Search

Rationale: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has become the norm for the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. EUS-TA is relatively safe, but various complications can occur. Infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is a rare but serious complication. The latest guidelines suggest that all invasive interventions in patients with IPN should be delayed until walled-off necrosis appears., Patient Concerns: A 73-year-old man was referred to our hospital with double primary cancers including gallbladder and pancreas. We performed EUS-TA on metastatic pancreatic tail cancer to confirm histologic diagnosis. Six days after the procedure, he developed abdominal pain and fever., Diagnoses: The patient's laboratory findings showed leukocytosis and C-reactive protein elevation. Fluid collection around pancreas tail and stomach was detected in computed tomography (CT) scan, and the patient was diagnosed with IPN., Interventions and Outcomes: EUS-guided endoscopic transmural drainage (EUS-TD) was performed for the treatment of IPN. Two days after the procedure with antibiotics, his CRP level decreased abruptly, and he received chemotherapy for the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) 5 days after the procedure. He was discharged from our hospital without complications 15 days after chemotherapy., Lessons: In selected patients with PDAC, early endoscopic drainage may be recommended as treatment for IPN resulting from complications of EUS-TA., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is a clinical condition characterized by the mechanical obstruction of the pylorus or the duodenum due to tumor compression/infiltration, with consequent reduction or impossibility of an adequate oral intake. MGOO is mainly secondary to advanced pancreatic or gastric cancers, and significantly impacts on patients' survival and quality of life. Patients suffering from this condition often present with intractable vomiting and severe malnutrition, which further compromise therapeutic chances. Currently, palliative strategies are based primarily on surgical gastrojejunostomy and endoscopic enteral stenting with self-expanding metal stents. Several studies have shown that surgical approach has the advantage of a more durable relief of symptoms and the need of fewer re-interventions, at the cost of higher procedure-related risks and longer hospital stay. On the other hand, enteral stenting provides rapid clinical improvement, but have the limit of higher stent dysfunction rate due to tumor ingrowth and a subsequent need of frequent re-interventions. Recently, a third way has come from interventional endoscopic ultrasound, through the development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy technique with lumen-apposing metal stent. This new technique may ideally encompass the minimal invasiveness of an endoscopic procedure and the long-lasting effect of the surgical gastrojejunostomy, and brought encouraging results so far, even if prospective comparative trial are still lacking. In this Review, we described technical aspects and clinical outcomes of the above-cited therapeutic approaches, and discussed the open questions about the current management of MGOO., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Dr. Anderloni reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work; Dr. Repici reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Fujifilm, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Fujifilm, outside the submitted work; Dr. Teoh reports personal fees from Microtech Medical Corporations, personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Cook, personal fees from Taewoong, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Microtech Medical Corporations, personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Cook, personal fees from Taewoong, outside the submitted work; The other Authors declare no conflict of interests., (©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are different techniques for obtaining tissue using a fine needle guided by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS); all aim to obtain the most appropriate material, free of defects, of good quality and in sufficient quantity., Objective: The objective of the study was to determine which of the two EUS-guided techniques (capillary and wet) provides better quality samples for cytopathological analysis and which should be used for obtaining tissue from pancreatic, bile duct, liver, and lymph node tumors., Material and Methods: We conducted a pilot prospective study that included 26 patients with evidence of pancreatic tumor, liver tumor, and/or lymph node metastasis of primary tumor. All patients were subjected to two different tissue sampling techniques, the capillary technique and the wet technique, during the same procedure. Both techniques relied on EUS guidance. The samples obtained for the cytopathological analysis were evaluated in blinded manner by two different pathologists., Results: Pathologist A was able to make a diagnosis using the capillary technique in 96.15% of the cases and in 88.46% of the cases using the wet technique. Pathologist B was able to make a diagnosis using the capillary technique in 96.15% of the cases and in 92.30% of the cases using the wet technique. The kappa coefficient between observers for histopathological diagnosis was 1 for capillarity and 0.948 for wet technique., Conclusion: The capillary technique yielded better results than the wet technique in terms of sample quality and cellularity., (Copyright: © 2020 Permanyer.)

Background & Aims: Fiducial markers are inert radiopaque gold or carbon markers implanted in or near pancreatic tumor to demarcate areas for image-guided radiation therapy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) pre-loaded fiducial needles (PLNs) have been developed to circumvent technical issues associated with traditional back-loaded fiducials (BLNs). We performed a randomized controlled trial to compare procedure times in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing EUS-guided placement of BLNs vs PLNs., Methods: In a prospective study, 44 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma referred for fiducial marker placement at 2 tertiary care centers were assigned to groups that received PLNs (n = 22) or BLNs (n = 22); each group had the same proportion of patients with tumors of different locations (head or neck vs body or tail).The procedure was standardized among all endoscopists and placement of a minimum of 3 markers inside the tumor was defined as technical success. The times for procedure and fiducial placement were recorded, total number of fiducial markers used documented, and grade of procedure difficulty ranked by passing the needle or deploying the fiducials. Other recorded variables included tumor characteristics, fluoroscopy use, and the number of fiducials clearly seen by EUS and fluoroscopy. The primary aim was to compare the duration of EUS-guided fiducial insertion of BLNs vs PLNs., Results: The median placement time was significantly shorter in the PLN group (9 min) than the BLN group (16 min) (P < .001). However, the 44% reduction in time did not reach pre-specified levels (≥60%). Similar results were found after stratifying by tumor location. Deployment of BLNs was easier than deployment of PLNs (P = .03). There was no significant difference between groups in technical success, number of fiducials placed, EUS or fluoroscopic visualization, or adverse events. During simulation computed tomography and image-guided radiation therapy, there was no difference between groups in visualization of fiducials, migration rate, or accuracy of placement., Conclusions: In a randomized controlled trial of 44 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, we found EUS-guided placement of PLNs to require less time and produce similar results compared with BLNs. Further refinements in PLN delivery system are needed to increase the ease of deployment. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02332863., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: None

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been widely used for the treatment of various solid organ malignancies. Over the last decade, endosonographers have gradually shifted the application of RFA from porcine models to humans to treat a spectrum of diseases. RFA is performed in patients with pancreatic carcinoma who are not candidates for surgery. In this paper, we will discuss various indications for RFA, its procedural details and complications. At present, endoscopic ultrasound-guided RFA is gradually incorporated into the management of various diseases and opens a new avenue for disease treatment., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: No potential conflicts of interest exist.

Background and Aim: Recently, a 22-gauge (G) needle with a Franseen tip design was developed for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). The present study evaluated the performance of the Franseen biopsy needle in EUS-guided tissue acquisition., Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle. Lesions were sampled using either the Franseen needle only or after failed diagnostic fine-needle aspiration (FNA). After rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE), two dedicated passes were carried out for histological assessment using the cell block technique. Main outcomes were: (i) rates of diagnostic adequacy for ROSE and histological diagnosis; and (ii) quality of histology as determined by total tissue area and tumor percentage in tissue., Results: Thirty patients underwent EUS-FNB of pancreatic or other masses over a 3-month period. Twenty-four lesions were sampled using the Franseen needle only and six after failed diagnostic FNA. Final diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 12, gastrointestinal stromal cell tumor in five, other tumors in four and benign disease in nine. Diagnostic adequacy for ROSE was 96.6% and histological diagnosis was established in 96.7% of patients. Median tissue area was 2.9 mm 2 (IQR = 0.68-8.71 mm 2 ) and median tumor percentage in tissue was 73.9% (IQR = 44-97.6). Rates of technical success and adverse events were 96.7 and 3.3%, respectively., Conclusion: Preliminary data suggest that the Franseen needle yields diagnostic material for ROSE and histology in >95% of patients., (© 2016 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Real-time guidance of needle advancement has transformed endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to an interventional procedure. EUS-guided fine-needle puncture has application in various interventional procedures (drainage of pseudocyst, biliary intervention, and injection of drugs). Celiac plexus or ganglion neurolysis for pain control is the major current EUS-guided fine-needle injection procedure. Feasibility and safety to accurately position needle devices and/or inject under real-time EUS imaging with precise delivery of interventional agent have expanded the use of EUS to ablate tumors. These include radiofrequency ablation, or delivery of fiducial markers, potential antitumor agents, or radioactive seeds, in the cancer mass. Minimally invasive EUS-guided antitumor therapy is primarily used for pancreatic cancer because of better anatomic access (vs other imaging modality) and the dismal prognosis (despite improvements in surgery and chemoradiation). Also, the response to parenteral chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer is poor because of suboptimal drug delivery resulting from hypovascularity and abundant desmoplasia. Other targets for EUS-guided tumor ablation are pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and pancreatic cyst lesion, which are less aggressive and curable by resection. However, patients non-eligible for surgery may benefit from local EUS-guided ablation., (© 2017 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

New technologies in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluation have been developed because of the need to improve the EUS and EUS-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnostic rate. This paper reviews the principle, indications, main literature results, limitations and future expectations for each of the methods presented. Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS uses a low mechanical index and highlights slow-flow vascularization. This technique is useful for differentiating solid and cystic pancreatic lesions and assessing biliary neoplasms, submucosal neoplasms and lymph nodes. It is also useful for the discrimination of pancreatic masses based on their qualitative patterns; however, the quantitative assessment needs to be improved. The detection of small solid lesions is better, and the EUS-FNA guidance needs further research. The differentiation of cystic lesions of the pancreas and the identification of the associated malignancy features represent the main indications. Elastography is used to assess tissue hardness based on the measurement of elasticity. Despite its low negative predictive value, elastography might rule out the diagnosis of malignancy for pancreatic masses. Needle confocal laser endomicroscopy offers useful information about cystic lesions of the pancreas and is still under evaluation for use with solid pancreatic lesions of lymph nodes.

Aim: To compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses., Methods: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge (G) AN (Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22G PC (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications., Results: Fifty six consecutive patients (29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions ( n = 38), lymphadenopathy ( n = 13), submucosal tumors ( n = 4), or others lesions ( n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy (AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy (AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes (AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications (none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36 (64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance., Conclusion: Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: None to declare.

Background/aims: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a forward-viewing linear endoscopic ultrasound (FV-EUS) in diagnostic EUS procedures compared to standard oblique-viewing EUS (OV-EUS)., Methods: This study was a prospective, randomized study that permitted cross-over. Fifty-one patients with subepithelial pancreatobiliary and upper gastrointestinal lesions underwent FV-EUS and OV-EUS sequentially, in random order. The EUS visualization was performed by a novice endosonographer, and the image quality of specific lesions was scored by an expert endosonographer. If fine-needle aspiration (FNA) was indicated, it was performed using both echoendoscopes by an expert endosonographer., Results: Both of the EUS procedures had similar visualization times and image quality. In general, the visualization time was inversely related to the diameter of the specific lesions. In subepithelial lesions of the stomach and duodenum, the visualization time (98.8±62.2 seconds vs 139.0±66.6 seconds, p=0.008) and image quality (4.1±1.3 vs 3.3±1.7, p=0.02) of FV-EUS were significantly superior to OV-EUS. FV-EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses was successful in seven patients (87.5%)., Conclusions: FV-EUS may increase the ease of access to gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions compared to conventional OV-EUS. The performance of FV-EUS for evaluating pancreatobiliary diseases and performing interventions was comparable to conventional OV-EUS.

Radiofrequency ablation of the pancreas represents a more effective tumor-destruction method compared to other ablation techniques. The endoscopic ultrasound guided radiofrequency ablation is indicated for locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, without the need of general anesthesia and fast recovery. The main limitations are the encasement of the mesenteric vessels or of the common bile duct in the head pancreatic tumours. The technique is feasible, effective and relatively safe in porcine models, with minimal evidence of fat necrosis in intra-pancreatic and/or extra-pancreatic adipose tissue. It has been successfully applied on insulinomas and pancreatic adenocarcinoma in humans, with few complications, such as duodenal bleeding or mild abdominal pain. Other side effects as biliary fistula, pancreatic fistula or acute pancreatitis seen in intraoperative settings of radiofrequency ablation, have not been reported in endoscopic ultrasound guided radiofrequency ablation.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) continues to have a very poor prognosis. New epidemiological trials suggest that statins could play a protective role in smokers, while HbsAg-positive hepatitis B virus could be a risk factor. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the main diagnostic tool for PC, and new technologies associated with this technique have emerged, such as quantitative elastography, intravenous contrasts or, more recently, LASER confocal endomicroscopy. New markers in urine or pancreatic juice have appeared to distinguish between PC and chronic pancreatitis. The role of the "on site" cytopathologist to increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided pancreatic sampling is completely supported by new prospective trials and some multicenter studies have been reported that compare the standard cytologic needles with the new procore-histology needles. Regarding cystic pancreatic tumors, most studies have aimed to validate the 2012 Sendai international guidelines and to ascertain predictive factors of malignancy in cystic lesions, mainly intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). The role of intracystic CEA levels in determining malignancy is challenged. From a therapeutic point of view, EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation of cystic and solid lesions has emerged as a feasible and safe procedure in specific circumstances., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

Performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been prevalent mainly in Europe and the Unites States in the past 20 years. By using this technique, we are able to obtain cytologic and histologic material, which are difficult to obtain without laparotomy and are important in determining the therapeutic strategy for lesions. Rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation (ROSE) provides a highly reliable diagnosis. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA with ROSE in most studies exceeds 90%; however, similarly favorable results without ROSE have been reported from selected studies. These results may not apply to all situations and should be interpreted in the light of specific clinical situations and resource availability. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify the technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.

Objective: There is no comparative study of electronic radial endoscopic ultrasonography (ER-EUS) and electronic curvilinear EUS (EC-EUS). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ER-EUS and EC-EUS for detecting pancreatic malignancies., Methods: This was a retrospective review of the patients who had EUS assessment from September 2008 to December 2011 for suspicious pancreatic tumors. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve to detect pancreatic malignancies were calculated and compared between the ER-EUS and EC-EUS cohort. The final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy was based on pathology, or the consensus of patient's clinical course and multimodal imaging tests., Results: Two hundred twenty-one patients were included and divided into two cohorts: ER-EUS (n = 139) and EC-EUS (n = 82) cohorts. With propensity score matching method, 70 cases in each cohort were selected for the comparison. There was no significant difference in sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve to detect pancreatic malignancy between ER-EUS and EC-EUS cohort (88.5 vs. 100%, 88.6 vs. 90.9%, 0.8855 vs. 0.9545)., Conclusion: ER-EUS and EC-EUS provided similar accuracy for the detection of pancreatic malignancies. In view of similar diagnostic results of ER-EUS and EC-EUS for the detection of pancreatic malignancy, and the advantage of being able to perform FNA with EC-EUS, EC-EUS may be the preferred choice.

Aim: A number of potential variables are associated with the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to evaluate factors affecting the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for upper gastrointestinal submucosal or extraluminal solid lesions., Methods: Patients with such lesions who underwent EUS-FNA between January 2009 and December 2010 were studied retrospectively. Needles of 22, 25 and 19 gauge were used. The associations between the EUS-FNA results and factors such as mass location, mass size, needle size, number of needle passes, combined histologic-cytologic analysis and final diagnosis were analyzed., Results: A total of 170 EUS-FNA procedures were performed in 158 patients with upper gastrointestinal submucosal or extraluminal solid lesions. The overall accuracy of EUS-FNA was 86.5% (147/170). The diagnostic accuracy with three or more needle passes was higher than with less than 3.0 needle passes (90.0%, 108/120 vs 78.0%, 39/50; P < 0.05). Mass location, mass size, and final diagnosis were not associated with EUS-FNA accuracy. Combined cytologic-histologic analysis had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than either cytologic or histologic analysis alone (P < 0.001). In a subgroup of 90 patients, both 22 and 25 gauge needles were used for EUS-FNA. The overall diagnostic accuracy was similar for 25 gauge needles and 22 gauge needles (80.0% vs 78.9% P = 1.000) in this subgroup., Conclusion: Overall, 25 and 22 gauge needles have a similar diagnostic accuracy. Our results suggest that 3.0 or more needle passes and combined cytologic-histologic analysis enhance the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA., (© 2012 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2012 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background: Spectral analysis of the radiofrequency (RF) signals that underlie grayscale EUS images has been used to provide quantitative, objective information about tissue histology., Objective: Our purpose was to validate RF spectral analysis as a method to distinguish between chronic pancreatitis (CP) and pancreatic cancer (PC)., Design and Setting: A prospective study of eligible patients was conducted to analyze the RF data obtained by using electronic array echoendoscopes., Patients: Pancreatic images were obtained by using electronic array echoendoscopes from 41 patients in a prospective study, including 15 patients with PC, 15 with CP, and 11 with a normal pancreas., Main Outcome Measurements: Midband fit, slope, intercept, correlation coefficient, and root mean square deviation from a linear regression of the calibrated power spectra were determined and compared among the groups., Results: Statistical analysis showed that significant differences were observable between groups for mean midband fit, intercept, and root mean square deviation (t test, P < .05). Discriminant analysis of these parameters was then performed to classify the data. For CP (n = 15) versus PC (n = 15), the same parameters provided 83% accuracy and an area under the curve of 0.83., Limitations: Moderate sample size and spatial averaging inherent in the technique., Conclusions: This study shows that mean spectral parameters of the backscattered signals obtained by using electronic array echoendoscopes can provide a noninvasive method to quantitatively discriminate between CP and PC., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is useful in obtaining not only high-resolution images of organs and surrounding tissue but also the tissue itself for histopathological diagnosis using fine needle aspiration. Currently, there are two types of EUS available for use: radial and convex arrayed EUS. Each type of EUS has its own advantages and disadvantages. Because radial arrayed EUS can obtain 360 degree images, it is easy to see surrounding organs and vessels. In addition, a single longitudinal image of the pancreas, gallbladder and bile duct is easy to obtain. For this reason, radial arrayed EUS is highly effective in diagnostic examinations. In contrast, while scanning range of convex arrayed EUS limited to 180 degrees, it has the advantage of being able to obtain tissue samples. Additionally while using convex arrayed EUS, the upper part of the bile duct and neck of the pancreas are easily seen beyond the portal vein. It is important to understand the characteristics of each EUS in order to select the most suitable EUS technique for diagnostic assessment., (© 2011 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2011 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Over the last few decades, the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies has greatly increased by allowing earlier diagnosis and appropriate staging. The development of linear array EUS also allows fine needle aspiration (FNA) to be carried out under real-time EUS guidance and offers definitive diagnosis, which has fundamentally changed the diagnostic approach to pancreatic malignancies. Moreover, linear array EUS with the EUS-FNA technique has a therapeutic application that has expanded the role of this procedure in the management of pancreatic malignancies. This review will focus on the features of linear array EUS and discuss the current role of linear array EUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies., (© 2011 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2011 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background: Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is an established treatment for upper abdominal cancer pain. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided CPN (EUS-CPN) was introduced and has enabled the performance of CPN under real-time imaging guidance, thereby making this technique much safer and easier. However, this procedure is not always efficacious, and a limited number of patients benefit from it. It should not be recommended for patients suspected of having unfavorable outcomes. We determined the predictive factors for response to EUS-CPN in order to enable rational selection of the therapeutic strategy., Patients and Methods: Forty-seven consecutive patients who underwent EUS-CPN at our institutions were eligible for this study. Absolute ethanol containing a contrast medium was injected just above the origin of the celiac trunk from the aorta under real-time EUS guidance, and abdominal computed tomography was performed immediately after the procedure to evaluate the distribution of the injected ethanol. The efficacy in pain relief was evaluated based on the pain score at day 7 after EUS-CPN., Results: Pain relief was obtained in 32 patients (68.1%). Multivariate analysis using a multiple logistic regression model revealed that direct invasion of the celiac plexus and distribution of ethanol only on the left side of the celiac artery were significant factors for a negative response to EUS-CPN (odds ratio = 4.82 and 8.67, P = 0.0387 and 0.0224, respectively)., Conclusion: EUS-CPN seems to be less effective in patients with direct invasion of the celiac plexus. Ethanol should be injected on both sides of the celiac axis to obtain greater pain relief., (© 2010 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2010 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background: Histologic diagnosis of cystic pancreatic lesions (CPLs) is often difficult because of the low sensitivity of FNA and brush cytology., Objective: To discover whether obtaining biopsy samples from the cystic wall could increase the diagnostic yield of these lesions., Design: A pilot study including 2 patients with CPLs., Setting: Endoscopy unit in a tertiary-care hospital., Patients: Two women with CPLs located at the pancreatic head., Interventions: On EUS, biopsy forceps and a SpyGlass fiberoptic were passed through a 19-gauge needle to visualize and obtain samples from the cystic wall., Main Outcome Measurements: The histologic assessment was based on the obtained biopsy samples., Results: Both CPLs were considered to be mucinous cystoadenomas, because mucinous-like cylindric epithelium without cellular atypia was observed., Limitations: Pilot study., Conclusions: Obtaining biopsy samples from the wall of a CPL is now feasible. It represents a significant advantage in the diagnostic yield of this type of lesion., (Copyright © 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To objectively compare the electronic radial scanning echoendoscope (ER-ES) with the mechanical radial scanning echoendoscope (MR-ES) in the quality of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) images of gastrointestinal tract and pancreaticobiliary lesions., Methods: Studied were 56 patients: 20 with gastric cancer, 20 with gallbladder lesions, and 16 with intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas (IPMN). They were subjected to EUS, half of them using the ER-ES, and the other half using the MR-ES. EUS images thus obtained were evaluated concerning four items in patients with gastric cancer and those with gallbladder lesions, and three items in patients with IPMN. Six endosonographers blindly assessed two EUS images per patient on a visual analogue scale. In each of the three groups of patients, the evaluators' median scores for the ER-ES and MR-ES for each item were compared., Results: The median scores for the ER-ES were significantly higher than those for the MR-ES in all items in patients with gastric cancer and those with IPMN, and in one item in patients with gallbladder lesions., Conclusion: The ER-ES is certainly superior to the MR-ES in the quality of EUS images of gastrointestinal tract and pancreaticobiliary lesions.

Background: In the assessment of patients with a clinical suspicion of malignant pancreatic disease, computed tomography (CT) findings are sometimes negative or inconclusive., Aims: To determine whether endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (EUS÷FNA) was conclusive in patients with a clinical suspicion of pancreatic malignancy, in whom CT scan was negative or inconclusive., Methods: Retrospective case series in a tertiary referral centre. From February 2006 to December 2007, EUS÷FNA was performed in all patients suspected of having malignant pancreatic disease with negative or inconclusive CT findings. Main outcome measurement was the diagnostic yield of EUS in these patients., Results: 34 patients had a negative (n=11) or inconclusive (n=23) CT scan. EUS÷FNA established a correct diagnosis in 30÷34 cases (88%). Malignancy was diagnosed in 19÷34 patients and nonmalignant disease in 8÷34 cases. In 3÷34 patients no lesions were found and no malignant disease developed during follow-up (mean=728 days). EUS÷FNA was inconclusive in 4÷34 patients., Conclusion: In patients with a clinical suspicion of pancreatic malignancy with negative or inconclusive CT findings, EUS÷FNA was able to establish a diagnosis in 88% of cases. EUS should therefore be considered a diagnostic modality in this complex group of patients.

Background and Study Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is now performed routinely in many advanced endoscopy centers and has enhanced the ability to diagnose pancreatic masses. However, there is uncertainty about which needle size is optimal for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. We aimed to evaluate the performance of the 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in obtaining cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic masses., Methods: All cases that were referred for EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses between February 2001 and June 2007 were reviewed, and patients who underwent EUS-FNA using the 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle system were identified. In patients who underwent surgery, operative histopathological findings were compared with the cytopathological findings from EUS-FNA., Results: A total of 842 patients with pancreatic masses detected on computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and confirmed by EUS underwent EUS-FNA with the 22-gauge needle (n = 540) or the 25-gauge needle (n = 302). Results of EUS-FNA cytology findings were compared with the gold standard of surgical histopathological findings or long-term clinical follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of FNA were respectively 84%, 100%, 100%, and 73% [corrected] for the 22-gauge needle compared with 92%, 97%, 98%, and 87%, [corrected] respectively for the 25-gauge needle. No complications were noted in the 25-gauge needle group, compared with pancreatitis in 2% of the 22-gauge needle group., Conclusions: This retrospective comparative study shows that EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle system is a safe and reliable method for tissue sampling in pancreatic masses. The system is more sensitive and has a slightly [corrected] higher NPV than the standard 22-gauge needle. Our study suggests that perhaps the smaller caliber FNA needle causes less trauma during EUS-FNA and hence less complications. Further studies including randomized trials are needed.

Objective: To determine common indications for requesting Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and to describe the diagnosis made after endoscopic ultrasound/Fine-Needle Aspiration and Cytology (FNAC) during two years at a tertiary gastrointestinal unit., Study Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study., Place and Duration of Study: The study was carried out in Gastrointestinal Department of Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, from March 2006 to February 2008., Methodology: One hundred and eighty nine patients who underwent EUS during study period at Military Hospital were included in the study. Patients too ill (hypoxemic/hypotensive) to undergo procedure safely and those with complete esophageal blockage at upper end by tumour not allowing scope/EUS probe to advance beyond were excluded. EUS was done with Olympus Exera EUS 160, linear or radial scope, as required. EUS findings were recorded against indications as enlarged lymph nodes, tumour, staging, normal or incomplete. Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) was done as per findings on EUS using 21-22 G needle. An on-site cytopathologist made the provisional cytopathological diagnosis. Final cytology/histopathology report was given after review of slides by consultant histopathologists at Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), Rawalpindi, and were documented as tuberculosis, malignancy, chronic pancreatitis or reactive hyperplasia. Data was analyzed for documentation of patients' age, gender, common indications, findings on EUS/FNAC, using SPSS version 10. Percentages and frequencies were calculated for the presence of these above-mentioned variables., Results: Of the 189 patients, 145 (77%) were male and 44 (23%) female. Age was 18-80 years (mean 49 years). Major indications for referral were lymphadenopathy in 92 (49%), suspected growth pancreas in 57 (28%), growth of stomach in 20 (11%) and a heterogeneous group included esophageal, liver, retroperitoneal masses, rectal and other pathologies. Findings on EUS included lymphadenopathy in 76, mostly in sub-carina and AP window. Mass in pancreas was seen in 36, followed by stomach tumour in 17 and esophagus in 9. FNAC was done in 142 out of 189 patients. Final diagnosis out of 67 FNAC/histopathology of lymph nodes were tuberculosis in 26 and malignant lesions in 23. These included metastatic adenocarcinoma in 8, lymphoproliferative disorder in 7, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma in 5, small cell carcinoma in 2 and anaplastic in 1. Pancreatic tumours were adenocarcinoma in 16, poorly differentiated in 3 and neuroendocrine in 2. Stomach tumours were found in 11, and included lymphomas 5, GIST 3, carcinoids 2, metastatic choriocarcinoma 1 and adenocarcinoma in 1. Therapeutically, 3 celiac blocks and one pancreatic pseudocyst drainage was done., Conclusion: The main indication of EUS and pathology of mediastinal and celiac nodes were metastatic malignancy and tuberculosis. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was another common cause for asking EUS.

Background: endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows cytologic and/or histologic diagnosis of lesions within or adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. However, the amount of tissue obtained with a regular 22 gauge needle is not always satisfactory. With the development of a needle XNA-10J-KB (Shot-Gun) that resembles the automatic liver biopsy needle, it is expected that significant samples be obtained more frequently (core biopsy), optimizing histological analysis., Objective: to compare samples obtained with EUS-FNA using 3 different needle systems: GIP, NA-10J-1 and Shot-Gun., Methods: 19 patients underwent EUS-FNA for diagnosis (5) or tumor staging (14). Mean age was 58.9 years (range 27-82), being 50% men. All patients were submitted to EUS-FNA with the 3 needle models. The Shot-Gun model was "shot" when its tip was near the target inside the lesion, followed by aspiration. Samples were submitted for cytologic and histologic examination., Results: mean lesion size was 3.0 cm (range 0.8-5.5 cm). Final diagnoses were made after surgery or intra-operative biopsy: 13 pancreatic tumors (12 adenocarcinomas and 1 neuroendocrine tumor), 4 chronic pancreatitis, 1 acute pancreatitis, and 1 cholangiocarcinoma. Specimens adequate for cytologic diagnosis were obtained in 13/19 (68. 4%) patients using GIP model, in 14/19 (73.7%) with NA10J-1 model, and in 17/19 (89.5%) with ShotGun, model (p=0.039). Histologic analysis was possible in 10/19 (52.6%) patients using the GIP model, in 14/19 (73.7%) with NA10J-1, and in 17/19 (89.5%) with Shot-Gun, model (p=0.005). Adequate samples for cytologic or histologic assessment in 16/19 (84.2%) patients using the GIP model, in 17/19 (89.5%) with NA10J-1, and in 18/19 (94.7%) with Shot-Gun, model (p=0.223). In two cases biopsies were negative due to very hard tumors., Conclusion: the Shot-Gun needle obtained better samples for histological diagnosis than NA10J-1 needle and GIP.

Endoscopic ultrasound staging of gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary cancers is important in guiding the choice of an appropriate treatment strategy such as endoscopic mucosal resection, surgery or palliative chemotherapy. This review will summarize the principles of endoscopic ultrasound T staging using a radial echoendoscope, elaborate on the accuracy rate in T staging, and discuss the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound T staging in the context of esophageal, gastric and pancreaticobiliary cancers.

Correct localisation of pancreatic gastrinomas by endoscopic ultrasound seems to be possible in most cases. However, success rate in the duodenal wall is disappointing, even if the examination is performed under optimal circumstances by a very experienced examiner. Nevertheless, in certain conditions endoscopic ultrasound may yield important information, besides detection of the primary tumor for example about structures suspected to be metastases in the region of the gastrinoma triangle.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasonographically guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate method for obtaining diagnostic material from lesions within and immediately adjacent to the upper GI tract., Objective: To determine whether EUS Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) (Quickcore, Wilson-Cook, Winstom Salem, NC) can increase the accuracy of EUS-guided tissue sampling when combined with FNA when no cytopathologist is present., Design: Retrospective case review., Setting: University-based referral practice., Patients: All patients who had lesions that were accessible through the esophagus or stomach and that were greater than 20 mm and amenable to Trucut biopsy were included., Interventions: A total of 41 patients underwent both EUS-FNA and TCB with a separate pathologist evaluating each specimen., Main Outcome Measurements: The diagnostic performance of FNA, TCB, and its combination were compared., Results: The overall accuracy in our series was as follows: FNA, 76%; TCB, 76% (P not significant); and combination of FNA and TCB, 95% (P = .007). In the 26 patients with malignant diagnoses, the accuracy of combination was 100% versus 77% for FNA (P = .03). The median number of passes with the FNA and TCB was 4.4 (range 2-8) and 2.8 (range 2-5), respectively. One patient in the series had fever and chest pain after EUS biopsy., Limitations: Retrospective study., Conclusion: In our series EUS-TCB accuracy was equal to FNA when no on-site cytopathologist is present. TCB was helpful in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses, gastric submucosal lesions, lymphoma, and necrotic tumors. A 100% accuracy of FNA + TCB was seen in patients with malignant diseases and in patients who had failed or been refused biopsy by other modalities in the past. More data are needed before the exact role of TCB in the absence of on-site cytopathology can be accurately defined.

Background: Pancreatic tumours are common in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), and close surveillance is needed to detect pancreatic lesions at an early stage. Conventional radiology is inefficient in verifying the small tumours indicated by biochemical screening. During the past decade, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has evolved as a sensitive method for the detection of small pancreatic lesions., Methods: EUS was evaluated in 25 patients with MEN1, two of whom had symptoms due to hormonal secretion. Twenty-two patients had biochemical signs of pancreatic tumours, and in five patients lesions were located by either computed tomography (two) or transabdominal ultrasonography (three)., Results: EUS visualized pancreatic tumours in the five patients in whom lesions were detected by the other methods and in a further nine patients. Eight of these 14 patients had surgery, and tumours were confirmed histopathologically. No lesion was detected in any of the 11 patients with no tumour detected by EUS., Conclusion: EUS is a more sensitive technique for the detection and localization of potentially malignant lesions in patients with MEN1 than computed tomography or transabdominal ultrasonography., (Copyright (c) 2005 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although spiral CT is the best noninvasive method for detecting pancreatic cancer, the sensitivity for small masses remains low. It is this group of patients with small masses who may most benefit from surgical resection. Endoscopic ultrasound employs the use of flexible endoscopic devices to perform diagnostic ultrasound imaging and is a more accurate means of detecting pancreatic tumors. The ability to perform cytological aspiration of pancreatic masses via EUS is also a major step in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This review article will summarize the role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer as well as looking at its impact on the management of these malignancies. Additionally, we will discuss the utility of screening high-risk patients for pancreatic cancer using the tools that are currently available.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can reliably diagnose and stage pancreatic cancer but is less competent for the differentiation between vascular compression (VC) and invasion (VI)., Aim: Prospective comparison of linear EUS with/without three-dimensional (3D) EUS for vessel involvement in pancreatic cancer to evaluate the feasibility of linear 3D ultrasound., Material and Methods: Linear echoendoscopy was used to identify the pancreatic tumor, the tumor-vessel relation and for EUS-FNA to obtain tissue diagnosis. Immediately afterwards, 3D image acquisition was performed using a magnetic tracked 3D sensor. The acquisition time was 10-20 s., Results: EUS results of 22 patients with solid pancreatic lesions were compared to surgical histology. This proved adenocarcinoma in 17 patients and chronic pancreatitis in 5. EUS showed VI in 10 patients, VC in 6, and no vascular involvement (NVI) in 6. Additional 3D evaluation showed VI in 6 patients, VC in 10, and NVI in 6. Surgery proved VI in 7 patients, VC in 9, and NVI in 6. EUS showed VI in 3/5 patients with chronic pancreatitis, 3D showed VC only, while surgery found two patients to have VC and with NVI. In two patients with pancreatic cancer, VI was diagnosed on two dimensional (2D), but VC on 3D evaluation. Surgery showed VC and VI in one each. In the 2D, one patient with NVI had VI on surgery; and on 3D one VC proved to have NVI at surgery. In 1/22 patients the result of 3D was false negative, while 4/22 were false positives and one false negative in conventional EUS., Conclusion: Linear 3D EUS seems feasible for pancreatic evaluation. In addition, linear EUS enhanced the evaluation of vascular involvement of pancreatic lesions, especially in chronic pancreatitis.

Background: The accuracy of ERCP-based brush cytology or forceps biopsy for tissue diagnosis is relatively low (usually not exceeding 70%). By contrast, reported accuracy rates for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatobiliary masses are over 80%. This prospective study compared these two modalities for the first time in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures and pancreatic tumors., Methods: Fifty consecutive patients (29 men, 21 women; mean age 62.1 years) with obstructive jaundice in whom a tissue diagnosis was required were included. During ERCP, intraductal specimens were obtained with a forceps and with two different types of brush (conventional and spiral suction) in random order. During EUS, only visible mass lesions or localized bile duct wall thickening were aspirated (22-gauge needle), with at least two passes yielding material sufficient for assessment. A cytopathologist was not present in the procedure room to evaluate specimen adequacy. The reference methods were surgery, other biopsy results, follow-up until death, or the conclusion of the study (mean follow-up 20 months)., Results: The final diagnoses were malignancy, 28 (16 pancreatic, 12 biliary), and benign biliary stricture, 22. Sensitivity and specificity for ERCP-guided biopsy were 36% and 100%, respectively; for ERCP-guided cytology (when using conventional and spiral suction brushes), 46% and 100%, respectively; and for EUS-guided FNA, 43% and 100%, respectively. If the punctured lesions are considered (n=28) alone, the sensitivity of EUS-guided FNA was 75%. In general, sensitivity was better for ERCP-based techniques in the subgroup biliary tumor (ERCP 75% vs. EUS 25%), whereas EUS-guided biopsy was superior for pancreatic mass (EUS 60% vs. ERCP 38%)., Conclusions: For biliary strictures, combined ERCP- and EUS-guided tissue acquisition seems to be the best approach to tissue diagnosis. From a clinical standpoint, it appears reasonable, when a tissue diagnosis is required, to start with ERCP if biliary malignancy is suspected and with EUS when a pancreatic tumor is thought to be the cause of a biliary stricture.

We evaluated the usefulness and limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in pancreatic mass lesions. EUS was useful in detecting small pancreatic mass lesions, especially ductal adenocarcinomas smaller than 20 mm and small islet cell tumors smaller than 10 mm. In some of these cases, characteristic echo patterns were specific and useful for differential diagnosis from focal pancreatitis. However, when EUS did not clearly delineate a tumor at the stenotic area of the main pancreatic duct, transpapillary pancreatoscopy and biopsy/cytology were sometimes effective to obtain a definitive diagnosis. EUS fine-needle aspiration should be performed in conjunction with imaging modalities when the differential diagnosis of a pancreatic mass is difficult to make. Although the value of EUS in cancer staging was overestimated, EUS in conjunction with spiral computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging should be performed for such a purpose. Usefulness and limitations of intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS) also were evaluated. IDUS was useful in detecting carcinoma in situ and small tumors and in assessing parenchymal invasion and the intraductal spread of the tumor. IDUS was also useful in accurately localizing islet cell tumor and in differentiating benign from malignant cases of localized stenosis of the main pancreatic duct. Thus, EUS and IDUS are indispensable modalities in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases.