Focal or diffuse "fullness" of the pancreas on CT. Usually benign, but EUS plus/minus FNA is warranted to identify malignancy.

CONTEXT: The role of EUS to evaluate subtle radiographic abnormalities of the pancreas is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess the yield of EUS+/-FNA for focal or diffuse pancreatic enlargement/fullness seen on abdominal CT scan in the absence of discrete mass lesions. DESIGN: Retrospective database review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Six hundred and 91 pancreatic EUS exams were reviewed. Sixty-nine met inclusion criteria of having been performed for focal enlargement or fullness of the pancreas. Known chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic calcifications, acute pancreatitis, discrete mass on imaging, pancreatic duct dilation (greater than 4 mm) and obstructive jaundice were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Rate of malignancy found by EUS+/-FNA. RESULTS: FNA was performed in 19/69 (27.5%) with 4 new diagnoses of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, one metastatic renal cell carcinoma, one metastatic colon cancer, one chronic pancreatitis and 12 benign results. Eight patients had discrete mass lesions on EUS; two were cystic. All malignant diagnoses had a discrete solid mass on EUS. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic enlargement/fullness is often a benign finding related to anatomic variation, but was related to malignancy in 8.7% of our patients (6/69). EUS should be strongly considered as the next step in the evaluation of patients with focal enlargement of the pancreas when clinical suspicion of malignancy exists.

A randomized comparison of methylene blue-directed biopsy versus conventional four-quadrant biopsy for the detection of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in patients with long-segment Barrett's esophagus.

OBJECTIVES: Methylene blue (MB) selectively stains specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) and may assist in surveying a columnar-lined esophagus for Barrett's esophagus associated dysplasia. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized crossover study comparing 4-quadrant random biopsies (4QB) versus MB-directed biopsies for the detection of SIM and dysplasia in 48 patients with long segment Barrett's esophagus (LSBE). Patients randomly underwent two endoscopies over a 4-wk time period with either 4QB or MB-directed biopsies as their first or second exam. Our aim was to correlate stain intensity with histology. RESULTS: The sensitivity of MB for SIM and dysplasia was 75.2% and 83.1%, respectively. The yield of 4QB for identifying nondysplasia SIM was 57.6% (523/917) and for dysplasia was 12% (111/917). Dark staining was significantly associated with histologic grade (P < 0.007). The final diagnosis was correct in 43 (90%) patients using MB and in 45 (94%) using 4QB. The 4QB technique missed dysplasia in 3 of 21 patients while MB biopsies missed dysplasia in 5 of 21 patients. The discordance between the two techniques was not significant (P= 0.727, McNemar's test). The mean number of biopsies taken during 4QB was 18.92 +/- 6.36 and with MB was 9.23 +/- 2.89 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MB requires significantly fewer biopsies than 4QB to evaluate for SIM and dysplasia. Dark staining correlates more with HGD than LGD in our experience. While MB is not more accurate than 4QB, MB may help to define areas to target for biopsy during surveillance endoscopy in patients with LSBE.

A randomized comparison of EUS-guided FNA versus CT or US-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing pancreatic cancer by EUS-FNA is a potentially appealing alternative to percutaneous biopsy. AIM: To compare EUS-FNA with CT or US-guided FNA for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: Single center, prospective, randomized, cross-over. SETTING: Duke University Medical Center. POPULATION: Eighty-four patients referred with suspicious solid pancreatic mass lesions randomized to CT/US-FNA (n = 43) or EUS-FNA (n = 41). INTERVENTION: Patients underwent an imaging procedure/FNA. If cytology was nondiagnostic, cross over to the other modality was offered. Final outcome was determined by clinical follow-up every 6 months for 2 years and/or surgical pathology for patients with negative FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA versus CT/US-FNA for pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: There were 16 true positive (TP) by CT/US-FNA and 21 TP by EUS-FNA. Sixteen of the 20 CT/US-FNA negative patients crossed over to EUS-FNA; 12 underwent FNA, 4 had no mass at EUS. Seven of the 12 had positive EUS-FNA. Eight EUS-FNA negative crossed over to CT/US; 4 had no mass at CT/US, 3 remained true negative throughout follow-up, 1 had chronic pancreatitis at surgery. The sensitivity of CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA for detecting malignancy was 62% and 84%, respectively. A comparison of the accuracy for CT/US-FNA and EUS-FNA was not statistically significant (P = .074, chi(2)). LIMITATIONS: Failure to meet target enrollment resulted in an inability to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the 2 modalities. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is numerically (though not quite statistically) superior to CT/US-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.

Proximal migration of a 3 French pancreatic stent in a patient with pancreas divisum: suggested technique for successful retrieval.

CONTEXT: Pancreatic stents may be placed during therapeutic ERCP for a variety of indications. One such indication is to prophylax against the development of pancreatitis following sphincterotomy of the minor papilla in patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and pancreas divisum. Increasingly, endoscopists that perform pancreatic ERCP are placing small caliber (3 Fr), unflanged, single pigtail stents into the long axis of the pancreatic duct with the expectation that these stents will only stay in place for a few days and the majority will pass spontaneously on their own without the need for follow-up endoscopic retrieval. As such, these stents are generally regarded as safer and associated with a lower rare of complication than larger (5 and 7 Fr), double flanged pancreatic stents. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 3 Fr stent that migrated proximally into the dorsal duct in a patient with recurrent pancreatitis and pancreas divisum. Due to the small size of the patient's dorsal duct, it was difficult to pass appliances alongside the stent to facilitate retrieval and a variety of appliances were used before success was achieved. DISCUSSION: The medical literature contains series of proximally migrated larger caliber flanged, pancreatic stents but proximal migration of small caliber, unflanged, pigtail stents has not yet been reported. As the use of these small stents increases, we feel that it is important to highlight the potential for this complication and discuss how we successfully treated our patient.

Defining the diagnostic algorithm in pancreatic cancer.

Most patients with pancreatic cancer present with a mass on radiologic studies, however, not every pancreatic mass is cancer. Since radiological studies alone are insufficient to establish the diagnosis of a pancreatic mass and patient management depends on a definitive diagnosis; confirmatory cytology or histology is usually required. As a minimally invasive procedure, EUS and EUS FNA avoid the risk of cutaneous or peritoneal contamination that may occur with CT or US-guided investigations and is less invasive than surgical interventions. As a result, EUS FNA of pancreatic masses is becoming the standard for obtaining cytological diagnosis. This chapter presents an EUS-based diagnostic algorithm for the evaluation of pancreatic lesions and is based upon a review of the pertinent literature in the field of pancreatic endosonography that has been the most influential in helping to guide this evolving field. Realizing there is much overlap among the EUS characteristics of various pancreatic lesions, for the sake of simplicity we have structured our discussion in broad terms of solid versus cystic lesions and discuss various pancreatic lesions within this framework. The additional contributors to this round table discussion have been asked to provide a more dedicated, focused discussion of the various subcategories of pancreatic lesions in greater detail than we could hope to achieve here. We provide this final contribution to the round table as a means of bringing the discussion back to the big picture of pancreatic lesions, rather than trying to hone in on the fine details of any one subclass.