Accuracy of preoperative workup in a prospective series of surgically resected cystic pancreatic lesions

Abstract

Background. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are considered useful techniques in the evaluation of pancreatic cysts. Aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic value of these techniques. Methods. This study included consecutive patients who underwent MRI, EUS, and EUS-FNA for a pancreatic cyst that was eventually resected surgically. Observers scored for cyst characteristics, a distinction between mucinous and non-mucinous cysts and a suspicion of malignancy. The interobserver agreement between MRI and EUS was calculated. Results. A total of 32 patients were included. Sensitivity for diagnosing a mucinous cyst was 78% for EUS versus 91% for MRI. Sensitivity for detecting malignancy was 25% (1/4) and 50% (2/4) for EUS and MRI respectively. Sensitivity of EUS-FNA for diagnosing a mucinous cyst (positive cytology and/or CEA >192 ng/ml) was 61%. Sensitivity for detecting malignancy (positive cytology) was 1/4 (25%). Interobserver agreement between MRI and EUS for the features was poor to fair. Conclusion. MRI and EUS are comparable techniques for the morphological characterization of pancreatic cysts. Combined sensitivity of EUS and MRI was higher than the sensitivity of one of the techniques alone. For diagnosing a mucinous cyst, FNA findings showed a low sensitivity, but a high specificity.     

Endoscopic diagnosis of cystic lesions of the pancreas

Endoscopic methods are increasingly used in the diagnosis of cystic lesions of the pancreas. The two major endoscopic approaches are endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and transpapillary diagnosis. EUS‐guided fine‐needle aspiration cytology and EUS‐guided fine needle‐based confocal laser endomicroscopy have been used in the differential diagnosis of mucinous and non‐mucinous pancreatic cysts. EUS is the most sensitive modality for detecting mural nodules (MN) in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). Contrast‐enhanced harmonic EUS (CH‐EUS), as an add‐on to EUS, is useful for identifying and characterizing MN. Recent studies show that CH‐EUS has a sensitivity of 60–100% and a specificity of 75–92.9% for diagnosing malignant cysts. Intraductal ultrasonography and peroral pancreatoscopy are especially useful for detecting MN and IPMN. A recent meta‐analysis showed that cytological assessment of pancreatic juice using a transpapillary approach had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 35.1%, 97.2%, and 92.9%, respectively, for diagnosing malignant IPMN. Further studies are warranted to determine the indications for each of these novel techniques in assessing cystic lesions of the pancreas.     

Current status on the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cysts in the Asia-Pacific region: role of endoscopic ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) play increasingly prominent roles in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cysts. The Asian Consortium of Endoscopic Ultrasound was recently formed to conduct collaborative research in this area. This is a review of literature on true pancreatic cysts. Due to the lack of systematic studies, there are no robust data on the true incidence of pancreatic cystic lesions in Asia and any change in over the recent decades. Certain EUS morphological features have been used to predict particular types of pancreatic cysts. Pancreatic cyst fluid viscosity, cytology, pancreatic enzymes, and tumor markers, in particular carcinoembryonic antigen, can aid in the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. Hemorrhage and infection are the most common complications of EUS-FNA of pancreatic cysts. Pancreatic cysts can either be observed or resected depending on the benign or malignant nature, or malignant potential of the lesions. Guidelines from an international consensus did not require positive cytological findings to be present in their recommendation for resection, which included all mucinous cystic neoplasms, all main-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), all mixed IPMN, symptomatic side-branch IPMN, and side-branch IPMN larger than 3 cm. In patients with poor surgical risks, EUS-guided cyst ablation of mucinous pancreatic cysts is an alternative. As long-term prospective data on pancreatic cysts are still not available in Asia, management strategies are largely based on risk stratification by surgical risk and malignant potential. Gene expression profiling of pancreatic cyst fluid and confocal laser endomicroscopic examination of pancreatic cysts are novel techniques currently being studied.     

Sensitivity of CT,MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the preoperative workup of histologically proven left-sided pancreatic lesions

Background and objectivesLeft-sided pancreatic lesions are often treated surgically. Accurate diagnostic work-up is therefore essential to prevent futile major abdominal surgery. Large series focusing specifically on the preoperative work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions are lacking. This surgical cohort analysis describes the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the diagnostic work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions.MethodsWe performed a post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent surgery for a left-sided pancreatic lesion between April 2010 and August 2017 and participated in the randomized CPR trial. Primary outcome was the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B. Sensitivity was determined as the most likely diagnosis of each modality compared with the postoperative histopathological diagnosis. Additionally, the change in sensitivity of EUS versus EUS-FNA/B (i.e., cyst fluid analysis, and/or tissue acquisition) was measured.ResultsOverall, 181 patients were included (benign: 23%, premalignant: 27%, malignant: 50%). Most patients had solid lesions (65%). Preoperative imaging included CT (86%), MRI (41%), EUS (68%). Overall, CT and EUS-FNA/B reached a sensitivity of both 71%, compared with 66% for MRI. When EUS was combined with FNA/B, sensitivity rose from 64% to 71%. For solid lesions, CT reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with MRI (70%) and EUS-FNA/B (69%). For cystic lesions, EUS-FNA/B reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with CT and MRI (both 62%).ConclusionsCT is the most sensitive diagnostic modality for solid and EUS-FNA/B for cystic left-sided pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA/B was associated with an increased sensitivity when compared to EUS alone.     

A randomized comparison of EUS-guided FNA versus CT or US-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing pancreatic cancer by EUS-FNA is a potentially appealing alternative to percutaneous biopsy. AIM: To compare EUS-FNA with CT or US-guided FNA for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: Single center, prospective, randomized, cross-over. SETTING: Duke University Medical Center. POPULATION: Eighty-four patients referred with suspicious solid pancreatic mass lesions randomized to CT/US-FNA (n = 43) or EUS-FNA (n = 41). INTERVENTION: Patients underwent an imaging procedure/FNA. If cytology was nondiagnostic, cross over to the other modality was offered. Final outcome was determined by clinical follow-up every 6 months for 2 years and/or surgical pathology for patients with negative FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA versus CT/US-FNA for pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: There were 16 true positive (TP) by CT/US-FNA and 21 TP by EUS-FNA. Sixteen of the 20 CT/US-FNA negative patients crossed over to EUS-FNA; 12 underwent FNA, 4 had no mass at EUS. Seven of the 12 had positive EUS-FNA. Eight EUS-FNA negative crossed over to CT/US; 4 had no mass at CT/US, 3 remained true negative throughout follow-up, 1 had chronic pancreatitis at surgery. The sensitivity of CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA for detecting malignancy was 62% and 84%, respectively. A comparison of the accuracy for CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA was not statistically significant (P = .074, chi(2)). LIMITATIONS: Failure to meet target enrollment resulted in an inability to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the 2 modalities. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is numerically (though not quite statistically) superior to CT/US-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.     

Molecular analysis of pancreatic cystic neoplasm in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUNDCystic pancreatic lesions consist of a wide variety of lesions that are becoming increasingly diagnosed with the growing use of imaging techniques. Of these, mucinous cysts are especially relevant due to their risk of malignancy. However, morphological findings are often suboptimal for their differentiation. Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with molecular analysis has been suggested to improve the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts.AIMTo determine the impact of molecular analysis on the detection of mucinous cysts and malignancy.METHODSAn 18-month prospective observational study of consecutive patients with pancreatic cystic lesions and an indication for EUS-FNA following European clinical practice guidelines was conducted. These cysts included those > 15 mm with unclear diagnosis, and a change in follow-up or with concerning features in which results might change clinical management. EUS-FNA with cytological, biochemical and glucose and molecular analyses with next-generation sequencing were performed in 36 pancreatic cysts. The cysts were classified as mucinous and non-mucinous by the combination of morphological, cytological and biochemical analyses when surgery was not performed. Malignancy was defined as cytology positive for malignancy, high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma on surgical specimen, clinical or morphological progression, metastasis or death related to neoplastic complications during the 6-mo follow-up period. Next-generation sequencing results were compared for cyst type and malignancy.RESULTSOf the 36 lesions included, 28 (82.4%) were classified as mucinous and 6 (17.6%) as non-mucinous. Furthermore, 5 (13.9%) lesions were classified as malignant. The amount of deoxyribonucleic acid obtained was sufficient for molecular analysis in 25 (69.4%) pancreatic cysts. The amount of intracystic deoxyribonucleic acid was not statistically related to the cyst fluid volume obtained from the lesions. Analysis of KRAS and/or GNAS showed 83.33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 63.34-100] sensitivity, 60% (95%CI: 7.06-100) specificity, 88.24% (95%CI: 69.98-100) positive predictive value and 50% (95%CI: 1.66-98.34) negative predictive value (P = 0.086) for the diagnosis of mucinous cystic lesions. Mutations in KRAS and GNAS were found in 2/5 (40%) of the lesions classified as non-mucinous, thus recategorizing those lesions as mucinous neoplasms, which would have led to a modification of the follow-up plan in 8% of the cysts in which molecular analysis was successfully performed. All 4 (100%) malignant cysts in which molecular analysis could be performed had mutations in KRAS and/or GNAS, although they were not related to malignancy (P > 0.05). None of the other mutations analyzed could detect mucinous or malignant cysts with statistical significance (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONMolecular analysis can improve the classification of pancreatic cysts as mucinous or non-mucinous. Mutations were not able to detect malignant lesions.     

Rendimiento diagnóstico de la punción mediante ultrasonografía endoscópica de las lesiones quísticas del páncreas

IntroductionDespite advances in imaging techniques, in many cases they are insufficient to establish the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL). There are few publications in our setting that evaluate the combination of several methods obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of the study was to evaluate the overall utility of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of PCL.Material and methodsRetrospective study based on a database updated prospectively of a cohort of patients referred for EUS-FNA due to PCL detected in an imaging test. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic yield of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytology and viscosity were studied to detect mucinous lesions.ResultsFrom November 2013 to April 2018, 122 EUS were performed for PCL. EUS-FNA was performed in 94/122 (77%) and 21/122 (17.2%) patients were operated on. We included 33/122 patients who had diagnostic confirmation by histology, imaging (serous cyst with typical pattern) or clinical evolution. The study of the ROC curve determined the cutoff point ≥419 ng/ml to differentiate mucinous/non-mucinous cystic lesions. The diagnostic yield of CEA was 87.5% (21/24), cytology 81.8% (27/33) and viscosity 84.4% (27/32). The three parameters in combination obtained the best result (30/33, 90.9%).ConclusionThe combination of CEA analysis, cytology and viscosity of pancreatic fluid obtained by EUS-FNA increases the performance in the diagnosis of mucinous pancreatic cystic lesions, with it being greater than 90%.     

Endosonography in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cysts

Rapid advances in radiologic technology and increased cross-sectional imaging have led to a sharp rise in incidental discoveries of pancreatic cystic lesions. These cystic lesions include non-neoplastic cysts with no risk of malignancy, neoplastic non-mucinous serous cystadenomas with little or no risk of malignancy, as well as neoplastic mucinous cysts and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms both with varying riskof malignancy. Accurate diagnosis is imperative as management is guided by symptoms and risk of malignancy. Endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) allows high resolution evaluation of cyst morphology and precise guidance for fine needle aspiration(FNA) of cyst fluid for cytological, chemical and molecular analysis. Initially, clinical evaluation and radiologic imaging, preferably with magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, are performed. In asymptomatic patients where diagnosis is unclear and malignant risk is indeterminate, EUSFNA should be used to confirm the presence or absence of high-risk features, differentiate mucinous from non-mucinous lesions, and diagnose malignancy. After analyzing the cyst fluid for viscosity, cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen, amylase, and cyst wall cytology should be obtained. DNA analysis may add useful information in diagnosing mucinous cysts when the previous studies are indeterminate. New molecular biomarkers are being investigated to improve diagnostic capabilities and management decisions in these challenging cystic lesions. Current guidelines recommend surgical pancreatic resection as the standard of care for symptomatic cysts and those with high-risk features associated with malignancy. EUSguided cyst ablation is a promising minimally invasive, relatively low-risk alternative to both surgery and surveillance.     

Combination of cyst fluid CEA and CA 125 is an accurate diagnostic tool for differentiating mucinous cystic neoplasms from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms

Background/objectivesDespite advances in imaging techniques, diagnosis and management of pancreatic cystic lesions still remains challenging. The objective of this study was to determine the utility of cyst fluid analysis (CEA, CA 19-9, CA 125, amylase, and cytology) in categorizing pancreatic cystic lesions, and in differentiating malignant from benign cystic lesions.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 68 patients with histologically and clinically confirmed cystic lesions was performed. Cyst fluid was obtained by surgical resection (n = 45) or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (n = 23). Cyst fluid tumor markers and amylase were measured and compared between the cyst types.ResultsReceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of the tumor markers demonstrated that cyst fluid CEA provided the greatest area under ROC curve (AUC) (0.884) for differentiating mucinous versus non-mucinous cystic lesions. When a CEA cutoff value was set at 67.3 ng/ml, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing mucinous cysts were 89.2%, 77.8%, and 84.4%, respectively. The combination of cyst fluid CEA content >67.3 ng/ml and cyst fluid CA 125 content >10.0 U/ml segregated 77.8% (14/18) of mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) from other cyst subtypes. On the other hand, no fluid marker was useful for differentiating malignant versus benign cystic lesions. Although cytology (accuracy 83.3%) more accurately diagnosed malignant cysts than CEA (accuracy 65.6%), it lacked sensitivity (35.3%).ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that cyst fluid CEA can be a helpful marker in differentiating mucinous from non-mucinous, but not malignant from benign cystic lesions. A combined CEA and CA 125 approach may help segregate MCNs from IPMNs.     

Updates in diagnosis and management of pancreatic cysts

Incidental pancreatic cysts are commonly encountered with some cysts having malignant potential. The most common pancreatic cystic neoplasms include serous cystadenoma, mucinous cystic neoplasm and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Risk stratifying pancreatic cysts is important in deciding whether patients may benefit from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or surgical resection. Surgery should be reserved for patients with malignant cysts or cysts at high risk for developing malignancy as suggested by various risk features including solid mass, nodule and dilated main pancreatic duct. EUS may supplement magnetic resonance imaging findings for cysts that remain indeterminate or have concerning features on imaging. Various cyst fluid markers including carcinoembryonic antigen, glucose, amylase, cytology, and DNA markers help distinguish mucinous from nonmucinous cysts. This review will guide the practicing gastroenterologist in how to evaluate incidental pancreatic cysts and when to consider referral for EUS or surgery. For presumed low risk cysts, surveillance strategies will be discussed. Managing pancreatic cysts requires an individualized approach that is directed by the various guidelines.     

Factors Determining Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Multicentre Asian Study

Background and Aim

The purpose of this study was to determine (1) the diagnostic yield for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions, (2) additional value of EUS-FNA over EUS alone in the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts, and (3) diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of EUS and EUS-FNA in the subset of patients where histopathology of surgical specimens were available.

Methods

All patients who underwent EUS examination for the evaluation of pancreatic cystic lesions in six Asian centres were included in the study.

Results

Of 298 patients with pancreatic cysts who underwent EUS, 132 (44.3 %) underwent FNA. In the entire cohort, pseudocysts and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) were the predominant cystic lesions. The cytologic yield of EUS-FNA was 47 %. On univariate analysis, factors associated with higher cytologic yield included vascular involvement on EUS, presence of solid cystic component, and increased number of needle passes during EUS-FNA. On multivariate analysis, presence of solid cystic components and increased number of needle passes during EUS-FNA were associated with higher diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA. For pancreatic cysts with a solid component, the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA increased significantly from 44 % with one pass to 78 % with more than one pass (p = 0.016). In the absence of a solid component, the diagnostic yield was 29 % with one pass and was not significantly different from the diagnostic yield of 50 % with more than one pass, p = 0.081.

Conclusion

The cytologic yield of EUS-FNA was 47 %. When a solid component was present in the cyst, doing more than one pass during EUS-FNA increased its diagnostic yield.     

Requirement of a single high-risk feature as an indication for EUS for the diagnosis of asymptomatic pancreatic cysts

Background and aimsEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is widely used to evaluate pancreatic cysts. Recent American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline limits EUS for evaluation of cysts with at-least two high-risk features (size ≥ 3 cm, dilated main pancreatic duct or presence of a solid component). We have investigated the impact of this guideline on sensitivity of EUS for pancreatic cancer and the reduction of EUS procedures for pancreas cysts.MethodsEUS procedures performed between 2004 and 2015 and related patient records were retrospectively reviewed to determine the presence or absence of high-risk features, and for the results of fine needle aspiration cytology.ResultsTwo hundred ten patients (108 males) underwent EUS for diagnostic evaluation of pancreatic cysts. Four patients (1.9%), all with at-least one high-risk feature, were diagnosed with cytologically-proven pancreatic cancer. Only 2 patients with cancer had at-least two high-risk features that would have warranted EUS examination based on the new AGA guideline. The requirement for at-least two high-risk features would have decreased the number of EUS procedures by 91%, but reduced the sensitivity for pancreatic malignancy to 50%. If only one high-risk feature was required, EUS procedures would have been decreased by 67%, with a sensitivity of 100%.ConclusionLimiting EUS to patients with pancreatic cysts with 2 or more high-risk features may substantially reduce the sensitivity for pancreatic malignancy. Performing EUS in patients with at least one high-risk feature may substantially decrease the need of invasive procedures without reducing sensitivity for detecting malignancy.     

The utility and the safety of EUS-guided FNA in the evaluation of duplication cysts

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of a foregut duplication cyst is of great clinical impact. A definitive diagnosis of a foregut duplication cyst can avert the need for major thoracic surgery in the otherwise asymptomatic individual. This study sought to evaluate the safety and the utility of EUS and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of foregut duplication cysts. METHODS: Over a period of 4 years, 4771 patients underwent EUS for various indications at two EUS referral centers. EUS findings were consistent with a mediastinal cyst in 30 cases. EUS-FNA was performed in 22 patients. A definitive diagnosis was established based on cytology, surgical pathology, and/or clinical follow-up. FNA was done with 22-gauge needles and antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: The appearance of cyst contents on EUS ranged from completely anechoic (23 cases) to hypoechoic (7 cases). Hypoechoic cystic lesions contained echogenic foci. All anechoic lesions were confirmed as benign duplication cysts based on cytology, pathology, and clinical follow-up. Hypoechoic cystic lesions were confirmed to be benign duplication cysts in 4 cases. Three cases proved to be malignant or granulomatous necrotizing lymph nodes. No periprocedural complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in the EUS appearance of benign mediastinal cysts. EUS-FNA of mediastinal cysts with smaller-gauge needles, and antibiotic prophylaxis appears safe and can provide a definitive diagnosis in atypical mediastinal cystic lesions.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle microforceps biopsy and needle-based confocal laser-endomicroscopy increase detection of potentially malignant pancreatic cystic lesions: A single-center study

BACKGROUNDCurrently, there is insufficient data about the accuracy in the diagnosing of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), especially with novel endoscopic techniques such as with direct intracystic micro-forceps biopsy (mFB) and needle-based confocal laser-endomicroscopy (nCLE).AIMTo compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and associated techniques for the detection of potentially malignant PCLs: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS), EUS-guided fiberoptic probe cystoscopy (cystoscopy), mFB, and nCLE.METHODSThis was a single-center, retrospective study. We identified patients who had undergone EUS, with or without additional diagnostic techniques, and had been diagnosed with PCLs. We determined agreement among malignancy after 24-mo follow-up findings with detection of potentially malignant PCLs via the EUS-guided techniques and/or EUS-guided biopsy when available (EUS malignancy detection). RESULTSA total of 129 patients were included, with EUS performed alone in 47/129. In 82/129 patients, EUS procedures were performed with additional EUS-FNA (21/82), CE-EUS (20/82), cystoscopy (27/82), mFB (36/82), nCLE (44/82). Agreement between EUS malignancy detection and the 24-mo follow-up findings was higher when associated with additional diagnostic techniques than EUS alone [62/82 (75.6%) vs 8/47 (17%); OR 4.35, 95%CI: 2.70-7.37; P < 0.001]. The highest malignancy detection accuracy was reached when nCLE and direct intracystic mFB were both performed, with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and observed agreement of 100%, 89.4%, 77.8%, 100% and 92.3%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with EUS-alone). CONCLUSIONThe combined use of EUS-guided mFB and nCLE improves detection of potentially malignant PCLs compared with EUS-alone, EUS-FNA, CE-EUS or cystoscopy.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in diagnosis of cystic pancreatic lesions

Background and study aimspancreatic cysts are commonly found lesions and proper diagnosis is very important for planning further management. The study aims to evaluate the role of cyst fluid amylase and tumour markers as cancer antigen (CA 19-9) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in addition to mucin stain in diagnosing pancreatic cysts and differentiating malignant from benign lesions.Patients and methodsThis prospective study was conducted on 184 patients diagnosed to have pancreatic cystic lesions from January 2013 to January 2018. Fluid analysis for CA 19-9, CEA, amylase, mucin stain and cytopathology were done. We compared these data with the final diagnosis based on histopathology after surgical resection, positive cytopathology and long period of follow up of the patients for at least 18 months.ResultsThe highest AUC was that of cystic CEA with cut-off value of 160 ng/ml; it had a sensitivity of 60.4% and a specificity of 85%. The best cut-off value for cystic CA 19-9 was 1318 U/ml with a sensitivity of 64.1% and a specificity of 68.1%. The cut-off value of cyst amylase level was 5500 U/L, with 84.2% sensitivity and 37.1% specificity. The sensitivity of mucin stain in detecting mucinous cystic neoplasm was 85.45%, specificity was 86.05% with accuracy 85.87%.ConclusionCyst fluid analysis by investigating amylase, mucin, CA 19-9, CEA and EUS examination improves the diagnosis of different pancreatic cysts.     

Cyst fluid glucose: An alternative to carcinoembryonic antigen for pancreatic mucinous cysts

Pancreatic cystic lesions(PCLs) have been increasingly recognized in clinical practice. Although inflammatory cysts(pseudocysts) are the most common PCLs detected by cross-sectional imaging modalities in symptomatic patients in a setting of acute or chronic pancreatitis, incidental pancreatic cysts with no symptoms or history of pancreatitis are usually neoplastic cysts. For these lesions,it is imperative to identify mucinous cysts(intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms) due to the risk of their progression to malignancy. However, no single imaging modality alone is sufficient for a definitive diagnosis of all PCLs. The cyst fluid obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration provides additional information for the differential diagnosis of PCLs. Current recommendations suggest sending cyst fluid for cytology evaluation and measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen(CEA) levels. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of cytology is greatly limited, and cyst fluid CEA has demonstrated insufficient accuracy as a predictor of mucinous cysts. More recently, cyst fluid glucose has emerged as an alternative to CEA for distinguishing between mucinous and nonmucinous lesions. Herein, the clinical utility of cyst fluid glucose and CEA for the differential diagnosis of PCLs was evaluated.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and multidetector spiral CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is now established as a valuable imaging test for diagnosing and staging pancreatic cancer. But, with significant recent improvements in spiral CT scanners, particularly higher resolution and ability to reconstruct 3D images, spiral CT is now increasingly accepted as being better for pancreatic cancer staging. The debate continues, however, about the best diagnostic test or combination of tests in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Spiral CT is more readily available than EUS-FNA and, therefore, more frequently used. In this study, we evaluated the use of EUS-FNA in conjunction with spiral CT for suspected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 81 consecutive patients who underwent EUS and EUS-FNA for clinical suspicion of a pancreatic cancer from November 2000 to November 2001. All patients had spiral CT with a multiphasic pancreatic protocol using multidetector spiral CT scanners. In all patients, EUS-FNA and spiral CT examinations were performed less than 3 wk apart. RESULTS: Overall, the accuracy of spiral CT, EUS, and EUS-FNA was 74% (n = 60/81, CI 63-83%), 94% (n = 76/81, CI 87-98%), and 88% (n = 73/81, CI 81-96%), respectively, for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. In patients without an identifiable mass on spiral CT, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and EUS-FNA for pancreatic tumors was 92% (n = 23/25, CI 74-99%). Absence of a focal "mass" lesion on EUS reliably excluded pancreatic cancer irrespective of clinical presentation (NPV 100% n = 5/5, CI 48-100%). The negative predictive value of EUS-FNA was only 22% (n = 2/9, CI 3-60%) in patients with obstructive jaundice and biliary stricture. However, in patients without obstructive jaundice at initial presentation, EUS-FNA was highly accurate (accuracy 97%, n = 33/34, CI 85-100%) and was reliable for ruling out malignancy (NPV 89%, n = 8/9, CI 52-100%). Cytologic assessment of EUS-FNA specimens was 89% accurate for identifying malignancy in suspicious lesions visualized on EUS. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS with FNA can be a valuable adjunct to newer high-resolution multidetector spiral CT for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer.     

Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for solid pancreatic neoplasms

Objective: Both endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cytology may provide tissue diagnoses in solid pancreatic neoplasms. However, there are scant data comparing these two methods. This study aims at retrospectively comparing EUS-FNA and ERCP tissue sampling and ability of cytopathological diagnosis in solid pancreatic neoplasms and to determine usefulness and adverse events of combining both procedures. Material and methods: Two hundred and thirty four patients suspected to have solid pancreatic mass on abdominal ultrasound and/or computed tomography (CT) were enrolled. EUS-FNA (group A), ERCP cytology (group B) and combined procedures (Group C) performed in 105, 91 and 38 cases, respectively. Results: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 98.9%, 93.3% and 98.1% for group A, and 72.1%, 60% and 71.4% for group B. Those for group C were all 100%. Sensitivity for malignancy in the pancreas head was 100% for group A and 82.4% for group B, and in the pancreas body and tail, 97.6% for group A and 57.1% for group B. EUS-FNA was more sensitive than ERCP cytology in diagnosing malignant pancreatic neoplasms 21–30?mm in size (p?=?0.0068), 31–40?mm (p?=?0.028) and?≥41?mm (p?Conclusions: EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP cytology for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Although combination of both procedures provide efficient tissue diagnosis and with a minimal adverse events rate, a prospective study including larger number of patients is required.     

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺细胞学及囊液癌胚抗原分析诊断胰腺囊性病变的价值

目的探讨内镜超声引导下细针穿刺（EUS-FNA）细胞学检查、囊液癌胚抗原（cEA）分析对区分胰腺囊性病变良恶性的诊断价值。方法对27例胰腺囊性病变患者行EUS-FNA细胞学检查和囊液CEA分析,绘制囊液CEA受试者工作特征曲线并通过Youden指数确定诊断临界值,以手术病理诊断为金标准,统计分析EUS、EUS-FNA细胞学及囊液CEA分析鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确率。结果手术病理确诊良性病变14例、潜在恶性／恶性病变13例。EUS鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性的准确率、敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为77．8％（21／27）、69．2％（9／13）、85．7％（12／14）、81．8％（9／11）、75．0％（12／16）;EUS-FNA细胞学上述指标分别为85．2％（23／27）、76．9％（10／13）、92．9％（13／14）、90．9％（10／11）、81．3％（13／16）;以囊液CEA值22．24ng／ml为诊断临界值,上述指标分别为74．1％（20／27）、84．6％（11／13）、64．3％（9／14）、68．8％（11／16）、81．8％（9／11）。结论EUS-FNA细胞学鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性具有较高的准确率和特异度,而囊液CEA分析（诊断临界值22．24ng／m1）鉴别诊断胰腺囊性病变良恶性的敏感度较高,选择合适的胰腺囊液CEA分析诊断临界值结合EUS-FNA细胞学检查可以基本满足临床鉴别胰腺囊性病变良恶性的需要。     

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: A meta-analysis

Background and objectivesMucinous cystic neoplasms and intraductal papillary mucinous tumours have greater malignant potential than serous cystic neoplasms. EUS alone is inadequate for characterising these lesions but the addition of FNA may significantly improve diagnostic accuracy. The performance of EUS-FNA is highly variable in published studies.AimTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA to differentiate mucinous versus non-mucinous cystic lesions with cyst fluid analysis for cytology and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by performing a meta-analysis of published studies.MethodsRelevant studies were identified via structured database search and included if they used a reference standard of definitive surgical histology or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. Data from selected studies were pooled to give summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Pre-defined subgroup analysis was performed.ResultsEighteen studies (published 2002–2011) were included, with a total of 1438 patients. For cytology, pooled sensitivity was 54(95%CI 49–59)% and specificity 93(90–95)%. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 13.3 (4.37–49.43), with I² of 77.1%. For CEA sensitivity was 63(59–67)% and specificity 88(83–91)%. The DOR was 10.76(6.29–18.41) with an I² of 25.4%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was enhanced in prospective studies and studies of <36 months duration. No impact of publication bias on our results was demonstrated.ConclusionsFine-needle aspiration has moderate sensitivity but high specificity for mucinous lesions. EUS-FNA, when used in conjunction with cross sectional imaging, is a useful diagnostic tool for the correct identification of mucinous cysts.