Abbonarsi

Impact of EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy on the diagnostic yield and clinical management of pancreatic cystic lesions - 20/04/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.gie.2019.12.022 
Antonio R. Cheesman, MD 1, Hongfa Zhu, MD, PhD 2, Xiaoyan Liao, MD, PhD 2, Arnold H. Szporn, MD 2, Nikhil A. Kumta, MD, MS 1, Satish Nagula, MD 1, Christopher J. DiMaio, MD 1, ⁎
1 Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA 
2 Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA 

∗Reprint requests: Christopher J. DiMaio, MD, FASGE, Dr Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1069, New York, NY 10029.Dr Henry D. Janowitz Division of GastroenterologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiOne Gustave L. Levy PlaceBox 1069New YorkNY10029

Abstract

Background and Aims

EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling (MFB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) are emerging diagnostic tools for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). There is a paucity of data regarding their performance and impact. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes and changes in clinical management resulting from MFB and nCLE use in PCLs.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with PCLs who underwent combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE. Primary outcomes included diagnostic yield (specific PCL type) and change in clinical management for each modality compared with the current “composite standard” (CS) obtained by combining clinical, morphologic, cyst fluid cytology, and chemical analysis.

Results

Forty-four cysts were studied in 44 patients. Technical success was 100% for EUS-FNA, 88.6% for MFB, and 97.7% for nCLE. Of 44 procedures, there was 1 adverse event (2.3%, an infected pseudocyst). Diagnostic yield for each individual modality was 34.1% for CS, 75.0% for MFB (P < .05 vs CS), and 84.1% for nCLE (P < .05 vs CS). Diagnostic yield for combined tests was 79.5% for CS/MFB, 88.6% for CS/nCLE, and 93.2% for CS/MFB/nCLE (P = not significant). Compared with the CS, the use of MFB, nCLE, and their combination led to overall change in clinical management in 38.6%, 43.2%, and 52.3% of cases, respectively. MFB and nCLE led to an overall increase in discontinuation of surveillance (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 31.8% [P < .05]), led by a reduction in the indication for follow-up radiologic or endoscopic studies (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 38.6% [P < .05]). Based on MFB and nCLE, 2 of 28 (7.1%) and 3 of 28 (10.7%) patients who would have undergone further surveillance were referred for surgery.

Conclusions

In the evaluation of PCLs, the use of combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE is safe. MFB and nCLE led to significant improvements in specific PCL diagnosis, which in turn has major impacts in clinical management.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Abbreviations : CEA, CS, MFB, nCLE, PD, PCL


Mappa


 DISCLOSURE: The following authors disclosed financial relationships: A. R. Cheesman: Expenses from Olympus. N. A. Kumta: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Apollo Endosurgery, and Gyrus Acmi, Inc; speaker for Boston Scientific and Apollo Endosurgery; expenses from Boston Scientific, Olympus, EndoGastric Solutions, and Gyrus Acmi, Inc. C. J. DiMaio: Consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific and Medtronic; expenses from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, EndoGastric Solutions, and US Endoscopy. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.
 See CME section; p. 1187.
 If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr DiMaio at [email protected].


© 2020  American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 91 - N° 5

P. 1095-1104 - maggio 2020 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Treatment of postoperative pancreatic fluid collections
  • Gregory A. Coté
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Digital single-operator peroral cholangioscopy-guided biopsy sampling versus ERCP-guided brushing for indeterminate biliary strictures: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial (with video)
  • Christian Gerges, Torsten Beyna, Raymond S.Y. Tang, Farzan Bahin, James Y.W. Lau, Erwin van Geenen, Horst Neuhaus, Duvvur Nageshwar Reddy, Mohan Ramchandani

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.