Which is the best current guideline for the diagnosis and management of cystic pancreatic neoplasms? An appraisal using evidence-based practice methods.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPNs) are an increasingly diagnosed entity. Their heterogeneity poses complex diagnostic and management challenges. Despite frequently encountering these entities, particularly in the context of the increased imaging of patients in modern medicine, doctors have to rely on incomplete and ambiguous published literature. The aim of this project was to review the guidelines relating to CPNs using evidence-based practice (EBP) methods. METHODS: A search of both the primary and secondary literature was performed. Five sets of guidelines were identified which were then methodologically appraised by the AGREE II instrument, a validated and widely utilised tool for guideline development assessment. RESULTS: The 2014 'Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms' were found to be the most methodologically sound guidelines, on the basis of both the overall score and average weighted domain score. CONCLUSIONS: The current best guidelines were identified. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument can be used for retrospective review of published guidelines or as a roadmap for guideline-writing groups. All guidelines found were methodologically limited. Further longitudinal/prospective studies are required to improve the level of evidence. KEY POINTS: • Cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPNs) are an increasingly encountered entity in modern medicine. • Clinical uncertainty remains with regard to optimal diagnostic and management strategies. • The Italian consensus guidelines for cystic pancreatic neoplasms are currently the best guidelines.

Should abdominal sequences be included in prostate cancer MR staging studies?

OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer staging MR examinations commonly include abdominal sequences to assess for non-regional (common iliac or para-aortic) nodal metastasis. In our experience the diagnostic yield of this is limited, but incidental findings are frequent, often necessitating further investigations. The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic utility of abdominal sequences in routine prostate cancer MR staging studies. METHODS: Findings on abdominal sequences of consecutive MRI prostate studies performed for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer between September 2011 and September 2013 were reviewed with respect to adenopathy and additional incidental findings. Results were correlated with Gleason grade and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level in each case. RESULTS: 355 MRI prostate examinations were reviewed. 4 (1.1%) showed enlarged non-regional lymph nodes. Incidental findings were found in 82(23.1%) cases, neccessitating further investigation in 45 (12.7%) cases. Enlarged non-regional nodes were associated with higher PSA level and Gleason grade (p=0.007, p=0.005 respectively). With a combined threshold of PSA > 20 ng/mL and/or Gleason grade ≥ 8 the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 100, 60, 3 and 100% respectively for predicting the presence of non-regional adenopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Routine abdominal sequences are of very low yield in routine prostate cancer MR staging, frequently resulting in incidental findings requiring further work-up and should be reserved for high-risk cases. Our experience supports the use of an abdominal staging sequence in high-risk cases only.