International consensus guidelines for surgical resection of mucinous neoplasms cannot be applied to all cystic lesions of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: International consensus guidelines, aimed at predicting malignancy, are available for surgical resection of mucinous cysts but not for other cystic lesions of the pancreas. We sought to determine whether the consensus guidelines can be applied to all cystic lesions of the pancreas. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent surgical resection of pancreatic cysts from 2001-2007. Pathology analyses of surgical specimens served as the reference standard. Surgical resection criteria proposed by the Sendai Guidelines and 5 modifications of these criteria were tested to determine their accuracy for diagnosis of malignant cysts. RESULTS: Patients with cystic lesions of the pancreas (n = 154; mean age, 59.8 years; 64% women) underwent resection and met prespecified study criteria. Twenty-one patients had a malignancy. The classification cyst size > or = 3 cm had an accuracy of 56%, negative predictive value of 84%, and identified only 57% of the malignant cysts. The classification cyst size > or = 3 cm or cyst with main pancreatic duct > or = 10 mm had an accuracy of 55%, negative predictive value of 86%, and identified 66% of malignant cysts. The modified criterion of cyst size > or = 3 cm or cyst with main pancreatic duct > 3 mm had an accuracy of 48%, negative predictive value of 94%, and identified 91% (19/21) of the malignancies. Cyst size (odds ratio, 1.05) and pancreatic duct dilation > 3 mm (odds ratio, 10.5) were strong and independent predictors of malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: When applied to all cystic lesions of the pancreas, the international consensus criteria cause some malignant cysts to be missed. Modified criteria could identify most malignant cysts, although overall accuracy remains low.

Comparison of carcinoembryonic antigen and molecular analysis in pancreatic cyst fluid.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic-cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and molecular analysis are useful diagnostic tests in differentiating mucinous from nonmucinous cysts. OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between CEA and molecular analysis for differentiating mucinous from nonmucinous cysts. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHODS: Patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA for evaluation of pancreatic cysts were identified. The following information was used to designate a cyst mucinous: the CEA criterion was CEA level >or=192 ng/mL and the molecular analysis criteria were DNA quantity >or=40 ng/microL and/or k-ras 2-point mutation and/or >or=2 allelic imbalance mutations. Pathologic analysis of cysts served as the criterion standard. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2007, 100 patients met the study criteria. The average age of the patients was 63 years, 65% were women, and 30% were symptomatic. The mean diameter of pancreatic cysts was 2.5 cm. The median CEA value was 83 ng/mL (range 1-50,000 ng/mL), the mean DNA content was 16 ng/microL (range 1-212 ng/microL), 11% had K-ras mutations, and 43% had >or=2 allelic imbalance mutations. When using prespecified criteria, there was poor agreement between CEA and molecular analysis for the classification of mucinous cysts (kappa = 0.2). Poor agreement existed between CEA and DNA quantity (Spearman correlation = 0.2; P = .1), K-ras mutation (kappa = 0.3), and >or=2 allelic imbalance mutations (kappa = 0.1). Of the 19 patients for whom a final pathologic diagnosis was available, CEA had a sensitivity of 82% compared with 77% for molecular analysis. When CEA and molecular analysis were combined, 100% sensitivity was achieved. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective analysis and small sample size. CONCLUSION: There was poor agreement between CEA levels and molecular analysis for diagnosis of mucinous cysts. Diagnostic sensitivity was improved when results of CEA levels and molecular analysis were combined.

Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Practice guidelines recommend that endoscopists spend at least 7 minutes examining the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy withdrawal to optimize polyp yield. The aim of this study was to determine if the implementation of an institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes was associated with an increase in colon polyp detection. METHODS: All 42 endoscopists at our institute were asked to attain a colonoscopy withdrawal time of at least 7 minutes. Compliance with 7-minute withdrawal time was recorded for all nontherapeutic colonoscopies. Polyp detection ratio (number of polyps detected divided by number of colonoscopies performed) was computed. Regression models were used to assess the association between compliance with 7-minute withdrawal time and polyp detection. RESULTS: During the study period, 23,910 colonoscopies were performed. The average age of patients was 56.8 years, and 54% were female. Colon cancer screening or surveillance was the indication for 42.5% of colonoscopies. At the beginning of the study, the polyp detection ratio was 0.48. Compliance with 7-minute withdrawal time for nontherapeutic procedures increased from 65% at the beginning of the initiative to almost 100%. However, no increase in polyp detection ratio was noted over the same period for all polyps (slope, 0.0006; P = .45) or for polyps 1-5 mm (slope, 0.001; P = .26), 6-9 mm (slope, 0.002; P = .43), or > or = 10 mm (slope, 0.006; P = .13). No association was detected when only colonoscopies performed for screening or surveillance were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: An institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes had no effect on colon polyp detection.

I Consenso Brasileiro de Ecoendoscopia / I Brazilian Consensus of Endoscopic Ultrasonography

RACIONAL: Ainda que se reconheça a eficiência da ecoendoscopia para o diagnóstico e até mesmo para o tratamento de várias doenças do aparelho digestivo, a sua inclusão nos algoritmos de decisão clínica em gastroenterologia tem sofrido restrições. Este fato é comprovado indiretamente através da existência de vários estudos que se preocuparam em demonstrar o impacto do exame ecoendoscópio na mudança de condutas e na redução de custos. Outra evidência, esta direta e identificável em nosso meio, é a disponibilidade bastante limitada da ecoendoscopia no Brasil. Neste sentido, quiseram-se identificar as situações clínicas em que o exame ecoendoscópico é eficiente, através de revisões sistemáticas, graduando-se o grau da evidência e a força da recomendação, realizadas pelo grupo envolvido com o método em nosso país, apresentadas e votadas na forma de consenso. MÉTODO: O grupo de médicos que realiza ecoendoscopia foi formado a partir de informações obtidas junto às sociedades de especialidades e aos fabricantes de equipamentos. A lista de tópicos e perguntas relevantes foi formulada por dois membros do consenso (FMF, CMD), discutida com e distribuída aos consensualistas 5 meses antes da reunião de consenso. Foi solicitado que se realizassem, na medida do possível, revisões sistemáticas e que as respostas fossem apresentadas para a votação com o grau de evidência e a força da recomendação. Nos 2 dias da reunião de consenso, as respostas foram apresentadas, debatidas e votadas. Quando, no mínimo, 70 por cento dos votantes concordaram com o texto da resposta, houve consenso. O relatório final foi submetido a apreciação e aprovado por todos os consensualistas. RESULTADOS: Setenta e nove questões foram debatidas na pré-reunião do consenso, resultando 85 questões que foram então distribuídas. Nos 2 dias da reunião do consenso, 22 participantes debateram e votaram as 85 respostas. O impacto causado pelo exame ecoendoscópico foi comprovado por evidências...

BACKGROUND: In the last 20 years, several papers have focused on demonstrating the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings on the management of different clinical scenarios in digestive disease. This fact is an indirect evidence of the difficulty of popularization of the method. On other hand, the limited availability of endoscopic ultrasonography in Brazil is a direct evidence of this limitation. This was the rationale for the organization of a consensus meeting on endoscopic ultrasonography. It was aimed to identify the best evidence that support the use of endoscopic ultrasonography in gastroenterology. METHODS: A panel of experts on endoscopic ultrasonography was selected based on the files of the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Societies and on the registries of endoscope manufacturers. Two members of the meeting selected the relevant topics that were transformed into questions. The topics and the questions were debated among the experts five months before the consensus meeting. The experts were asked to perform systematic reviews in order to answer the questions so it could be possible to grade the answers based on the strength of the evidence. During the two days of the meeting the answers were presented, debated and voted. Consensus was reached when a minimum of 70 percent of the voters were in agreement. The final consensus report was submitted to the experts' evaluation and approval. RESULTS: Seventy nine questions were debated by the experts at the pre-Consensus meeting. As the result of this debate 85 questions came out and were assigned to the members of the panel. During the Consensus meeting 22 experts debated and voted 85 answers. Consensus was reached for several clinical scenarios for which the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings were supported by level 1 evidences: differential diagnosis of subepithelial lesions and thickening of gastric folds, staging and diagnosis of unresectable esophageal cancer...

[I Brazilian consensus of endoscopic ultrasonography]. / I Consenso Brasileiro de Ecoendoscopia.

BACKGROUND: In the last 20 years, several papers have focused on demonstrating the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings on the management of different clinical scenarios in digestive disease. This fact is an indirect evidence of the difficulty of popularization of the method. On other hand, the limited availability of endoscopic ultrasonography in Brazil is a direct evidence of this limitation. This was the rationale for the organization of a consensus meeting on endoscopic ultrasonography. It was aimed to identify the best evidence that support the use of endoscopic ultrasonography in gastroenterology. METHODS: A panel of experts on endoscopic ultrasonography was selected based on the files of the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Societies and on the registries of endoscope manufacturers. Two members of the meeting selected the relevant topics that were transformed into questions. The topics and the questions were debated among the experts five months before the consensus meeting. The experts were asked to perform systematic reviews in order to answer the questions so it could be possible to grade the answers based on the strength of the evidence. During the two days of the meeting the answers were presented, debated and voted. Consensus was reached when a minimum of 70% of the voters were in agreement. The final consensus report was submitted to the experts' evaluation and approval. RESULTS: Seventy nine questions were debated by the experts at the pre-Consensus meeting. As the result of this debate 85 questions came out and were assigned to the members of the panel. During the Consensus meeting 22 experts debated and voted 85 answers. Consensus was reached for several clinical scenarios for which the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings were supported by level 1 evidences: differential diagnosis of subepithelial lesions and thickening of gastric folds, staging and diagnosis of unresectable esophageal cancer, indirect signs of peritoneal involvement of gastric cancer, MALT gastric lymphoma and rectal cancer staging, diagnosis of common bile duct and gallbladder stones, diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and differential diagnosis of a solid mass in chronic pancreatitis, differential diagnosis of the pancreatic cyst, prediction of the results of the endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices and diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There are the highest levels of evidences that support the indication of endoscopic ultrasonography for several digestive diseases and even for non-small cell lung cancer.