A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A second endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration for cytology identifies high-risk pancreatic cysts overlooked by current guidelines. | LitMetric

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is recommended for diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). Its role in surveillance is unclear. Our goal was to determine if a second EUS-FNA changes diagnosis or management of PCLs.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of an EUS database, searching for EUS-FNAs in PCLs from 2007 to 2017 was performed. Demographics, cyst characteristics, and FNA results were compared in patients under surveillance, performing a single or two consecutive EUS-FNAs.

Results: Of 203 PCLs referred for EUS-FNA, surveillance was decided in 128 (63%). Data of 105 (82%) patients with a single EUS-FNA were compared with 23 (18%) with two EUS-FNAs during surveillance. Patients were younger in this latter group (P = .055), whereas CEA levels were marginally higher (P = .078) and a mass/nodule were more frequent (P = .006). The mean time between EUS-FNAs was 38 months (4.7-118.8) for 18 patients maintaining surveillance vs 18 months (2.9-56.9) in the four referred for surgery (P = NS) after two EUS-FNAs (two NETs, one IPMN-HGD, and one MCN-LG). A high correlation in CEA level between consecutive EUS-FNAs (r = 0.945, P < .01) was present, with a change of category observed (cut-off level = 192 ng/mL) in two patients only. Of four patients with a second EUS-FNA with conclusive cytology, two had NETs confirmed on resection.

Conclusions: Repeating EUS-FNA in surveillance of PCLs with clinical suspicion of malignancy increased neoplasm diagnoses, changing decision toward surgery in almost 20% of patients while excluding IPMNs with mucin nodules from unnecessary resections. A second EUS-FNA for cytology appears justified in some PCLs, particularly for diagnosing NETs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.24607DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

endoscopic ultrasound
8
ultrasound fine-needle
8
fine-needle aspiration
8
surveillance
5
eus-fnas
5
second endoscopic
4
aspiration cytology
4
cytology identifies
4
identifies high-risk
4
high-risk pancreatic
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!