David Karsenti1, Fabrice Caillol2, Ulriikka Chaput3, Bastien Perrot4, Stéphane Koch5, Lucine Vuitton5, Jérémie Jacques6, Jean-Christophe Valats7, Laurent Poincloux8, Clément Subtil9, Edouard Chabrun9, Nicolas Williet10, Geoffroy Vanbiervliet11, Hichem Belkhodja12, Antoine Charachon13, Marc Wangermez14, Emmanuel Coron15, Franck Cholet16, Jocelyn Privat17, Yann Le Baleur18, Philippe Bichard19, Philippe Ah Soune20, Stéphane Lecleire21, Maxime Palazzo22. 1. From the Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pôle Digestif Paris Bercy, Clinique Paris-Bercy, Charenton-le-Pont. 2. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Paoli Calmette Institut, Marseille. 3. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Saint-Antoine University Hospital, Paris. 4. Biostatistics and Methodology Unit, Department of Clinical Research and Innovation, CHU Nantes, Nantes. 5. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Jean Minjoz Hospital, Besançon. 6. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Dupuytren University Hospital, Limoges. 7. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Saint Eloi University Hospital, Montpellier. 8. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Estaing University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand. 9. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital, Bordeaux. 10. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital, Saint-Etienne. 11. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Archet University Hospital, Nice. 12. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital Lyon Sud, Lyon, France. 13. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Princesse Grace Hospital, Monaco. 14. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital, Poitiers. 15. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital, Nantes. 16. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital, Brest. 17. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Vichy Hospital, Vichy. 18. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Créteil, France. 19. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. 20. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Sainte-Musse Hospital, Toulon. 21. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Clinique des Cèdres, Bois-Guillaume. 22. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Beaujon University Hospital, Clichy-la-Garenne, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The results of only a few endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) have been published, and the safety of the procedure has never been investigated. Our study compared the recurrence rate in patients with and without preoperative EUS-FNA. METHODS: This European multicenter registry-based study was conducted in 22 digestive units, and retrospectively included all patients who underwent complete resection of a pancreatic SPN from 2000 to 2018. Patients with and without initial EUS-FNA were compared, and postsurgery recurrence and the associated risk factors were evaluated. RESULTS: A complete resection of a pancreatic SPN was performed in 149 patients (133 women, 89%), with a mean age of 34 (standard deviation, 14) years. There were no significant differences between the with (78 patients) and without (71 patients) EUS-FNA groups, except for age and tumor size and location.Preoperative EUS-FNA allowed pancreatic SPN diagnosis in 63/78 cases (81%). After a mean follow-up of 43 (standard deviation, 36) months, recurrence was noted in 4 patients (2.7%). Preoperative EUS-FNA was not correlated with recurrence, but an older age (P = 0.005) was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative EUS-FNA does not affect pancreatic SPN recurrence. In this series, old age was significantly correlated with recurrence.
OBJECTIVES: The results of only a few endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) have been published, and the safety of the procedure has never been investigated. Our study compared the recurrence rate in patients with and without preoperative EUS-FNA. METHODS: This European multicenter registry-based study was conducted in 22 digestive units, and retrospectively included all patients who underwent complete resection of a pancreatic SPN from 2000 to 2018. Patients with and without initial EUS-FNA were compared, and postsurgery recurrence and the associated risk factors were evaluated. RESULTS: A complete resection of a pancreatic SPN was performed in 149 patients (133 women, 89%), with a mean age of 34 (standard deviation, 14) years. There were no significant differences between the with (78 patients) and without (71 patients) EUS-FNA groups, except for age and tumor size and location.Preoperative EUS-FNA allowed pancreatic SPN diagnosis in 63/78 cases (81%). After a mean follow-up of 43 (standard deviation, 36) months, recurrence was noted in 4 patients (2.7%). Preoperative EUS-FNA was not correlated with recurrence, but an older age (P = 0.005) was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative EUS-FNA does not affect pancreatic SPN recurrence. In this series, old age was significantly correlated with recurrence.