Michael Sighinolfi1, Susan Y Quan2, Yvonne Lee2, Alvaro Ibaseta2, Kimberly Pham2, Monica M Dua3, George A Poultsides3, Brendan C Visser3, Jeffery A Norton3, Walter G Park4,5. 1. Department of Medicine, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. wgpark@stanford.edu. 5. Pancreas Clinic, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, MC: 5187, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. wgpark@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines (AGA criteria), the 2012 (Fukuoka criteria), and 2006 (Sendai criteria) International Consensus Guidelines for the diagnosis of advanced pancreatic cystic neoplasms. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgical resection of a pancreatic cyst from August 2007 through January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed at a single tertiary academic center. Relevant clinical and imaging variables along with pathology results were collected to determine appropriate classification for each guideline. Advanced pancreatic cystic neoplasms were defined by the presence of either high-grade dysplasia or cystic adenocarcinoma. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by ROC analysis. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were included. Both the AGA and Fukuoka criteria had a higher diagnostic accuracy for advanced neoplastic cysts than the Sendai criteria: AGA ROC 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.81), Fukuoka ROC 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82), and Sendai ROC 0.65 (95% CI 0.61-0.69) (p < 0.0001). There was no difference between the Fukuoka and the AGA criteria. While the sensitivity was higher in the Fukuoka criteria compared to the AGA criteria (97.7 vs. 88.6%), the specificity was higher in the AGA criteria compared to the Fukuoka criteria (62.4 vs. 58.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In a surgical series of patients with pancreatic cysts, the AGA and Fukuoka criteria had superior diagnostic accuracy for advanced neoplastic cysts compared to the original Sendai criteria.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines (AGA criteria), the 2012 (Fukuoka criteria), and 2006 (Sendai criteria) International Consensus Guidelines for the diagnosis of advanced pancreatic cystic neoplasms. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgical resection of a pancreatic cyst from August 2007 through January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed at a single tertiary academic center. Relevant clinical and imaging variables along with pathology results were collected to determine appropriate classification for each guideline. Advanced pancreatic cystic neoplasms were defined by the presence of either high-grade dysplasia or cystic adenocarcinoma. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by ROC analysis. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were included. Both the AGA and Fukuoka criteria had a higher diagnostic accuracy for advanced neoplastic cysts than the Sendai criteria: AGA ROC 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.81), Fukuoka ROC 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82), and Sendai ROC 0.65 (95% CI 0.61-0.69) (p < 0.0001). There was no difference between the Fukuoka and the AGA criteria. While the sensitivity was higher in the Fukuoka criteria compared to the AGA criteria (97.7 vs. 88.6%), the specificity was higher in the AGA criteria compared to the Fukuoka criteria (62.4 vs. 58.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In a surgical series of patients with pancreatic cysts, the AGA and Fukuoka criteria had superior diagnostic accuracy for advanced neoplastic cysts compared to the original Sendai criteria.
Authors: Klaus Sahora; Mari Mino-Kenudson; William Brugge; Sarah P Thayer; Cristina R Ferrone; Dushyant Sahani; Martha B Pitman; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Carlos F Fernandez-del Castillo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pavlos Kaimakliotis; Brian Riff; Kamron Pourmand; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Emma E Furth; Evan S Siegelman; Jeffery Drebin; Charles M Vollmer; Michael L Kochman; Gregory G Ginsberg; Nuzhat A Ahmad Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Carlos Fernández-del Castillo; Javier Targarona; Sarah P Thayer; David W Rattner; William R Brugge; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2003-04
Authors: Susan Y Quan; Brendan C Visser; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton; Ann M Chen; Subhas Banerjee; Shai Friedland; Walter G Park Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kristine S Spinelli; Travis E Fromwiller; Roger A Daniel; James M Kiely; Attila Nakeeb; Richard A Komorowski; Stuart D Wilson; Henry A Pitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Dushyant V Sahani; Dana J Lin; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Nisha Sainani; Mari Mino-Kenudson; William R Brugge; Carlos Fernandez-Del-Castillo Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Thomas A Laffan; Karen M Horton; Alison P Klein; Bruce Berlanstein; Stanley S Siegelman; Satomi Kawamoto; Pamela T Johnson; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kevin P Shah; Katherine A Baugh; Lisa S Brubaker; George Van Buren; Nicole Villafane-Ferriol; Amy L McElhany; Sadde Mohamed; Eric J Silberfein; Cary Hsu; Nader N Massarweh; Hop S Tran Cao; Jose E Mendez-Reyes; William E Fisher Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: David S Weinberg; Constantine Gatsonis; Herbert J Zeh; Ruth C Carlos; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 2.226