Impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration on the management of pancreatic cystic lesions. Issue 9 (September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rodríguez-D'Jesús, Antonio; Fernández-Esparrach, Glòria; Boadas, Jaume; Busquets, Juli; Fernández-Cruz, Laureano; Ferrer, Joana; Vaquero, Eva C.; Molero, Xavier; Navarro, Salvador; Sánchez-Cabús, Santiago; Araujo, Isis K.; Sendino, Oriol; Córdova, Henry; Sánchez-Montes, Cristina; Ginès, Angels
• Is Part Of: European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology. Volume 28:Issue 9(2016:Sep.)
• Publication Date: 2016-09
• Subjects: diagnosis -- endoscopic ultrasound -- impact -- management -- pancreatic cyst; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases; Liver -- Diseases; Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000678
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0954-691X

Abstract

Abstract : Background and study aims: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are well-recognized techniques for the study of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). However, little evidence exists on their impact on clinical care. The aim of this study is to determine how often EUS and EUS-FNA alter the diagnosis and management of patients with PCLs. Patients and methods: Eight physicians expert in pancreatic diseases were asked to report their diagnoses and management recommendations for 49 different PCLs. Clinical information was sequentially disclosed in a stepwise manner – progressively from clinical data plus computed tomography or MRI (level 1), to EUS (level 2) and EUS-FNA results including cytology, carcinoembryonic antigen, and amylase levels (level 3). Results: EUS led to a change in the diagnosis and management in 30% [95% confidence interval (CI): 26–35%] and 19% (95% CI: 16–23%) of cases, respectively, usually to a more intensive approach (14%; 95% CI: 11–18%). EUS-FNA altered the diagnosis and management in an additional 39% (95% CI: 34–44%) and 21% (95% CI: 17–25%) of the evaluations, respectively. EUS-FNA also increased the consensus in the diagnosis among the specialists that ranged from fair with computed tomography/MRI ( κ -index=0.32) to substantial with EUS-FNA ( κ -index=0.43). Conclusion: EUS and EUS-FNA impact the diagnosis and management of patients with PCLs; therefore, both are necessary in the workup of these patients. EUS-FNA markedly improves the agreement between physicians in terms of diagnosis, but not management. This study highlights the need for more research and standardization in the field.