ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: EUS-FNA cytology and fluid analysis are frequently utilized to evaluate pancreatic cysts. Elevated cyst fluid CEA is usually indicative of a mucinous pancreatic cyst but whether CEA or amylase values can subclassify various mucinous cysts is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine whether cyst fluid CEA and amylase obtained by EUS-FNA can differentiate between mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). METHODS: Using our prospective hospital EUS and surgical databases, we identified all patients who underwent EUS of a pancreatic cyst prior to surgical resection, in the last 10 years. Cysts were pathologically sub-classified as MCNs or IPMNs; all other cysts were considered non-mucinous. Values of cyst fluid CEA and amylase were correlated to corresponding surgical histopathology and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: 134 patients underwent surgery for pancreatic cysts including 82 (63%) that also had preoperative EUS. EUS-FNA was performed in 61/82 (74%) and cyst fluid analysis in 35/61 (57%) including CEA and amylase in 35 and 33 patients, respectively. Histopathology in these 35 cysts demonstrated nonmucinous cysts in 10 and mucinous cysts in 25 including: MCNs (n=9) and IPMNs (n=16). Cyst fluid CEA (p=0.19) and amylase (p=0.64) between all IPMNs and MCNs were similar. Between branched duct IPMNs and MCNs alone, cyst fluid CEA (p=0.34) and amylase (p=0.92) were also similar. CONCLUSION: In this single center study, pancreatic cyst fluid amylase and CEA levels appeared to be of limited value to influence the differential of mucinous pancreatic cysts. Larger studies are recommended to evaluate this role further.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (FNA) has a well-established role in the evaluation of various gastrointestinal (GI) tract disorders in adults. The clinical impact of EUS on the management of the pediatric population remains less clear. This study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and applications of EUS ± FNA in pediatric GI tract disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a prospectively maintained EUS database, all patients 18 years of age or younger referred for EUS at our institution were identified. Retrospective chart review was conducted to document procedure indications, type of anesthesia used, EUS findings, final FNA cytology results, and clinical impact of EUS ± FNA on the subsequent management of pediatric patients. RESULTS: Fifty-eight EUS procedures were performed in 56 patients (35 girls). Median age was 16 years (range 4-18 years). The main indications for EUS were acute or recurrent pancreatitis, abdominal pain of suspected pancreatobiliary origin, suspected biliary obstruction, upper GI mucosal/submucosal lesions, and evaluation of pancreatic abnormalities seen on prior imaging. Sedation used included nurse-administered propofol sedation in 38 (73%), general anesthesia in 9 (17%), and fentanyl with meperidine in 3 (6%). Five therapeutic procedures performed included celiac plexus blocks in 4 and 1 EUS-guided pancreatogram. In 44 (86%) patients, EUS provided a new diagnosis. The procedure was successfully completed in all patients with no reported complications. CONCLUSIONS: EUS ± FNA is feasible and safe and makes a significant impact on most pediatric patients. Nurse-administered propofol sedation appears to be safe and well tolerated in this group.
