Publications (42) View all
-
Article: Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The option of obtaining tissue samples for histological examination during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has theoretical and practical advantages over cytology alone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, yield, and diagnostic accuracy of a new EUS 22-G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) device in patients with solid pancreatic masses in a multicenter, prospective study. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using a newly developed 22-G FNB needle between September 2010 and October 2010 were enrolled in the study. The EUS-FNB technique was standardized among the participating endoscopists. Only a single needle pass was performed. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients (35 males, mean age 64.2 ± 12.4 years) with solid pancreatic masses with a mean size of 32.4 ± 8.5 mm (range 13-90 mm) participated. EUS-FNB was performed through the duodenum in 35 cases (57.4 %) and was technically feasible in all but one of the 61 (98.4 %) patients without complications. Tissue samples for histological examination were obtained from 55 patients (90.2 %) and were deemed adequate in 54 of the cases (88.5 %). The diagnoses established by EUS-FNB were adenocarcinoma (39 patients), neuroendocrine tumors (5), chronic focal pancreatitis (5), sarcoma (2), lymphoma (1), acinar cellular tumor (1), and pancreatic metastasis from renal cell carcinoma (1). In an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for the histologic diagnosis of a pancreatic mass were 87.5, 100, 100, 41.7, and 88.5 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB was technically feasible in 98 % of patients with a solid pancreatic mass. A suitable sample for histological evaluation was obtained in 88.5 % of the cases after only one single needle pass. The apparently low negative predictive value is likely to be improved by increasing the number of needle passes.Surgical Endoscopy 05/2013; · 4.01 Impact Factor -
Article: International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Screening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia. OBJECTIVE: To develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC. METHODS: A 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. RESULTS: There was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; and p16, BRCA2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screening abnormalities were of sufficient concern to for surgery to be recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Screening is recommended for high-risk individuals, but more evidence is needed, particularly for how to manage patients with detected lesions. Screening and subsequent management should take place at high-volume centres with multidisciplinary teams, preferably within research protocols.Gut 11/2012; · 10.11 Impact Factor -
Article: Interobserver agreement among pathologists regarding core tissue specimens obtained with a new endoscopic ultrasound histology needle; a prospective multicentre study in 50 cases.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AIM: To evaluate the interobserver agreement among pathologists in grading the quality of specimens obtained with a new 19-gauge endoscopic ultrasound histology needle. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicentre prospective study involved 50 slides prepared using material obtained with the new needle. Five experienced pathologists independently reviewed all of the samples, and made assessments of the following features: the presence of a core, the adequacy of the specimen, the interpretability of the specimen, and the possibility of performing additional analyses using the material. Interobserver agreement, determined by Fleiss' kappa statistic and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was used as the primary outcome measure. Overall, the presence of a core was reported in 88% of cases with good agreement among the pathologists (κ = 0.61; 95% CI 0.52-0.70). The specimens were adequate in 91.2% of cases, and Fleiss' κ was 0.73 (95% CI 0.61-0.81). The interpretation of the specimens was reported to be 'easy' in approximately 87% of cases, with moderate agreement among the pathologists (κ = 0.44; 95% CI 0.35-0.53). The possibility of performing additional analyses from the same sample was rated as positive in approximately 91%, with good agreement (κ = 0.66; 95% CI 0.58-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: There was excellent interobserver agreement among pathologists in the assessment of the histological material, especially with regard to sample adequacy.Histopathology 10/2012; · 3.08 Impact Factor -
Article: Preoperative Assessment of Tumor Location and Station-Specific Lymph Node Status in Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Gastroesophageal Junction.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In esophageal cancer patients preoperative staging will determine the type of surgical procedure and use of neoadjuvant therapy. Tumor location and lymph node status play a pivotal role in this tailored strategy. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of preoperative assessment of tumor location according to the Siewert classification and lymph node status per station with endoscopy/endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT). METHODS: In 50 esophagectomy patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), tumor location according to Siewert and N-stage per nodal station as determined preoperatively by endoscopy/EUS and CT were compared with the histopathologic findings in the resection specimen. RESULTS: Overall accuracy in predicting tumor location according to the Siewert classification was 70 % for endoscopy/EUS and 72 % for CT. Preoperative data could not be compared with the pathologic assessment in 11 patients (22 %), as large tumors obscured the landmark of the gastric folds. The overall accuracy for predicting the N-stage in 250 lymph node stations was 66 % for EUS and 68 % for CT. The accuracy was good for those stations located high in the thorax, but poor for celiac trunk nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Given the frequent discrepancy between the endoscopic and pathologic location of the GEJ and the common problem of advanced tumors obscuring the landmarks used in the assessment of the Siewert classification, its usefulness is limited. The overall accuracy for EUS and CT in predicting the N-stage per station was moderate.World Journal of Surgery 09/2012; · 2.36 Impact Factor -
Article: Controlling gastric variceal bleeding with endoscopically applied hemostatic powder (Hemospray(TM)).
Journal of Hepatology 07/2012; · 9.26 Impact Factor
