Filadélfio Venco

CONTEXT: Pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis can be difficult to differentiate from pancreatic carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of endoscopic ultrasound and fine needle aspiration in differentiating between inflammatory masses and malignancies in chronic pancreatitis. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care endoscopy unit. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Between February 1997 and December 2006, 69 pancreatic head masses from patients with alcoholic chronic pancreatitis underwent EUS-FNA using a linear echoendoscope and 22-gauge needles. Final diagnoses were obtained from surgery or clinical follow-up. The patients were subdivided into two groups: pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Pseudotumoral masses and adenocarcinoma were found in 58 and 11 patients, respectively. The size of the lesions and the clinical presentation were similar in both groups, but the cancer patients were older than the patients with pseudotumoral masses (P=0.020). Fourteen of the 58 (24.1%) pseudotumoral masses were misdiagnosed as cancers, and 4 of the 11 (36.4%) cancers were erroneously diagnosed as pseudotumoral masses when evaluated by EUS alone. EUS-FNA confirmed the final diagnosis in 66 of the 69 (95.7%) cases. Cytopathology correctly classified 8 of the 11 (72.7%) malignancies and all benign cases. Three of the 11 (27.3%) cancers were misdiagnosed as pseudotumoral masses, and no pseudotumoral mass was diagnosed as a cancer. In two cases, the specimens were inadequate for cytopathological assessment. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA were 72.7%, 100%, 100%, 95.1% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound alone for differentiating between pseudotumoral masses and pancreatic cancer arising from chronic pancreatitis is unsatisfactory. Fine needle aspiration of these tumors significantly improves diagnostic capability.

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic solid tumors larger or smaller than 3 cm, and cystic lesions. METHODS: From January/1997 to December/2006, 611 patients with pancreatic tumors were subjected to EUS-FNA. The final diagnosis was obtained either by surgery (356 cases) or after a mean clinical follow-up of 11.8 mo in the remaining patients. RESULTS: There were 405 solid tumors, 189 cystic lesions and 17 mixed. Pancreatic specimens for cytological assessment were successfully obtained by EUS-FNA in 595 (97.4%) cases. There were 352 (57.6%) malignancies and 259 (42.4%) benign tumors. Among the malignancies, pancreatic adenocarcinomas accounted for 67% of the lesions. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were, respectively, 78.4%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 77.2% and 87.2%. Specifically for solid tumors, the same parameters for neoplasms larger and smaller than 3 cm were, respectively, 78.8% vs 82.4%, 100% vs 98.4%, 100% vs 99%, 54.8% vs 74.1% and 83.1% vs 87.8%. For cystic lesions, the values were, respectively, 72.2%, 99.3%, 97.5%, 91% and 92.2%. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA can be used to sample pancreatic tumors in most patients. Even though the negative predictive value is inadequate for large solid tumors, the results are rather good for small solid tumors, especially concerning the sensitivity, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. Among all pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNA for cystic lesions can reveal the best negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy, both higher than 90%.

BACKGROUND: Metastases to the pancreas are rare, and usually mistaken for primary pancreatic cancers. This study aimed to describe the histology results of solid pancreatic tumours obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of metastases to the pancreas. METHODS: In a retrospective review, patients with pancreatic solid tumours and history of previous extrapancreatic cancer underwent EUS-FNA from January/1997 to December/2010. Most patients were followed-up until death and some of them were still alive at the end of the study. The performance of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic metastases was analyzed. Symptoms, time frame between primary tumour diagnosis and the finding of metastases, and survival after diagnosis were also analyzed. RESULTS: 37 patients underwent EUS-FNA for probable pancreas metastases. Most cases (65%) presented with symptoms, especially upper abdominal pain (46%). Median time between detection of the first tumour and the finding of pancreatic metastases was 36 months. Metastases were confirmed in 32 (1.6%) cases, 30 of them by EUS-FNA, and 2 by surgery. Other 5 cases were non-metastatic. Most metastases were from lymphoma, colon, lung, and kidney. Twelve (32%) patients were submitted to surgery. Median survival after diagnosis of pancreatic metastases was 9 months, with no difference of survival between surgical and non-surgical cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA with histology analysis of the specimens for diagnosis of pancreatic metastases were, respectively, 93.8%, 60%, 93.8%, 60% and 89%. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA with histology of the specimens is a sensitive and accurate method for definitive diagnosis of metastatic disease in patients with a previous history of extrapancreatic malignancies.

Cytological smear is widely employed to analyse specimens obtained from endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), but false-negative or inconclusive results may occur. A better diagnostic yield can be obtained from processing cell blocks. We compared the effectiveness of the cell block technique and cytological smear in the diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms. From January 1997 to December 2006, 611 patients with pancreatic tumors were evaluated by EUS-FNA. Surgery was performed in 356 cases, and the other 255 patients were followed clinically for an average of 12.8 months. In total, 282 (46.2%) patients were evaluated with cytological smears, and 329 (53.8%) were evaluated using only cell blocks. Malignant disease was detected in 352 (57.6%) cases, in which adenocarcinoma accounted for 236 (67%) cases. A benign disease was found in the other 259 cases, including 35.1% focal chronic pancreatitis and 32.4% pseudocysts. Aspiration samples were satisfactory in 595 (97.4%) patients after an average of 2.2 (1-4) passes of the needle. Regardless of the cytopathological examination technique, EUS-FNA confirmed malignancy in 269 of 352 (76.4%) cases, and a benign disease in 257 of 259 (99.2%) cases. For patients who received surgery with histologically confirmed lesions, the sensitivity specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the smears versus cell blocks in diagnosing pancreatic tumors were 61% versus 85.2% (P<0.001), 100% versus 93.1%, 100% versus 98.4%, 36% versus 55.1% (P=0.046) and 68% versus 86.5% (P<0.001), respectively The cell block technique demonstrated a hig her sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy than cytological smears.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative diagnostic imaging of pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) is challenging. A few studies have investigated the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of SPN. We investigated the diagnostic yield of cell-blocks and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for SPN using EUS-FNA specimens without cytological evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the histopathology records of patients with suspected SPN, who underwent EUS-FNA biopsy between January 1997 and January 2020. Diagnosis based on cell-blocks (haematoxylin-eosin staining with complementary IHC) was compared with the definitive surgical diagnosis. RESULTS: This study included 25 patients (24 were women). Patients' mean age was 33.7 years (range 12-78 years). The most common symptom was abdominal pain. SPN was an incidental finding in 52% of the patients. The mean lesion size was 4.3 cm (range 1.2-11.4 cm), and the most common endosonographic features included solid-cystic (56%) or solid (40%) tumours. Final diagnoses included SPNs (n = 23) and non-functioning neuroendocrine tumours (n = 2). The overall accuracy of EUS-FNA was 80%. Tumour cells showed immunopositivity for β-catenin, CD10, CD99 and progesterone receptor (PR) in 93.7%, 87.5%, 83.3% and 66.6% of patients, respectively. No SPN showed immunopositivity for chromogranin A. CONCLUSIONS: Intention-to-diagnose analysis showed that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for SPNs using cell blocks and complementary IHC without cytological evaluation was fairly good. Evaluation of β-catenin, CD 10, CD99 and PR expression must be included in the IHC panel for diagnostic confirmation of SPNs using EUS-FNA biopsy specimens.