnormalities, and calcifications. Abnormal ePFT occurred in 10.7% with scores 4 or less versus 92.0% scoring 20 or greater. The model C-statistic was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Number of EUS pancreatic duct and parenchymal abnormalities, presence of calcification, and smoking/alcohol status were predictive of abnormal ePFT. This simple model has good discrimination for ePFT results.
Authors: Marc F Catalano; Anand Sahai; Michael Levy; Joseph Romagnuolo; Maurits Wiersema; William Brugge; Martin Freeman; Kenji Yamao; Marcia Canto; Lyndon V Hernandez Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Darwin L Conwell; Linda S Lee; Dhiraj Yadav; Daniel S Longnecker; Frank H Miller; Koenraad J Mortele; Michael J Levy; Richard Kwon; John G Lieb; Tyler Stevens; Phillip P Toskes; Timothy B Gardner; Andres Gelrud; Bechien U Wu; Christopher E Forsmark; Santhi S Vege Journal: Pancreas Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Tyler Stevens; Darwin L Conwell; Gregory Zuccaro; Frederick Van Lente; Edward Purich; Farah Khandwala; Seymour Fein Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: A V Sahai; M Zimmerman; L Aabakken; P R Tarnasky; J T Cunningham; A van Velse; R H Hawes; B J Hoffman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: André Kheng Ho Chong; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; David B Adams; David N Lewin; Joseph Romagnuolo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Darwin L Conwell; Gregory Zuccaro; John J Vargo; Patricia A Trolli; Frederick Vanlente; Nancy Obuchowski; John A Dumot; Cathy O'laughlin Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Gregory A Coté; Dhiraj Yadav; Adam Slivka; Robert H Hawes; Michelle A Anderson; Frank R Burton; Randall E Brand; Peter A Banks; Michele D Lewis; James A Disario; Timothy B Gardner; Andres Gelrud; Stephen T Amann; John Baillie; Mary E Money; Michael O'Connell; David C Whitcomb; Stuart Sherman Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Linda S Lee; Dana K Andersen; Reiko Ashida; William R Brugge; Mimi I Canto; Kenneth J Chang; Suresh T Chari; John DeWitt; Joo Ha Hwang; Mouen A Khashab; Kang Kim; Michael J Levy; Kevin McGrath; Walter G Park; Aatur Singhi; Tyler Stevens; Christopher C Thompson; Mark D Topazian; Michael B Wallace; Sachin Wani; Irving Waxman; Dhiraj Yadav; Vikesh K Singh Journal: Pancreas Date: 2017 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Barite W Gutama; Yi Yang; Gregory J Beilman; Martin L Freeman; Varvara A Kirchner; Timothy L Pruett; Srinath Chinnakotla; Elissa M Downs; Guru Trikudanathan; Sarah J Schwarzenberg; James S Hodges; Melena D Bellin Journal: Pancreas Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate; Kristyn Gumpper; Valentina Pita; Phil A Hart; Christopher Forsmark; David C Whitcomb; Dhiraj Yadav; Richard T Waldron; Stephen Pandol; Hanno Steen; Vincent Anani; Natasha Kanwar; Santhi Swaroop Vege; Savi Appana; Liang Li; Jose Serrano; Jo Ann S Rinaudo; Mark Topazian; Darwin L Conwell Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.996