Methods: We reviewed 67 cases of patients who underwent cholecystectomies and who also showed thickened gallbladder wall in their preoperative EUS. According to the post-surgical pathologic diagnosis, the cases were classified into malignant and benign diseases, and then they were statistically compared with several findings of EUS of thickened gallbladder wall such as thickness, extent of wall thickening, associations of gallstones, loss or preservation of layered structure of wall, internal echo pattern within thickened wall, associations of microcyst or echogenic nodule within thickened wall, and irregularity of inner surface of thickened wall. Results: Pathologic diagnoses included 10 cancers and 57 benign gallbladder diseases. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS examination for diagnosis of the gallbladder cancer were 90% and 98% respectively, and especially in the specificity, EUS was superior to that of abdominal ultrasonography or abdominal CT scan that were also performed to enrolled patients preoperatively. Through statistical analyses, EUS findings of thickened wall such as thickness, associations of gallstones, loss or preservation of layered structure, and irregularity of inner surface of thickened wall were turned out to be the statistically significant variables in the differential diagnosis between malignant and benign causes of thickened gallbladder wall. On the multivariate analyses, loss or preservation of layered structure, and irregularity of inner surface of thickened wall were finally remained as independent variables, odds ratio (OR) 12.10: 95% CI (1.2, 137.6), OR 15.80: 95% CI (1.5, 167.0). Conclusion: EUS is useful to diagnose gallbladder cancer when gallbladder shows thickened wall and EUS findings of thicker wall, absence of gall stones, loss of normal layered structure, and irregular internal surface of thickened wall are predictive factor of gallbladder cancer. *T1603 EUS: An Ideal Initial Test for Elderly Patients with Idiopathic Pancreatitis Karin M. Rettig, Allan G. Halline, Russell D. Brown, Rama P. Venu Background: Current standard of care for patients with idiopathic pancreatitis (IP) involves an extensive evaluation including ERCP with possible sphincter manometry to identify an etiology. ERCP carries a significant risk of pancreatitis in comparison to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Furthermore, EUS identifies malignancy, stones, sludge, and chronic pancreatitis as well as or better than ERCP. Older patients may have a higher risk of malignancy and a lower incidence of sphincter dysfunction (SD), making EUS an attractive method for initial endoscopic evaluation in this group. Aim: To determine if EUS should be used as the initial investigation of choice in older patients with IP. Methods: Patients >55 years old referred with IP were evaluated with history, physical, amylase, lipase, triglyceride, calcium, liver enzymes, ultrasound and CT. Patients in whom the etiology was unknown after noninvasive evaluation were included in this study. Each patient had EUS, followed by helical CT and ERCP +/sphincterotomy (ES). Radial array EUS was done first followed by linear array EUS with possible fine needle aspirate (FNA). CT, ERCP with brush cytology and/or SOM was performed in all patients. ES, stone extraction, stent placement, laparotomy, or Whipple operation was done based on ERCP results. Results: Of 20 patients, an etiology was identified in 7 (35%). Four of 20 patients had a malignancy (3 pancreas, 1 periampullary). One patient each had choledocholithiasis, pancreas divisum, SD, and early chronic pancreatitis. EUS demonstrated a mass in all 4 patients withmalignancy, andFNAof eachmasswas positive for adenocarcinoma in 3. ERCP showed PD stricture suggestive ofmalignancy in 3 patients, with brush cytology positive for adenocarcinoma in one. Both EUS and ERCP identified a common bile duct stone in one patient, while SD (1) and pancreas divisum (1) were diagnosed exclusively by ERCP. EUS established a diagnosis in 6/7 (84%), while ERCP did so in 4/7 (56%). CT scanning revealed a mass in only one of four cancer patients and an enlarged pancreas due to pancreatitis in 17/20 patients. Three of four patients with cancer underwent Whipple surgery, and all three were correctly staged by EUS. One patient had metastasis to the liver and was treated with endoprosthesis. Conclusion: EUS should be considered as the initial endoscopic study of choice in older patients with IP. EUS has an overall higher yield and can accurately establish a tissue diagnosis, enable staging of malignancy, and aid in appropriate planning for therapy.