Positive Endoscopic Ultrasound Research Articles

Risk factors of negative diagnosis of MRCP in acute biliary pancreatitis patients with choledocholithiasis.

Assessment of the presence of choledocholithiasis is crucial among acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are widely used to identify the gallstones of common bile duct (CBD). EUS provides better diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity than MRCP but carries a certain risk due to sedation. We investigated the risk factors of negative diagnosis of MRCP in ABP patients with choledocholithiasis for better selection of MRCP or EUS. A total of 2321 ABP patients were retrospectively included in this study. Based on the exclusion criteria, 337 ABP patients with negative MRCP results were ultimately included. Among these patients, 75 patients had positive EUS findings. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to screen the risk factors of negative diagnosis of MRCP in ABP patients with choledocholithiasis. Patients with positive EUS findings were older (62.0 vs. 55.0) and had higher rate of cholecystectomy history (18.7% vs. 7.3%) than those with negative EUS findings. The result of univariate logistic regression showed that the history of cholecystectomy, age and sex were potential risk factors (all p < 0.05). Then after adjusting the other potential risk factors (Direct bilirubin (DBIL), alanine transaminase (ALT), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP)), a history of cholecystectomy (OR = 2.859 [1.312,6.23]), older age (1.03 [1.009,1.052]) and male (2.016 [1.152,3.528]) were independent risk factors of negative diagnosis of MRCP in ABP patients with choledocholithiasis. The history of cholecystectomy, older age and male are independently associated with an increased risk of negative diagnosis of MRCP in ABP patients with choledocholithiasis. We suggest that patients with these risk factors should undergo EUS first, rather than MRCP.

Prospective multicentre study of indications for surgery in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasonography (PICUS).

Cholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP). This prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up. After screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life. EUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of small gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUNDGastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) with a diameter of < 2 cm are called small GISTs. Currently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is widely used as a regular follow-up method for GISTs, which can also provide a preliminary basis for judging the malignancy potential of lesions. However, there are no studies on the accuracy of EUS to assess the malignant potential of small GISTs.AIMTo evaluate the efficacy of EUS in the diagnosis and risk assessment of small GISTs.METHODSWe collected data from patients with small GISTs who were admitted to Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between October 2014 and July 2019. The accurate diagnosis and risk classifications of patients were based on the pathological assessment according to the modified National Institute of Health criteria after endoscopic resection or laparoscopic surgery. Preoperative EUS features (marginal irregularity, cystic changes, homogeneity, ulceration, and strong echogenic foci) were retrospectively analyzed. The assessment results based on EUS features were compared with the pathological features.RESULTSA total of 256 patients (69 men and 187 women) were enrolled. Pathological results included 232, 16, 7, and 1 very low-, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk cases, respectively. The most frequent tumor location was the gastric fundus (78.1%), and mitoses were calculated as > 5/50 high power field in 8 (3.1%) patients. Marginal irregularity, ulceration, strong echo foci, and heterogeneity were detected in 1 (0.4%), 2 (0.8%), 22 (8.6%), and 67 (65.1%) patients, respectively. However, cystic changes were not detected. Tumor size was positively correlated with the mitotic index (P < 0.001). Receiver operating curve analysis identified 1.48 cm as the best cut-off value to predict malignant potential (95% confidence interval: 0.824–0.956). EUS heterogeneity with tumor diameters > 1.48 cm was associated with higher risk classification (P < 0.05).CONCLUSIONSmall GISTs (diameters > 1.48 cm) with positive EUS features should receive intensive surveillance or undergo endoscopic surgery. EUS and dissection are efficient diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for small GISTs.

A structured Endoscopic Ultrasound training program in Germany improves knowledge and competence.

Limited evidence on how to organize pre-patient training in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and how to evaluate its effect on knowledge and skills are available. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of a structured multi-site training program on EUS competence in Germany. In a prospective study design, evaluation of 64 trainees was conducted during four three-day training courses with equal curricula at three sites. Participants completed a structured pre- and post-test questionnaire consisting of 4 items to evaluate the relevance and acceptance of the training components (theoretical teaching, video sessions, live demonstration, hands-on experience) on a 5-point Likert scale, as well as a Likert scale to judge the self-rated improvement in EUS competence. To assess knowledge, 12 multiple choice (MC) questions had to be answered by all participants in a pre- and a post-test design. Also differences between beginners and advanced learners were analysed. Overall evaluation on acceptance received above-average results with a median of 4 or 5 (IQR 1-2) on Likert scale (1=completely disagree, 5=completely agree). In the post-test self-rated EUS skills improved from 4 to 2 on the Likert scale (IQR=1, p=0.001, 1=excellent EUS skills, 5=no EUS skills). Results of the MC-test of all trainees showed significant improvement in theoretical knowledge from 7.9±1.9 to 8.8±1.9 points (mean±SD, p=0.001). Our study provides arguments for the usefulness of a structured EUS training program resulting in a positive acceptance and high self-rated EUS competence by the participants and significant improvements in knowledge.

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography findings in early chronic pancreatitis diagnosed according to the Japanese Diagnostic Criteria

ObjectivesIt is important for diagnosing early chronic pancreatitis (CP), which may be improved by therapeutic intervention. We aimed to examine the pancreatic ductal changes on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in patients with early CP defined by the Japanese Diagnostic Criteria. MethodsThis retrospective study included patients suspected early CP and performed both endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and MRCP from January 2010 to August 2018. We assessed the diameter of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) and the number of irregularly dilated duct branches using MRCP imaging in early CP. ResultsWe enrolled 165 patients and 25 patients (15%) fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for early CP. Irregular dilatation of ≥ 3 duct branches on MRCP was more often observed in early CP compared to non-early CP (P = 0.004), although MPD diameter was comparable (2.06 mm in early CP vs. 1.96 in non-early CP, P = 0.698). The sensitivity and specificity were 45% and 74%, respectively. The prevalence of positive MRCP findings in patients with ≥ 2 positive EUS findings was higher than that in patients with 1 positive EUS finding (P = 0.08) and in patients without an EUS finding (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the average diameter of MPD. ConclusionPatients with early CP often exhibit alteration in duct branches and not in MPD in addition to parenchymal alteration. Both pancreatic parenchyma and duct branches might need to be evaluated by EUS and MRCP.

87 Comparison of EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Alone Versus Combined Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard method to obtain tissue sample for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses but has variable accuracy. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is a new technique that has been shown to have higher diagnostic yield compared to EUS-FNA. In October 2016, one of the authors (MS) began performing a combination of both FNA and FNB for solid pancreatic masses using a single 22 g Shark-core needle for possible higher diagnostic yield. Our study aims were to compare the diagnostic yield of combined EUS-FNA plus FNA versus EUS-FNA alone in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review on all patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) by a single operator (MS) at Cleveland Clinic between 2015–2018. We included all adult patients who underwent either EUS-FNA or EUS-FNA + FNB for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses for the first time. Our primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic yield between the two groups (EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNA + FNB). EUS-FNA was performed using a 22-gauge needle (Boston Scientific) and EUS-FNA + FNB was performed using a 22-gauge Shark-core needle (Medtronic). Diagnostic yield was defined as the proportion of patients in whom a definitive tissue diagnosis was established from EUS sampling. The diagnostic accuracy was defined as the proportion of true positive and true negative EUS sampling results. P &lt; 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 544 patients underwent EUS during the study period, of which 78 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these 78 patients, 44 patients underwent EUS-FNA and 34 patients underwent EUS-FNA + FNB. EUS-FNA + FNB had a statistically significant higher diagnostic yield compared to EUS-FNA (97.1% vs. 72.7%; P = 0.02). EUS-FNA + FNB also had a higher diagnostic accuracy than EUS-FNA, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.13). The number of needles passes were lower in the combined FNA + FNB group compared to FNA group (4 vs 5, P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in procedure duration between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that combined EUS-FNA + FNB had higher diagnostic yield and required lower number of needle passes compared to EUS-FNA alone for solid pancreatic masses. EUS-FNA + FNB also had higher diagnostic accuracy; although this was not statistically significant. Based on our study findings, we suggest considering the combination of EUS-FNA + FNB for solid pancreatic lesions.

2811 Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) in Patients Referred for Biliary Dilation Without Significant Biochemical Cholestasis

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in non-jaundiced patients with unexplained biliary dilation has been reported to be 6-33%. In our experience, patients with unexplained biliary dilation who use chronic narcotic analgesics might have an even lower diagnostic yield at EUS. However, this correlation has not been well-described as yet. METHODS: We reviewed electronic medical records of patients referred to our center for EUS for the primary indication of unexplained biliary dilation between July 2007 and June 2017. Our database search yielded 767 potential subjects. Exclusion criteria included pancreaticobiliary masses, stones, or calcific chronic pancreatitis seen on prior imaging, a total serum bilirubin &gt;3 mg/dl, or alkaline phosphatase (AP) &gt; 1.5x the upper limit of normal. Data were also separately abstracted on patients with liver tests exceeding the above criteria, yet who had no other exclusion criteria. RESULTS: 41 patients met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean age was 62.4 ± 14.5 years, 37 (90.2%) were female, the mean bile duct diameter at EUS was 12.2 ± 3.8 mm, total bilirubin was 0.6 ± 0.3 mg/dL and AP was 112 ± 62.9 U/L. Most patients (33/41, 80.5%) were symptomatic, reporting abdominal pain or weight loss. A majority (29/41, 70.7%) of patients used oral narcotics. EUS demonstrated choledocholithiasis in 3/29 patients (10.3%) using narcotics and 1/12 (8.3%) not using narcotics. No masses or other relevant pathology was observed. This patient cohort was then combined with 39 additional patients with unexplained biliary dilation who had abnormal liver biochemical tests. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with abnormal liver biochemical tests were 3 times more likely to have positive EUS finding (OR 2.9, CI [1.5,5.7], P = 0.002). Patients using chronic narcotic analgesics were less likely to have positive EUS finding (OR 0.3, CI [0.1, 1.1], P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients referred for EUS to investigate biliary dilation without biochemical cholestasis were women using chronic narcotic analgesics. The diagnostic yield of EUS in this population was low (9.8%) and no neoplasia was found. In contrast, the yield of EUS in patients with biliary dilation and elevated liver tests was strikingly higher at 85%. Use of chronic narcotic analgesics appeared to predict a reassuring EUS examination.

The Prognostic Role of Pre-operative Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography and Endoscopic Ultrasound Parameters in Oesophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Background: To evaluate the prognostic role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) performed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) patients, focusing on lymph node (LN) assessment. Methods: OAC patients treated in a single tertiary center during January 2008 until December 2014 were retrospectively studied. All patients had PET/CT and EUS before NAC and oesophagectomy. PET-FDG-avid local LNs and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary tumour, EUS positive LNs and EUS tumour length were recorded. Univariate, multivariate and survival analyses were performed. Results: Following exclusions 151consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria, (median age 62 years). PET/CT and EUS sensitivity for local LNs metastasis was 39.2% and 88.6%, with specificities of 83.33% and 19.15% respectively. No overall survival (OS) difference was found between patients with PET/CT FDG-avid LNs and those with negative LNs (p=0.347). SUVmax uptake was divided into high and low (median cut-off value: 10) with no significant difference in OS between groups (p=0.141). EUS tumour length was not prognostic (OS, p=0.455). Conclusions: Initial LN staging in OA is inaccurate. Although PET/CT and EUS assessments may be complimentary, none independently predicted survival.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography for a dilation of the common bile duct of an indeterminate cause

with the widespread use of abdominal imaging, common bile duct (CBD) dilation is a common problem in the daily practice. However, the significance of a dilated CBD as a predictor of underlying disease has not been well elucidated and there are currently no guidelines for its approach. this was a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) from 2010 to 2017 due to a dilated CBD detected by transabdominal ultrasonography TUS (CBD ≥ 7 mm) or computed tomography (CT) (CBD ≥ 10 mm), with no identified cause (n = 56). The aims were to assess the diagnostic yield of EUS and to identify predictors for a positive EUS. the majority of patients (n = 39) had normal findings on EUS. Abnormal EUS findings were found in 30% (n = 17) of the patients, which included choledocholithiasis (n = 6), ampuloma (n = 3), choledochal cyst (n = 2), benign CBD stenosis (n = 2), cyst of the head of the pancreas (n = 1), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1), chronic pancreatitis (n = 1) and CBD compression due to adenomegaly (n = 1). Factors that positively related with findings on EUS were increased levels of gamma glutamyl transferase (331 U/l vs 104 U/l, p = 0.039), alkaline phosphatase (226 U/l vs 114 U/l, p = 0.041), total bilirubin (TB) (6.5 g/dl vs 1.2 g/dl, p = 0.035) and the presence of signs/symptoms (p = 0.042). Of the 21 patients (38%) who were asymptomatic with normal liver biochemical tests, four (19%) had findings on EUS. the majority of patients with a dilation of the CDB have a normal EUS. Increased cholestasis enzymes, increased TB and the presence of signs and symptoms are predictors of a positive EUS.

Insulinoma- how to localize the tumor?

Background/Aim. Arterial stimulation with calcium and venous sampling (ASVS) enables us to reach the goal of avoiding that any patient with insulinoma undergoes a blind surgical exploration. Since ASVS is both a functional and morphological localization procedure, its sensitivity is not influenced by factors that are causing the insensitivity of usual anatomical and morphological procedures. Based on our own experience in preoperative localization of insulinoma, we indented to show why we believe that ASVS should be performed to all patients regardless of data collected from other preoperative localization methods. Methods. We have analyzed the accuracy of preoperative localization methods retrospectively. First anatomical and morphological procedures like transabdominal ultrasound (US), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were done. Then we analyzed the data collected during a functional procedure which, at the same time, allows regionalization (ASVS). To estimate the accuracy, the results of every single method were correlated with the operative findings in all sixteen cases. Results. Prior to ASVS, fourteen patients underwent US, fifteen had CT, MRI was performed in eight patients and EUS in thirteen. Using only one of these methods enabled identification of tumors in five patients, using two methods in six patients while three and four in one patient each. For three patients, none of these methods was successful. ASVS revealed that all seen tumors were functional except three of the six visualized with two methods (US and EUS). In two of these three cases, US and EUS localized the tumors in pancreatic tail/body while ASVS accurately identified the tumors in pancreatic head. For these patients US and EUS showed false positive results. In the third of these patients EUS showed the tumor localized in pancreatic head, while US and ASVS accurately pointed to tail. This, too, was a false positive result of EUS. ASVS successfully provided regionalization data in three patients where other visualization methods failed. Operative and later histological findings confirmed the accuracy of ASVS in all sixteen patients including two patients that previously underwent distal pancreatectomy based on false positive EUS findings. Conclusion. Two patients, with accurate insulinoma regionalization in pancreatic head, obtained with ASVS, previously underwent unsuccessful distal pancreatectomy based on the false positive EUS findings. The same goes to three other patients with the false positive results obtained with other anatomical and morphological findings, as well as those three patients that had no preoperative visualization with other methods prior to ASVS. Therefore we suggest ASVS performing in each suspected insulinoma patient before the surgery, regardless of the data collected using other methods. This would enable us to test functional characteristics of visualized findings and to regionalize part of pancreas with uncontrolled insulin secretion when no suspicious changes were found.

The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune pancreatitis

Background:Although endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is useful for diagnosis of pancreatic diseases, EUS findings are not employed in the clinical diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP).Objectives:We assessed EUS findings in AIP and retrospectively analyzed them before and after steroid therapy.Methods:Twenty-one patients with AIP who received steroid therapy underwent EUS. Following seven EUS findings for AIP (a) hyperechoic foci, (b) strands, (c) lobularity, (d) reduced echogenicity, (e) capsule-like rim, (f) focal mass forming, and (g) contrast imaging pattern (poor vascular pattern) by contrast agent were assessed before and after steroid therapy. The total numbers of positive EUS findings before and after the steroid therapy were compared.Results:EUS findings before steroid therapy a, b, c, d, e, f, and g were observed in 100%, 91%, 86%, 91%, 86%, 52%, and 48%, respectively. EUS findings after steroid therapy a, b, c, d, e, f, and g were observed in 91%, 57%, 24%, 67%, 29%, 14%, and 10%, respectively. Strands, lobularity, capsule-like rim, focal mass forming, and contrast imaging pattern decreased significantly after steroid therapy (P < 0.05). The total number of positive EUS findings after the steroid therapy (5.1 ± 0.29) was significantly lower than their numbers before treatment (2.81 ± 0.13) (P < 0.001).Conclusion:Strands, lobularity, capsule-like rim, focal mass forming, and poor vascular pattern may reflect the disease activity of AIP. EUS is useful for the evaluation of response to steroid therapy.

Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

Periampullary cancer includes cancer of the head and neck of the pancreas, cancer of the distal end of the bile duct, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, and cancer of the second part of the duodenum. Surgical resection is the only established potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Other imaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), PET-CT, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have been used to detect local invasion or distant metastases not visualised on CT scanning which could prevent unnecessary laparotomy. No systematic review or meta-analysis has examined the role of different imaging modalities in assessing the resectability with curative intent in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, PET scan, and EUS performed as an add-on test or PET-CT as a replacement test to CT scanning in detecting curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases up to 5 November 2015. Two review authors independently screened the references and selected the studies for inclusion. We also searched for articles related to the included studies by performing the "related search" function in MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) and a "citing reference" search (by searching the articles that cite the included articles). We included diagnostic accuracy studies of MRI, PET scan, PET-CT, and EUS in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies - 2) tool. Although we planned to use bivariate methods for analysis of sensitivities and specificities, we were able to fit only the univariate fixed-effect models for both sensitivity and specificity because of the paucity of data. We calculated the probability of unresectability in patients who had a positive index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) and in those with negative index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) using the mean probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies and the positive and negative likelihood ratios derived from the model. The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of the index test compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone. Only two studies (34 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Both studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of EUS in assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic cancers. There was low concerns about applicability for most domains in both studies. The overall risk of bias was low in one study and unclear or high in the second study. The mean probability of unresectable disease after CT scan across studies was 60.5% (that is 61 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan had unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary estimate of sensitivity of EUS for unresectability was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.97) and the summary estimate of specificity for unresectability was 0.80 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). The positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 4.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 18.6) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.8) respectively. At the mean pre-test probability of 60.5%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a positive EUS (EUS indicating unresectability) was 86.9% (95% CI 60.9% to 96.6%) and the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a negative EUS (EUS indicating resectability) was 20.0% (5.1% to 53.7%). This means that 13% of people (95% CI 3% to 39%) with positive EUS have potentially resectable cancer and 20% (5% to 53%) of people with negative EUS have unresectable cancer. Based on two small studies, there is significant uncertainty in the utility of EUS in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. No studies have assessed the utility of EUS in people with periampullary cancer.There is no evidence to suggest that it should be performed routinely in people with pancreatic cancer or periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan.

Endoscopic Ultrasound in Endocrinology: Imaging of the Adrenals and the Endocrine Pancreas.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging of adrenal glands and its application to diagnostic procedures of adrenal diseases has been reported since 1998. It can be considered a relevant advantage in the field of adrenal diseases. Indeed, EUS allows the detection of adrenal lesions (even very small ones) and their characterization, the assessment of malignancy criteria, the early detection of neoplastic recurrences, the preoperative identification of morphologically healthy parts of the glands, the differentiation of extra-adrenal from adrenal tumors, and of the pathological entities associated with adrenal insufficiency, and the fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) of suspicious lesions. At the same time, its clinical relevance depends on the experience of the endosonographer. Moreover, EUS is also by far the best and most sensitive imaging technique to detect and assess the follow-up of pancreatic manifestation of MEN1 disease. It furthermore enables the preoperatively localization of insulinomas and critical structures in their neighborhood, and may be relevant in planning surgical strategy. A positive EUS in a case of insulinoma furthermore confirms the endocrine diagnosis, especially considering the differential diagnosis of hypoglycemia factitia by oral antidiabetics. It can be supplemented by EUS-FNA. Again, it has to be considered that EUS may reveal false positive and false negative results, and the quality of the findings largely depends on the endosonographer's skills and experience. The most important technical details together with the advantages and limitations of EUS, and the pathognomonic characteristic of benign and malignant disorders of the adrenals and pancreas are presented here.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards. To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09). Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

N-staging of oesophageal and junctional carcinoma: Is there still a role for EUS in patients staged N0 at PET/CT?

To assess whether separate endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) lymph node (N)-staging is still of prognostic value in those staged node negative (N0) at combined positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with oesophageal cancer (OC). One hundred and seventeen consecutive patients [median age 67 years; 88 male; 98 cases of adenocarcinoma, 19 cases of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)] staged as N0 at PET/CT underwent EUS to record tumour (T)- and N-stage. The patients were subsequently separated into two groups: EUS N0 (n = 78) and EUS N+ (n = 39). Survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier and Cox's proportional hazard methods was performed. Primary outcome was overall survival from diagnosis. EUS N-stage and EUS N0 versus EUS N+ (p = 0.005 and p = 0.001, respectively) were found to be significantly and independently associated with survival in two models of multivariate analysis, in patients staged N0 at PET/CT. EUS T-stage was significantly associated with survival on univariate analysis. EUS N-staging still has prognostic value in patients staged N0 at PET/CT. There is a significant difference in survival between EUS N0 and positive nodal EUS status in those staged N0 at PET/CT, suggesting PET/CT is unreliable for local staging. PET/CT and EUS continue to have complimentary roles in OC staging.

Prognostic Assessment and Treatment of Primary Gastric Lymphomas: How Endoscopic Ultrasonography Can Help in Tailoring Patient Management

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has recently gained a pivotal role in the management of gastric lymphomas, especially in the diagnostic workup. Its accuracy and reliability have overcome those of other imaging techniques, such that it represents an invaluable tool for the management of gastric lymphomas. Although this technique is operator dependent, its application in large series has proved its reliability. Thus, it has generally been considered a useful tool for providing information crucial in deciding the treatment program, especially for mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas, for which EUS can provide an accurate evaluation of disease extension and treatment response probability. Limited-stage disease, confined to the submucosa, has a greater probability to respond to sole Helicobacter pylori eradication. In contrast, the value of EUS in response assessment and follow-up monitoring is still debated, with discordant opinions about its reliability and clinical advantages, because normalization of the EUS findings occurs with a considerable delay compared to the histologic evaluation. In the follow-up setting, preliminary data have indicated that persistently positive EUS findings in low-grade gastric lymphoma could represent a warning for a possible relapse. However, in high-grade gastric lymphoma, such findings do not have any clinical implications.

Selective utilization of pre-operative endoscopic ultrasound to exclude choledocholithiasis prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective study.

The objective of this study was to define the clinical, biochemical and ultrasonographic criteria correlating with a likelihood of a positive preoperative endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in patients presenting with acute gallstone-related pancreatobiliary disease. All patients who underwent EUS prior to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were analyzed at the Gastroenterology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, following acute admission with cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, cholangitis, acute pancreatitis and obstructive jaundice. One hundred and seventy four patients met the inclusion criteria. EUS showed choledocholithiasis in 37 (21.3%) with 35/37 undergoing a preoperative ERCP (24/35 cases - 64.9% positive yield). Twenty seven of the positive EUS studies (73%) were performed during the acute illness, with 50 of the 137 negative studies (36.4%) performed during the acute phase of the illness (p=0.0001). On multivariate analysis, a positive EUS was more commonly found during the acute phase of the illness [OR: 3.445; 95% CI: 1.48-8.008, p=0.004] or if there was transient jaundice [OR: 1.167; 95% CI: 1.002-1.36, p=0.047]. The timing of the examination influences the detection rate of CBD stones by EUS prior to surgery although it may be appropriate to more selectively use EUS in those patients with hyperbilirubinaemia and/or where the CBD is dilated.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Patients With Intermediate Probability of Choledocholithiasis But a Negative CT Scan

Despite the increased role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in diagnosis, few studies have evaluated its impact on the management of choledocholithiasis in a clinical setting for patients for whom computed tomography (CT) was conducted initially. Our aim in this study was to evaluate the role of EUS in patients with a diagnosis of intermediate probability of choledocholithiasis with a negative CT scan result. A total of 98 patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis with intermediate probability of choledocholithiasis were evaluated prospectively. Twenty-six of the 98 patients (26.5%) were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis by CT scans. The remaining 72 patients underwent EUS. Twenty-five of the 72 patients were shown to have choledocholithiasis (n=20/72, 27.8%) or papillitis with biliary outflow obstruction (n=5/72, 6.9%) on EUS. These 25 patients with positive EUS findings underwent endoscopic sphincterotomy, and choledocholithiasis was endoscopically confirmed in 23 of the 25 patients (92.0%). Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis occurred in 3 patients (12.0% of the 25 patients who received ERCP, 4.2% of all 72 patients). Forty-seven patients with no evidence of choledocholithiasis on EUS were followed-up for a median period of 340 days (range, 185 to 755 d), and no recurrent biliary events occurred in these patients during this period. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for choledocholithiasis was 87.0% and 100%, respectively. An EUS-first strategy in patients with intermediate probability of choledocholithiasis but a negative CT scan is very useful and can reduce the need to perform invasive ERCP.

Sensitivity and Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosing the Layer of Origin for Gastric Subepithelial Lesions

Purpose: Gastric subepithelial lesions (GSL) are usually found incidentally by imaging or upper endoscopy. The most common etiology is gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), which are pre-malignant lesions. Other etiologies include leiomyoma, leiomysarcoma, lipoma, and schwannoma. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an important diagnostic tool by helping to assess size, tissue characteristics, and layer of origination. These factors, especially layer of origin, can implicate GIST over other diagnoses and significantly impact further management strategy by appropriately referring pre-malignant or malignant lesions to resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS in discerning the layer of origin (LO) of GSL. Methods: A retrospective chart review of EUS reports, images, cytology, and surgical pathology for all patients with subepithelial lesions presenting between April 2006 and February 2010 was done at our tertiary medical center. A total of 30 patients were identified who underwent EUS followed by laparoscopic wedge resection of a GSL. EUS were performed by a single experienced endosonographer. All patients underwent standard EGD and complete examination with a linear echoendoscope. FNA was performed by making 1 to 5 passes with a 22-gauge needle, at the discretion of the endosonographer. Immunohistochemical specimens were prepared as direct smears with routine hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. Surgical specimens from laparoscopic resection were reviewed by staff pathologists. Results: 30 patients were identified who underwent EUS followed by wedge resection of a GSL. 27 of these patients had an EUS diagnosis of a GSL arising from either the submucosa (SM) or muscularis propria (MP), which was confirmed with surgical pathology. One patient had a false positive EUS finding of a GSL arising from the MP. Two patients had EUS findings of a GSL in the deep mucosa and SM, respectively, which on pathology involved the MP. The sensitivity and accuracy of EUS for determining the layer of origin of GSL in this study was 93% and 90%, respectively. Of the 25 GSLs arising from the MP by EUS, 15 (60%) were found to be GIST, 4 (16%) leiomyomas, 3 (12%) schwannomas, 1 glomus tumor, 1 nodular sclerosed submucosal pseudotumor, and one false positive that was a leiomyoma, but did not involve the MP. The lesions ranged from 0.6 cm - 3.5 cm in size. Conclusion: Based on our findings, EUS is highly sensitive and accurate for diagnosing the layer of origin for GSL. Of the GSLs arising from the MP diagnosed by EUS, the majority were GISTs. EUS remains an important tool in the appropriate evaluation and referral of patients for possible surgical resection of GSLs.

Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography in the clinical suspicion of biliary disease

endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a very sensitive and specific technique for the diagnosis of biliary diseases. This procedure has proven its usefulness in cases of high suspicion of biliary disease (history of gallstones and dilatation of the intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic bile ducts). We know less about its usefulness in cases of low suspicion of biliary pathology.The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in patients with low suspicion of biliary disease (patients with dilatation of the biliary tract were excluded). 33 patients with low suspicion of biliary disease were recruited in 12 months. All of them had no biliary findings in a previous abdominal ultrasound and computer tomography scan. All of them underwent EUS and were studied prospectively. The diagnosis was confirmed by surgery and/or by ERCP in patients with positive EUS or clinical follow-up in those with normal EUS. Time of follow-up was 9 months (range, 3-12 months). seventeen patients (51.5%) presented with abnormal biliary findings on EUS (7 choledocholithiasis, 3 cholelithiasis, 2 choledocholithiasis + cholelithiasis and 5 microlithiasis). EUS is a useful and safe procedure for diagnosing patients with low suspicion of biliary disease.