METHODS: Formulation of the guidelines was based on the best scientific evidence available. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM) was used. Panellists recruited comprised experts in surgery, interventional EUS, interventional radiology and oncology from 11 countries. Between June 2014 and October 2016, the panellists met in meetings to discuss and vote on the clinical scenarios for each of the interventional EUS procedures in question.
RESULTS: A total of 15 statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, 15 statements on EUS-guided biliary drainage, 12 statements on EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and 14 statements on EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation were formulated. The statements addressed the indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre- and post-procedural management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. All statements except one were found to be appropriate. Randomised studies to address clinical questions in a number of aspects of the procedures are urgently required.
CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines on interventional EUS procedures are the first published by an endoscopic society. These guidelines provide an in-depth review of the current evidence and standardise the management of the procedures.
METHODS: Patients with solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 15 mm in size and a definite diagnosis were included. Lesion stiffness relative to the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma, as qualitatively assessed and documented at the time of EUS elastography, was retrospectively compared with the final diagnosis obtained by fine-needle aspiration/biopsy or surgical resection.
RESULTS: 218 patients were analyzed. The average size of the lesions was 11 ± 3 mm; 23 % were ductal adenocarcinoma, 52 % neuroendocrine tumors, 8 % metastases, and 17 % other entities; 66 % of the lesions were benign. On elastography, 50 % of lesions were stiffer than the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma (stiff lesions) and 50 % were less stiff or of similar stiffness (soft lesions). High stiffness of the lesion had a sensitivity of 84 % (95 % confidence interval 73 % - 91 %), specificity of 67 % (58 % - 74 %), positive predictive value (PPV) of 56 % (50 % - 62 %), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89 % (83 % - 93 %) for the diagnosis of malignancy. For the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 96 % (87 % - 100 %), 64 % (56 % - 71 %), 45 % (40 % - 50 %), and 98 % (93 % - 100 %), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small solid pancreatic lesions, EUS elastography can rule out malignancy with a high level of certainty if the lesion appears soft. A stiff lesion can be either benign or malignant.
Methods: A survey regarding the practice of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs was drafted by the committee member of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). It was disseminated to experts of EUS who were also members of the ISEUS-TF. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized.
Results: Fifteen questions were extracted and disseminated among 60 experts for the survey. Fifty-three experts completed the survey within the specified time frame. The average volume of EUS cases at the experts' institutions is 988.5 cases per year.
Conclusion: Despite the limitations of EUS alone in the morphologic diagnosis of PCLs, the results of the survey indicate that EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is widely expected to become a more valuable method.
METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2 cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications.
RESULTS: 244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6 %) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3 %; P = 0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P
METHODS: Consecutive patients with a new histological diagnosis of LAPC were recruited over 20 months. Baseline CT and 18FDG PET-CT were performed and repeated after 12 weeks to assess response to treatment. Following 2 cycles of conventional chemotherapy, patients underwent EUS-guided 32P OncoSil implantation followed by a further six cycles of chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Twelve patients with LAPC (8M:4F; median age 69 years, IQR 61.5-73.3) completed the treatment. Technical success was 100% and no procedural complications were reported. At 12 weeks, there was a median reduction of 8.2cm3 (95% CI 4.95-10.85; p=0.003) in tumour volume, with minimal or no 18FDG uptake in 9 (75%) patients. Tumour downstaging was achieved in 6 (50%) patients, leading to successful resection in 5 (42%) patients, of which 4 patients (80%) had clear (R0) resection margins.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS guided 32P OncoSil implantation is feasible and well tolerated and was associated with a 42% rate of surgical resection in our cohort. However, further evaluation in a larger randomized multicenter trial is warranted. (32P funded by OncoSil Medical Ltd, equipment and staff funded by the Royal Adelaide Hospital, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03003078).
METHOD: The study was divided into two parts: the first part was conducted to derive the EUS features of chronic pancreatitis with adequate interoperator agreement; the second was to prospectively evaluate these features in a multicenter cross-sectional study and determine the optimal combination of features for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. Prospectively enrolled cases had standard internationally validated radiologic or histologic features of chronic pancreatitis, and controls were patients without chronic pancreatitis who underwent EUS examination.
RESULTS: The top six EUS features that had good interobserver agreement (mean kappa 0.73, range 0.60 - 0.90) were selected to be further evaluated in part II of the study. These included: hyperechoic foci with shadowing, lobularity with honeycombing, cysts, dilated main pancreatic duct, dilated side branches, and calculi in the main pancreatic duct. A total of 284 subjects (132 cases, 152 controls) were enrolled from 12 centers in Asia. All six features had high accuracy ranging from 63.3 % to 89.1 %. Two or more of these six EUS features accurately defined chronic pancreatitis (sensitivity 94.7 %, specificity 98.0 %), with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.986.
CONCLUSION: This multicenter Asian study characterized and defined the EUS features of chronic pancreatitis. This provides a useful tool in clinical practice and further research in pancreatic cancer surveillance.