Donato Ciaccia

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Multidetector Computed Tomography for Detecting and Staging Pancreatic Cancer

Context Clinicians often use multidetector computed tomography or endoscopic ultrasonography to detect and stage pancreatic cancer. Contribution This prospective study found that, among 80 adults with proven pancreatic cancer, the sensitivity of multidetector computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasonography for detecting a pancreatic mass was 86% (CI, 77% to 93%) and 98% (CI, 91% to 100%), respectively. Among 53 patients undergoing surgery, endoscopic ultrasonography was more accurate for staging local tumor spread, but both tests showed similar accuracy for nodal staging and detecting resectability. Cautions Optimal strategies to detect and stage pancreatic cancer may vary across sites depending on the expertise of radiologists and endosonographers. The Editors In the United States for the year 2003, it was estimated that pancreatic cancer would be diagnosed in approximately 30700 patients and contribute to 30000 deaths (1). Complete surgical removal with negative histologic margins (R0 resection) is an independent predictor of postoperative survival (2-4) and remains the only potential curative treatment for pancreatic cancer. At surgical exploration, however, only 5% to 25% of the tumors are amenable to resection (5-8). Therefore, the principle goal of preoperative evaluation is to identify patients with potentially resectable disease while avoiding surgical exploration in those with unresectable disease. There is no evidence-based consensus on the optimal preoperative imaging assessment of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Because of widespread availability, helical computed tomography (CT) is usually the initial study for this indication (9, 10). Dual-phase helical CT, during which postinjection contrast image acquisition is obtained in both the pancreatic (arterial) and portal venous phases, has improved detection rate and assessment of resectability in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer (11, 12). Current state-of-the-art CT imaging uses a multiple-row detector with narrow detector collimation, wide x-ray beam, and rapid table translation; these features offer faster acquisition and thinner image slices compared with single-detector CT (13-15). Whether multidetector CT offers improved detection and staging of pancreatic cancer, however, is unknown. Endoscopic ultrasonography has been shown to be superior to conventional CT for the detection (16-20) and staging (19, 20) of pancreatic cancer. When compared with helical CT, however, endoscopic ultrasonography is reported to be either equivalent for detection (21, 22) or superior for detection or staging (23-25). To date, no comparative studies of multidetector CT with other imaging tests, including endoscopic ultrasonography, for suspected pancreatic cancer have been performed. Therefore, we conducted a prospective trial to compare endoscopic ultrasonography and multidetector CT for the detection, staging, and resectability of suspected locoregional pancreatic cancer. Methods Patients The institutional review board at Indiana University Medical Center approved this study, and all patients signed written informed consent. Eligible patients were referred to our hospital with clinically suspected or recently diagnosed solid or cystic pancreatic cancer within the previous 8 weeks. The referral base for our hospital consists of gastroenterologists and surgeons from Indiana and the surrounding contiguous states. Patients were eligible only if they agreed to undergo endoscopic ultrasonography, CT, and surgery (if necessary) at our institution. Patients were excluded if they had previously undergone endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasonography at our institution for suspected pancreatic cancer; declined or remained undecided about potential surgical intervention; were referred to our institution by surgeons outside our hospital system. Patients were also excluded if they were pregnant, were incarcerated, could not independently provide informed consent, or were considered high surgical risk (American Society of Anesthesiology class III to V). In addition, we excluded patients with known or suspected periampullary masses, cholangiocarcinomas, or cancer with suspected locally advanced arterial (superior mesenteric, hepatic, or celiac) involvement or metastatic disease (ascites, suspicious liver or pulmonary lesions, distant enlarged lymph nodes) detected by previous imaging studies. Patients with suspected nonocclusive involvement of the superior mesenteric vein or portal vein were considered eligible for enrollment. Study Design This was a prospective, single-center, observational study. All enrolled patients had to respond to an initial health and medical questionnaire, which was followed by same-day endoscopic ultrasonography. Computed tomography was performed within 1 week. Within 3 weeks after CT, a surgeon examined the patient and reviewed the results of endoscopic ultrasonography and CT to determine eligibility for potential resection. After surgery or the decision to pursue nonoperative management, we telephoned patients to assess quality of life at 1 month, 3 months, and every 6 months until death or until 24 months if clinical disease remained stable. Endoscopic Ultrasonography Technique Conscious sedation was performed with various combinations of intravenously administered propofol, meperidine, fentanyl, or midazolam. Initially, we examined all patients with a radial echoendoscope (Olympus GF-UM130 [Olympus America Inc., Melville, New York]). We then examined patients with a linear echoendoscope (using either Pentax FG-36UX [Pentax Precision Instruments, Orangeburg, New York] or Olympus GF-UC140P [Olympus America Inc.]). Unless cancer had been definitively confirmed previously, endoscopic ultrasonographyguided fine-needle aspiration was performed with a 22-gauge needle (Wilson-Cook Medical Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina) in all patients, when applicable. A cytotechnologist or cytopathologist was on-site for preliminary interpretations of all aspirations. One of 3 experienced gastroenterologists, each of whom had performed at least 1000 pancreatic examinations, performed all procedures. The operator was not blinded to previous radiographic data. Recorded information included the presence or absence, size, echocharacteristics, location, or locoregional extension of any visualized pancreatic mass, lymph nodes, or distant metastases. Lymph nodes that were not accessible to endoscopic ultrasonographyguided fine-needle aspiration were considered malignant if 3 or more of the following criteria were present: diffuse hypoechoic echogenicity, short-axis diameter of 5 mm or greater, well-defined borders, round shape, or location within 5 mm of the tumor. Well-defined hypoechoic or hyperechoic lesions within the liver with a short-axis diameter of 10 mm or greater and not accessible to fine-needle aspiration were defined as metastases. We considered vascular involvement by the tumor to be present if any 1 of the following were noted: loss of the normal hyperechoic interface between tumor and vessel for at least 5 mm (adherence), irregular tumor and vessel interface, tumor within vessel lumen (invasion), vessel encasement, and perigastric or periduodenal collaterals with associated venous occlusion. Immediately after the examination, any visualized mass was designated by the endosonographer as surgically resectable or unresectable and assigned a tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging according to the 1997 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification (Appendix Table) for staging of pancreatic cancer (26). Multidetector CT Technique We performed multidetector CT with a quad-channel scanner (MX 8000 Quad, Philips Medical Systems, Cleveland, Ohio) by using 0.5-second gantry rotation time and acquisition of 4 sections per rotation. All patients drank 500 mL of tap water as nonopaque oral intraluminal contrast media. A total of 150 mL (300 mg of iodine/mL) of low-osmolar contrast media (Isovue-300, Bracco Diagnostics, Princeton, New Jersey) was injected with a power injector (CT Envision Injector, Medrad, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) at a rate of 4.0 mL/s into an antecubital vein by using either an 18- or 20-gauge cannula. Examination was performed in a dual-phase mode. Image acquisition was first done during the pancreatic phase (35 seconds after the start of contrast infusion) from the top to the bottom of the pancreas with 4.0-mm beam collimation (nominal section thickness, 1.0 mm; effective section thickness, 1.3 mm), 0.5-mm reconstruction interval, 120 kVp, 205 mAs, and a pitch of 1.0 during a single breath-hold of 15 to 20 seconds. The second phase was performed during the portal venous phase (65 seconds after the start of contrast infusion) from the top of the liver to the iliac crests with 10-mm beam collimation (nominal section thickness, 2.5 mm; effective section thickness, 3.2 mm), 1.3-mm reconstruction interval, 120 kVp, 250 mAs, and a pitch of 0.875 during a single breath-hold of 15 seconds. Multiplanar (2-dimensional) reformatting was not routinely performed; however, when it was used, the entire data set was transferred to a workstation (MX View, Philips Medical Systems) for evaluation. No 3-dimensional (volume rendering) postprocessing was used in this study. One of 3 experienced gastrointestinal radiologists who were blinded to the results of the previous endoscopic ultrasonography examination interpreted all scans. Patient information provided to the interpreting radiologist included presenting symptoms; the size, location, and vascular involvement (if known) of any visualized pancreatic mass from previous CT; and the results of any previous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (for example, presence or absence of ductal strictures) or pathology (for example, endoscopic brush cytology). Locoregional and distant adenopathy were considered malignant if they were greater than 10 mm in

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: a prospective single center experience.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: a prospective single center experience

Clinical utility of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of mediastinal masses in the absence of known pulmonary malignancy.

BACKGROUND Mediastinal masses represent a diagnostic challenge because of their proximity to numerous critical structures, difficulty of access for tissue sampling, and myriad potential pathologic etiologies. A large, single-center experience with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of non-lung cancer-related mediastinal masses is presented. METHODS An EUS database was reviewed and all cases of mediastinal mass or lymphadenopathy encountered between 1994 and 1999 were included. Final diagnoses were determined by EUS-FNA cytology and clinical follow-up. RESULTS Forty-nine patients were identified (27 women, 22 men; mean age 58.1 years, range 30-89 years). A malignant process was diagnosed in 22 cases (45%) and a benign process in 24 (49%). The EUS-FNA specimen was nondiagnostic in 3 cases (6%). An accurate diagnosis was made in 46 of the 49 patients (94%). No complication was noted. CONCLUSIONS EUS-FNA is a minimally invasive technique that facilitates detection and tissue sampling of mediastinal masses. It is a safe procedure that can be performed with the patient under conscious sedation in an outpatient setting.

Biliary and pancreatic stent cytology in the diagnosis of pancreatico-biliary malignancy

Introduction: Various endoscopic tissue sampling techniques are utilized in the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancy. A number of small series suggest cytological examination of cellular debris from biliary stents affords sensitivity comparable to brush cytology.

4610 Biliary and pancreatic stent cytology in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary malignancy.

INTRODUCTION: Various endoscopic tissue sampling techniques are utilized in the diagnosis of PBmalignancy. A number of small series suggest cytological examination of cellular debris from biliary stents affords sensitivity comparable to brush cytology. AIM: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of stent cytology in the diagnosis of PB malignancy. METHODS:All patients who underwent ERCP with stent removal for cytological examination were included. Nearly all subjects had prior negative intraductal tissue sampling but suspicion for malignancy persisted. Stents were transported in cytorich-red fixative and had debris scraped, placed on slides for PAP staining and were examined by an experienced cytopathologist. Stents removed from previously proven malignant strictures were not included.Final cancer diagnosis was based on cytologic results, surgery, other tissue sampling techniques, autopsy or clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Between Jan. 1994 and Aug. 1999, 68 biliary and 13 pancreatic stents in 68 patients were examined cytologically (M:F 38:31; mean age 61, range 19-87). Five patients were excluded because of lack of confirmation of the final diagnosis. All biliary stents were used in the treatment of biliary strictures. The indications for the 13 pancreatic stents were PD stricture (7), cystic lesion (4) and other (2). All cytology results recorded as atypical were considered benign for the purposes of this analysis. The sensitivity of stent cytology for the diagnosis of malignancy was 9.1%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative predictive value 58.9%. Three of the four cases with atypical cytology were from patients with malignant strictures: pancreatic adenocarcinoma, locally metastatic gallbladder carcinoma and mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. The fourth sample was from a patient with PSC. If these cases were included in the analysis, the sensitivity increases to 18.2% and the specificity is minimally decreased to 97.8%.SUMMARY: Cytological examination of cellular debris from biliary/pancreatic stents has a very low sensitivity for the detection of PB malignancy. This improves slightly when all grades of cellular atypia are considered indicative of malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Stent cytology should not be used in isolation to aid in the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancy because of its low yield. It is an impractical test for the early confirmation of malignancy as cytological examination is delayed until stent removal.