Nadav Sahar1, Anthony Razzak1, Zaheer S Kanji1, David L Coy2, Richard Kozarek1, Andrew S Ross1, Michael Gluck1, Michael Larsen1, Shayan Irani1, S Ian Gan3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Avenue, C3-GAS, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Avenue, C3-GAS, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. seng-ian.gan@virginiamason.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of EUS in managing asymptomatic pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) remains unresolved. We retrospectively evaluated EUS in risk stratification of PCLs when adhering to the most recent AGA guidelines. METHODS: Asymptomatic PCLs that were evaluated by EUS from January 2014 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed including associated cytology, fluid analysis, and relevant surgical pathology. Cross-sectional imaging reports were reviewed blindly by an expert radiologist using AGA risk stratification terminology. Accepted imaging high-risk features (HRF) included cyst diameter > 3 cm, dilated upstream pancreatic ducts, and a solid component in the cyst. RESULTS: We reviewed 125 patients who underwent EUS. Expert review of cross-sectional imaging resulted in a different interpretation 25% of the time including 1 malignant cyst. Ninety-three patients (75%) had no HRFs on cross-sectional imaging; 28 patients (22%) were diagnosed with 1 HRF and 4 patients (3%) had 2 HRFs. Adhering to AGA guidelines using 2 HRF as threshold for use of EUS, the diagnosis of malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions (including pancreatic adenocarcinoma, mucinous cystadenoma, neuroendocrine tumors, and IPMN with dysplasia) had a 40% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Had EUS been utilized based on a threshold of 1 HRF on imaging, malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions would have been identified with 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. By adding EUS to radiographic imaging, the specificity for detecting carcinomas (p = 0.0009) and detection of all premalignant lesions (p = 0.003) statistically improved. Furthermore, EUS allowed 14 patients (11%) to avoid further surveillance by lowering their risk stratification. CONCLUSION: EUS remains an essential risk stratification modality for incidental PCLs. Current guideline suggestions of its utility may be too stringent. Our study justifies expert radiology review when managing PCLs. Further studies are required to identify the optimal approach to PCL management.
BACKGROUND: The role of EUS in managing asymptomatic pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) remains unresolved. We retrospectively evaluated EUS in risk stratification of PCLs when adhering to the most recent AGA guidelines. METHODS: Asymptomatic PCLs that were evaluated by EUS from January 2014 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed including associated cytology, fluid analysis, and relevant surgical pathology. Cross-sectional imaging reports were reviewed blindly by an expert radiologist using AGA risk stratification terminology. Accepted imaging high-risk features (HRF) included cyst diameter > 3 cm, dilated upstream pancreatic ducts, and a solid component in the cyst. RESULTS: We reviewed 125 patients who underwent EUS. Expert review of cross-sectional imaging resulted in a different interpretation 25% of the time including 1 malignant cyst. Ninety-three patients (75%) had no HRFs on cross-sectional imaging; 28 patients (22%) were diagnosed with 1 HRF and 4 patients (3%) had 2 HRFs. Adhering to AGA guidelines using 2 HRF as threshold for use of EUS, the diagnosis of malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions (including pancreatic adenocarcinoma, mucinous cystadenoma, neuroendocrine tumors, and IPMN with dysplasia) had a 40% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Had EUS been utilized based on a threshold of 1 HRF on imaging, malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions would have been identified with 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. By adding EUS to radiographic imaging, the specificity for detecting carcinomas (p = 0.0009) and detection of all premalignant lesions (p = 0.003) statistically improved. Furthermore, EUS allowed 14 patients (11%) to avoid further surveillance by lowering their risk stratification. CONCLUSION: EUS remains an essential risk stratification modality for incidental PCLs. Current guideline suggestions of its utility may be too stringent. Our study justifies expert radiology review when managing PCLs. Further studies are required to identify the optimal approach to PCL management.
Authors: Sherry J Lim; Rameez Alasadi; Jeffrey D Wayne; Sam Rao; Alfred Rademaker; Richard Bell; Mark S Talamonti Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Brendan C Visser; Benjamin M Yeh; Aliya Qayyum; Lawrence W Way; Charles E McCulloch; Fergus V Coakley Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Sandra Faias; Marília Cravo; João Pereira da Silva; Paula Chaves; A Dias Pereira Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 3.067