Search

Background and Aims: Needle tract seeding after preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic body and tail cancer has been reported. This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes, including the needle tract seeding ratio, of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic body and tail cancer diagnosed preoperatively by EUS-FNA., Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study assessed patients from three university hospitals and 11 tertiary referral centers. All patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for invasive cancer of the pancreatic body and tail between January 2006 and December 2015 were identified and reviewed. Needle tract seeding rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated., Results: Of the 301 total patients analyzed, 176 underwent preoperative EUS-FNA (EUS-FNA group) and 125 did not (non-EUS-FNA group). The median follow-up periods of the EUS-FNA group and non-EUS-FNA group were 32.8 and 30.1 months. Six patients (3.4%) in the EUS-FNA group were diagnosed as having needle tract seeding. The 5-year cumulative needle tract seeding rate estimated using Fine and Gray's method was 3.8% (95% CI 1.6-7.8%). The median RFS or OS was not significantly different between the EUS-FNA group and the non-EUS-FNA group (23.7 vs 16.9 months: P = 0.205; 48.0 vs 43.9 months: P = 0.392)., Conclusion: Although preoperative EUS-FNA for pancreatic body and tail cancer has no negative effect on RFS or OS, needle tract seeding after EUS-FNA was observed to have a non-negligible rate. (UMIN000030719)., (© 2019 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

A 64-year-old woman was diagnosed with unresectable pancreatic cancer and underwent chemotherapy. However, the number of leukocytes significantly increased as the disease progressed. Serum G-CSF values also increased, and she eventually died on day 511 after diagnosis. Immediately after autopsy, immunohistochemical staining with an anti-G-CSF monoclonal antibody was positive in the poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma area of the primary pancreatic cancer and liver metastatic foci, but negative in the well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma part of the primary pancreatic cancer. During de-differentiation, invasive pancreatic ductal carcinoma appeared to have changed to a tumor that produced G-CSF.

Background: Solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN), a rare neoplasm of the pancreas, frequently harbors mutations in exon 3 of the cadherin-associated protein beta 1 (CTNNB1) gene. Here, we analyzed SPN tissue for CTNNB1 mutations by deep sequencing using next-generation sequencing (NGS)., Methods: Tissue samples from 7 SPNs and 31 other pancreatic lesions (16 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC), 11 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET), 1 acinar cell carcinoma, 1 autoimmune pancreatitis lesion, and 2 focal pancreatitis lesions) were analyzed by NGS for mutations in exon 3 of CTNNB1., Results: A single-base-pair missense mutations in exon 3 of CTNNB1 was observed in all 7 SPNs and in 1 of 11 PNET samples. However, mutations were not observed in the tissue samples of any of the 16 PDAC or other four pancreatic disease cases. The variant frequency of CTNNB1 ranged from 5.4 to 48.8 %., Conclusions: Mutational analysis of CTNNB1 by NGS is feasible and was achieved using SPN samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.

Background: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has a high diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic diseases. However, although most reports have typically focused on cytology, histological tissue quality has rarely been investigated. The effectiveness of EUS-FNA combined with high negative pressure (HNP) suction was recently indicated for tissue acquisition, but has not thus far been tested in a prospective, randomized clinical trial., Objective: To evaluate the adequacy of EUS-FNA with HNP for the histological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions by using 25-gauge needles., Design: Prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled crossover trial., Setting: Seven tertiary referral centers., Patients: Patients referred for EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid lesions. From July 2011 to April 2012, 90 patients underwent EUS-FNA of pancreatic solid masses by using normal negative pressure (NNP) and HNP with 2 respective passes. The order of the passes was randomized, and the sample adequacy, quality, and histology were evaluated by a single expert pathologist., Intervention: EUS-FNA by using NNP and HNP., Main Outcome Measurements: The adequacy of tissue acquisition and the accuracy of histological diagnoses made by using the EUS-FNA technique with HNP., Results: We found that 72.2% (65/90) and 90% (81/90) of the specimens obtained using NNP and HNP, respectively, were adequate for histological diagnosis (P = .0003, McNemar test). For 73.3% (66/90) and 82.2% (74/90) of the specimens obtained by using NNP and HNP, respectively, an accurate diagnosis was achieved (P = .06, McNemar test). Pancreatitis developed in 1 patient after this procedure, which subsided with conservative therapy., Limitations: This was a single-blinded, crossover study., Conclusion: Biopsy procedures that combine the EUS-FNA with HNP techniques are superior to EUS-FNA with NNP procedures for tissue acquisition. (, Clinical Trial Registration Number: UMIN000005939.)., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate the safety and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a cohort of pancreatic cancer patients., Methods: Of 213 patients with pancreatic cancer evaluated between April 2007 and August 2011, 82 were thought to have resectable pancreatic cancer on the basis of cross-sectional imaging findings. Of these, 54 underwent EUS-FNA before surgery (FNA+ group) and 28 underwent surgery without preoperative EUS-FNA (FNA- group)., Results: All 54 lesions were visible on EUS, and all 54 attempts at FNA were technically successful. The diagnostic accuracy according to cytology and histology findings was 98.1% (53/54) and 77.8% (42/54), respectively, and the total accuracy was 98.1% (53/54). One patient developed mild pancreatitis after EUS-FNA but was successfully treated by conservative therapy. No severe complications occurred after EUS-FNA. In the FNA+ and FNA- groups, the median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 742 and 265 d, respectively (P = 0.0099), and the median overall survival (OS) was 1042 and 557 d, respectively (P = 0.0071). RFS and OS were therefore not inferior in the FNA+ group. These data indicate that the use of EUS-FNA did not influence RFS or OS, nor did it increase the risk of peritoneal recurrence., Conclusion: In patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, preoperative EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate diagnostic method.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is widely used to manage pancreatic pseudocysts. Several studies have reported the use of EUS-guided drainage for pancreatic fistula and stasis of pancreatic juice caused by stricture of the pancreatic duct after pancreatic resection., Methods: At the authors' hospital, 262 patients underwent surgery involving pancreatic resection from April 2005 to March 2010. In 90 of these patients (34%), a grade B or C postoperative pancreatic fistula developed that required additional treatment. The authors performed EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) for six patients (2.1%) with a pancreatic fistula or dilation of the main pancreatic duct visible by EUS. Percutaneous drainage was provided for 18 patients (6.8%). The success rates for EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage were compared in a retrospective analysis., Results: In all six cases, EUS-TD was performed successfully without complications. Five of the six patients were successfully treated with only one trial of EUS-TD. The final technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage. Both the short- and long-term clinical success rates for EUS-TD were 100% and those for percutaneous drainage were 61.1 and 83%, respectively. The differences in these rates were not significant (short-term success, P = 0.091 vs. long-term success, P = 0.403). However, the time to clinical success was significantly shorter with EUS-TD (5.8 days) than with percutaneous drainage (30.4 days; P = 0.0013) in the current series., Conclusions: The EUS-TD approach appears to be a safe and technically feasible alternative to percutaneous drainage and may be considered as first-line therapy for pancreatic fistulas visible by EUS.