Donevan Westerveld1, April Goddard2, Nieka Harris2, Vikas Khullar2, Justin Forde1, Peter V Draganov2, Chris E Forsmark2, Dennis Yang3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 1329 SW 16th Street, Suite 5251, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 1329 SW 16th Street, Suite 5251, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. Dennis.Yang@medicine.ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Various gastrointestinal societies have released guidelines on the evaluation of asymptomatic pancreatic cysts (PCs). These guidelines differ on several aspects, which create a conundrum for clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate preferences and practice patterns in the management of incidental PCs in light of these societal recommendations. METHODS: An electronic survey distributed to members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Main outcomes included practice setting (academic vs. community), preferences for evaluation, management, and surveillance strategies for PCs. RESULTS: A total of 172 subjects completed the study (52% academic-based endoscopists). Eighty-six (50%) and 138 (80%) of the participants responded that they would recommend EUS surveillance of incidental PCs measuring less than 2 cm and 3 cm, respectively. Nearly half of the endosonographers (42.5% community and 44% academic; p = 1.0) would routinely perform FNA on PCs without any high-risk features. More academic-based endoscopists (57% academic vs. 32% community; p = 0.001) would continue incidental PC surveillance indefinitely. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the approach of incidental PCs among clinicians, with practice patterns often diverging from the various GI societal guideline recommendations. Most survey respondents would routinely recommend EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance for incidental PCs without high-risk features. The indiscriminate use of EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance of all incidental PCs is not cost-effective, exposes the patient to unnecessary testing, and can further perpetuate diagnostic uncertainty. Well-designed studies are needed to improve our diagnostic and risk stratification accuracy in order to formulate a consensus on the management of these incidental PCs.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Various gastrointestinal societies have released guidelines on the evaluation of asymptomatic pancreatic cysts (PCs). These guidelines differ on several aspects, which create a conundrum for clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate preferences and practice patterns in the management of incidental PCs in light of these societal recommendations. METHODS: An electronic survey distributed to members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Main outcomes included practice setting (academic vs. community), preferences for evaluation, management, and surveillance strategies for PCs. RESULTS: A total of 172 subjects completed the study (52% academic-based endoscopists). Eighty-six (50%) and 138 (80%) of the participants responded that they would recommend EUS surveillance of incidental PCs measuring less than 2 cm and 3 cm, respectively. Nearly half of the endosonographers (42.5% community and 44% academic; p = 1.0) would routinely perform FNA on PCs without any high-risk features. More academic-based endoscopists (57% academic vs. 32% community; p = 0.001) would continue incidental PC surveillance indefinitely. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the approach of incidental PCs among clinicians, with practice patterns often diverging from the various GI societal guideline recommendations. Most survey respondents would routinely recommend EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance for incidental PCs without high-risk features. The indiscriminate use of EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance of all incidental PCs is not cost-effective, exposes the patient to unnecessary testing, and can further perpetuate diagnostic uncertainty. Well-designed studies are needed to improve our diagnostic and risk stratification accuracy in order to formulate a consensus on the management of these incidental PCs.
Authors: William R Brugge; Gregory Y Lauwers; Dushyant Sahani; Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ilaria Pergolini; Klaus Sahora; Cristina R Ferrone; Vicente Morales-Oyarvide; Brian M Wolpin; Lorelei A Mucci; William R Brugge; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Manuel Patino; Dushyant V Sahani; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Carlos Fernández-Del Castillo Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Marcia Irene Canto; Ralph H Hruban; Elliot K Fishman; Ihab R Kamel; Richard Schulick; Zhe Zhang; Mark Topazian; Naoki Takahashi; Joel Fletcher; Gloria Petersen; Alison P Klein; Jennifer Axilbund; Constance Griffin; Sapna Syngal; John R Saltzman; Koenraad J Mortele; Jeffrey Lee; Eric Tamm; Raghunandan Vikram; Priya Bhosale; Daniel Margolis; James Farrell; Michael Goggins Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sharon A Lawrence; Marc A Attiyeh; Kenneth Seier; Mithat Gönen; Mark Schattner; Dana L Haviland; Vinod P Balachandran; T Peter Kingham; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Murray F Brennan; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ali A Siddiqui; Haroon Shahid; Apeksha Shah; Tanvi Khurana; William Huntington; Saad S Ghumman; David E Loren; Thomas E Kowalski; Sobia Laique; Umar Hayat; Mohamad A Eloubeidi Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2015 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 5.628