Multicenter Study on the Performance of Imaging Tests Compared to Endosonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas.

Introduction: Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) is difficult. Preoperative diagnosis by endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is possible and has been reported in the literature in pancreatic tumors. However, its usefulness is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of patients with SPN and describe the findings in computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography imaging (MRI/MRCP), and EUS therefore comparing the imaging methods alone to the findings of microhistology (McH) obtained by EUS-FNA. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients undergoing EUS-FNA with suspected SPN in imaging studies in 5 Brazilian high-volume hospitals (two university hospitals and three private hospitals). The demographic data; findings in CT, MRI/MRCP, and EUS; and McH results obtained by EUS-FNA were noted prospectively. The final diagnosis was obtained after the anatomopathological examination of the surgical specimen in all patients (gold standard), and we compared the results of CT, MRI/MRCP, EUS, and the McH with the gold standard. Results: Fifty-four patients were included in the study, of which 49 (90.7%) were women with an average age of 33.4 (range 11-78) years. The most common symptom presented was abdominal pain, present in 35.2% patients. SPN was detected incidentally in 32 (59%) patients. The average size of the tumors was 3.8 cm (SD: 2.26). The most common finding at EUS was a solid, solid/cystic, and cystic lesion in 52.9%, 41.1%, and 7.8% patients, respectively. The final diagnosis was 51 patients with SPN and 3 with nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-NET). The correct diagnosis was made by CT, MRI/MRCP, EUS isolated, and EUS-FNA in 21.9%, 28.88%, 64.71%, and 88.24%, respectively. EUS-FNA associated with CT and MRI increased diagnostic performance from 22.72% to 94.11% and from 29.16% to 94.11%, respectively. Conclusions: SPN are rare, incidentally identified in most cases, and affect young women. Differential diagnosis between SPN, NF-NET, and other types of tumors with imaging tests can be difficult. EUS-FNA increases preoperative diagnosis in case of diagnostic doubt and should be used whenever necessary to rule out NF-NET or other type of solid/cystic nodular lesion of the pancreas.

Introdução: O diagnóstico por imagem da neoplasia pseudopapilar sólida do pâncreas (NPS) é difícil. O diagnóstico pré-operatório obtido pela endosonografia com punção aspirativa por agulha fina (USE-PAF) é possível e tem sido relatado na literatura em tumores do pâncreas. No entanto, sua indicação é controversa e merece discussão. O objetivo do estudo foi determinar a acurácia da USE-PAF no diagnóstico de pacientes com NPS, descrever os achados da tomografia computadorizada (TC), colangiopancreatografia por ressonância magnética (RM/ CPRM) e USE, comparando os métodos de imagem isolados aos achados da microhistologia (McH) obtida pela USE-PAF. Material e Métodos: Revisamos retrospectivamente os prontuários de pacientes submetidos à USE-PAF com suspeita de NPS em exames de imagem de 5 hospitais brasileiros de alto volume (dois universitários e três privados). Foram anotados prospectivamente os dados demográficos, os achados da TC, RM/CPRM e USE e o resultado da McH obtida pela USE-PAF. O diagnóstico final foi obtido após o anatomopatológico da peça operatória em todos os pacientes (padrão-ouro). Comparamos os resultados da TC, RM/CPRM, EUS isoladas e da McH obtida pela USE-PAF com o padrão-ouro. Resultados: Cinquenta e quatro pacientes foram incluídos no estudo, 49 (90.7%) eram mulheres com média de idade de 33.4 (11­78) anos. O sintoma mais frequente foi dor abdominal, presente em 35.2%. A NPS foi detectada acidentalmente em 32 (59%) pacientes. O tamanho médio da lesão foi de 3.8 cm (SD: 2.26). O achado mais comum à USE foi lesão sólida, sólida/ cística e cística em 52.9%, 41.1% e 7.8%, respectivamente. O diagnóstico final foi NPS (51) e tumor neuroendócrino pancreático não funcionante [NF-NET] (3). O diagnóstico correto feito pela TC, RM, USE e USE-PAF foi feito em 21.9%, 28.9%, 64.7% e 88.2%, respectivamente. A USEPAF associada a TC e a RM aumentou o desempenho diagnóstico de 21.9% para 94.1% e de 28.8% para 94.1%, respectivamente. Conclusões: NPS são raras, identificadas de forma acidental na maioria dos casos e afetam principalmente mulheres jovens. O diagnóstico diferencial entre NPS, NF-NET e outros tipos de lesões com exames de imagem isolados pode ser difícil. A USE-PAF aumenta a chance do diagnóstico pré-operatório em caso de dúvida diagnóstica e deve ser usado sempre que necessário para descartar NF-NET ou outro tipo de lesão nodular sólida ou sólido/cística do pâncreas.

Adverse events and mortality: comparative analysis between diagnostic and interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Escalating an indication of EUS for diagnosis and treatment justifies the evaluation of the conditions associated with the adverse events (AE) and related deaths. The aim is to evaluate and compare the incidence of AE and deaths after diagnostic-EUS (D-EUS) and interventional-EUS (I-EUS). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients undergoing D-EUS and I-EUS, in two centers for 28 years (03/1992 to 12/2019). Were noted parameters such as: age, gender, indication of EUS, modality, time of occurrence and severity of AE, type of treatment imposed and whether there was death. Descriptive analysis was performed using means, standard deviation and frequencies of the variables of interest. RESULTS: 13,196 procedures performed, 9843 D-EUS and 3353 I-EUS. Thirty-seven (0.3%) had AE with six deaths (0.04%). The overall rate of AE for D-EUS and I-EUS was 0.08% and 0.86%, respectively (p > .05). Three deaths (0.03%) occurred after D-EUS and three (0.09%) after I-EUS. AE were immediate and early in 70% and 30%, respectively, with no late complications. Perforation was detected immediately in 80% and early in 20%, being more frequent after D-EUS than I-EUS. Acute pancreatitis occurred immediately in 70% and early in 30%. The AE were mild, moderate, and severe in 35.1%, 27%, and 37.8%, respectively. Overall, D-EUS presented the majority of AE as severe (87.5%), while I-EUS presented mild AE in most cases (41.4%), followed by severe complications (24.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the low incidence of AE and mortality after EUS, the occurrence of severe complications, especially perforation in D-EUS, may support the review of therapeutic protocols, aiming to ensure that a quality and safety process is implemented in the practice of EUS.