Search

Objective: Almost 30% of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPET) escape preoperative identification using standard imaging techniques. The goal of this retrospective study is to present our cumulative experience in the assessment of GEPET by preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and to compare it with a literature review., Patients and Methods: Thirty-seven patients with suspected specific hormonal syndromes were sequentially examined with US, CT, MRI, angiography, OctreoScan, and radial and sectorial EUS. Sixteen were males (43%) and 21 were females (57%), with a mean age of 61 years (interval: 40-84 a). Of all 37 patients, 27 had 19 endocrine tumors in the pancreas and 14 tumors in their gastrointestinal tract. No tumors were demonstrated in 10 patients, hence they were used as a control group. Of all 37 patients, 24 were operated on or had histological samples collected, with the presence of 26 GEPET (10 carcinoids) being confirmed in 22 patients., Results: EUS sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy were 81% and 78%. Specificity was 80%. All these values were similar to the mean values obtained from the literature review. Three pancreatic rumors smaller than or equal to 1 cm (insulinomas) were detected, which had escaped diagnosis with previous US, CT, and MRI studies. An echoendoscopic examination of the pancreas could not be completed in two cases (5%), a pancreas carcinoid and an already gastrectomized double pancreatic gastrinoma., Conclusion: EUS is a good preoperative technique for GEPET detection, and may likely be superior to other imaging techniques in the assessment of small tumors. The usefulness of EUS as a primary exploration after US or HCT has been posited for tumor diagnosis and localization before surgery.

Background/aims: Sedation rates may vary among countries, depending on patients' and endoscopists' preferences. The aim of this survey was to investigate the rate of using premedication for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy in endoscopy societies, members of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)., Methods: We evaluated a multiple-choice questionnaire which was e-mailed to representatives of national endoscopy societies, which are members of the ESGE. The questionnaire had 14 items referring to endoscopy practices in each country and the representatives' endoscopy units., Results: The response rate was 76% (34/45). In 47% of the countries, less than 25% of patients undergo routine diagnostic UGI endoscopy with conscious sedation. In 62% of the responders' endoscopy units, patients are not asked their preference for sedation and do not sign a consent form (59%). Common sedatives in use are midazolam (82%), diazepam (38%) or propofol (47%). Monitoring equipment is not available 'in most of the endoscopy units' in 46% (13/28) of the countries. Though they were available in 91% of the national representatives' endoscopy units, they are rarely (21%) used to monitor unsedated routine diagnostic UGI endoscopy., Conclusions: In about 50% of ESGE-related countries, less than 25% of patients are sedated for routine diagnostic UGI endoscopy. Major issues to improve include availability of monitoring equipment and the use of a consent form.