Display options
Share it on

J Gastroenterol Pancreatol Liver Disord. 2017;4(2):1-7. doi: 10.15226/2374-815X/4/2/00186. Epub 2017 Mar 27.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Accurately Diagnoses Smaller Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Compared To Computer Tomography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration.

Journal of gastroenterology, pancreatology & liver disorders

Jeremy Wang, Jihane N Benhammou, Kevin Ghassemi, Stephen Kim, Alireza Sedarat, James Farrell, Joseph R Pisegna

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Parenteral Nutrition, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  3. Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  4. Division of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  5. Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.

PMID: 29516037 PMCID: PMC5837075 DOI: 10.15226/2374-815X/4/2/00186

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The role of EUS-guided FNA as a highly sensitive modality in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is well documented. However, there is little published data on the role of EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity of EUS-FNA to that of CT-FNA for diagnosing pancreatic NETs.

METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective analysis of the operating characteristics of EUS-FNA and CT-FNA in detecting pancreatic NETs. Only patients with a final diagnosis of pancreatic NET were selected for this study. Procedure related data, including tumor size and location, and presence of a cytotechnologist were recorded. The results of each FNA were compared to the final clinico-pathological diagnosis to calculate sensitivity.

RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients undergoing FNA (19 by EUS, 9 by CT) were analyzed. NETs diagnosed by EUS-FNA were smaller compared with CT-FNA (2.7 ± 0.9cm vs. 6.5 ± 2.1cm, p = 0.009) and were more often found in the pancreatic head (47.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.035). There were no significant differences in sensitivity between EUS-FNA and CT-FNA specimens (73.7% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.33).

CONCLUSION: EUS-guided FNA is as sensitive as CT-guided FNA in diagnosing pancreatic NETs, but its main advantage is in the diagnosis of smaller pancreatic NETs in the head of the pancreas. It may also be the preferred approach in the diagnosis of multifocal pancreatic NETs in the setting of MEN I Syndrome.

Keywords: Computed Tomography; Endoscopic Ultrasound; Fine Needle Aspiration; Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor

References

  1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Sep;60(3):378-84 - PubMed
  2. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Aug;56(2):218-24 - PubMed
  3. JOP. 2006 Jan 11;7(1):150-6 - PubMed
  4. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997 Dec;4(8):639-43 - PubMed
  5. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 May;45(5):387-93 - PubMed
  6. Endoscopy. 1995 Feb;27(2):171-7 - PubMed
  7. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Aug;56(2):291-6 - PubMed
  8. Surgery. 1992 Dec;112(6):1016-22; discussion 1022-3 - PubMed
  9. Diagn Cytopathol. 1998 Feb;18(2):98-109 - PubMed
  10. Gastroenterology. 2005 May;128(6):1626-41 - PubMed
  11. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Jan-Feb;55(1):10-30 - PubMed
  12. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003 Jan;7(1):118-128 - PubMed
  13. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2002 Apr;6(2):106-12 - PubMed
  14. Pancreas. 2013 May;42(4):557-77 - PubMed
  15. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Jun;61(7):854-61 - PubMed
  16. J Surg Oncol. 2005 Mar 1;89(3):170-85 - PubMed
  17. Br J Surg. 2000 Feb;87(2):129-31 - PubMed
  18. Gastroenterology. 1997 Feb;112(2):583-90 - PubMed
  19. J Am Coll Surg. 1999 Nov;189(5):470-82 - PubMed
  20. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2005 Aug;19(4):577-83 - PubMed
  21. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2000 Oct;10(4):619-36, vi - PubMed
  22. Surgery. 1998 Dec;124(6):1056-61; discussion 1061-2 - PubMed
  23. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991 May-Jun;37(3):347-52 - PubMed
  24. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Sep;95(9):2255-60 - PubMed
  25. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2002 Mar;386(8):558-69 - PubMed
  26. J Intern Med. 1998 Jun;243(6):495-500 - PubMed
  27. Cancer. 2002 Aug 25;96(4):232-9 - PubMed
  28. Intern Med J. 2004 Aug;34(8):475-81 - PubMed
  29. Gastroenterology. 1997 Apr;112(4):1087-95 - PubMed
  30. Cancer. 2008 Aug 25;114(4):255-62 - PubMed
  31. Arch Surg. 1999 Jun;134(6):639-42; discussion 642-3 - PubMed
  32. Gut. 2000 Feb;46(2):244-9 - PubMed
  33. Am J Gastroenterol. 1994 Feb;89(2):263-6 - PubMed
  34. N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371(11):1039-49 - PubMed
  35. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998 Aug;93(8):1329-33 - PubMed
  36. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998 Sep-Oct;2(5):473-82 - PubMed
  37. Cancer. 2002 Jun 25;96(3):174-80 - PubMed
  38. Endoscopy. 1993 Feb;25(2):143-50 - PubMed
  39. Gut. 1999 May;44(5):720-6 - PubMed
  40. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2005 Oct;19(5):753-81 - PubMed
  41. Endoscopy. 1997 Nov;29(9):854-8 - PubMed
  42. Cancer. 2003 Oct 25;99(5):285-92 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support