Diagnosis of intra-abdominal and mediastinal sarcoidosis with EUS-guided FNA.

BACKGROUND: In the presence of a compatible clinical picture, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis requires pathologic confirmation of noncaseating epithelioid granuloma in affected tissues. The standard procedure of choice for most patients is a bronchoscopy with transbronchial biopsy (TBB), which has a diagnostic yield of 40% to 90%. The lowest yield with TBB is in cases that present with predominant mediastinal or intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy (LN) and minimal parenchymal lung involvement. OBJECTIVE: To study the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA in diagnosing sarcoidosis with predominant LN or masses. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Teaching university hospital. PATIENTS: Analysis of 21 consecutive patients with sarcoidosis and predominant mediastinal and/or intra-abdominal LN or masses who underwent EUS-guided FNA. RESULTS: EUS-guided FNA diagnosed sarcoidosis in 18 of 21 patients (86%). In 3 patients, EUS-guided FNA was either not diagnostic or inconclusive, and patients underwent mediastinoscopy with lymphadenectomy, which established the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Seven of the 21 patients (33%) had intra-abdominal LN and/or masses, and EUS-guided FNA of the intra-abdominal pathology was diagnostic of sarcoidosis in 4 of the 7 patients (57%). Four of the 21 patients (19%) had a history of malignancy, and use of EUS-guided FNA helped in ruling out the recurrence of malignancy in 3 of the 4 patients (75%). LIMITATIONS: Mycobacterial and fungal culture was not obtained in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided FNA offers a practical, minimally invasive technique for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis in patients who present with predominant mediastinal and/or intra-abdominal LN or masses.

Treatment of Epiphrenic and Mid-esophageal Diverticula.

Thoracic esophageal diverticula are uncommon. They account for less than 30% of esophageal diverticula. The majority of patients are asymptomatic or have minimal symptoms. About one third of patients present with severe symptoms. Occasionally, pulmonary symptoms can be the sole manifestation of the disease and can be life threatening. Dysphagia, food regurgitation, chest pain, weight loss, and reflux symptoms are the most commonly encountered gastrointestinal symptoms. Malignancy is a rare complication of esophageal diverticula; therefore, patients should be educated regarding this complication. Appropriate diagnostic tests should be arranged promptly if alarming symptoms develop. Esophageal motor disorders are found in the majority of patients and need to be taken into account when planning therapy. Medical and endoscopic therapies have limited roles in treatment. Surgery is the standard of care for patients with pulmonary or incapacitating symptoms related to an epiphrenic diverticulum, and myotomy is the cornerstone of surgery. To ensure complete relief of the obstruction, the myotomy should extend distally at least 1.5 to 2 cm into the stomach and proximally at least to the neck of diverticulum. Adding a nonobstructing entireflux procedure is recommended to prevent the development of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Occasionally, a specific treatment such as a diverticulectomy or diverticulopexy needs to be directed to the diverticulum. Preliminary treatment results from minimally invasive surgery, especially laparoscopy, have been promising. In the future with increased experience, minimally invasive surgery may become the standard of care.

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas: evaluation of pancreatitis as a complication.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is rapidly becoming the procedure of choice for the diagnostic evaluation of pancreatic masses. Acute pancreatitis has been reported after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas. This study evaluated the effect of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration on the pancreas by serial measurement of amylase and lipase levels and determining the frequency of acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses. METHODS: In 100 consecutive patients referred for EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of a pancreatic mass, amylase and lipase levels were determined immediately before and within 2 hours after the procedure. Additionally, patients were questioned as to the occurrence of symptoms of acute pancreatitis within 48 hours after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. RESULTS: For 2 of 100 patients (2%) there was clinical and biochemical evidence of acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Both patients had a history of recent pancreatitis. In addition, there was a significant increase in postprocedure lipase levels (p = 0.40) compared with amylase levels in this patient subset. CONCLUSION: The frequency of acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas was 2% in this study. A history of recent pancreatitis appears to be a potential risk factor. Amylase and lipase levels can be elevated after EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and in most cases have no clinical significance.

Diagnosis of cystic neoplasms with endoscopic ultrasound.

From the data that are currently available, it appears that EUS can help to reliably distinguish between the majority of benign and neoplastic cystic lesions. In equivocal cases, or cases where a high suspicion for malignancy exists, the use of EUS-guided FNA for obtaining cytology and cystic fluid for analysis of various tumor markers, gives the best diagnostic yield. Occasionally, despite a complete evaluation of a cystic mass, the cyst type may not be determined. The decision regarding further management of these lesions should be based on a combination of factors including symptoms, cyst size, EUS morphology and the patient's overall medical condition. In the case of symptomatic, large, or suspicious lesions where the patient is a good surgical candidate, surgical resection should be performed. However, it becomes more difficult in the case of asymptomatic, small cystic lesions where the patient is not an optimal surgical candidate. In the latter scenario, applying EUS criteria for follow-up of small pancreatic cystic lesions as reported by Ikeda et al can help in the decision-making process. In this study, Ikeda et al reported on 31 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions of unknown etiology that were followed-up with semi-annual EUS exams over a 3-year period. In 87.1% of these lesions, the size was less than 2 cm. Their criteria included 1) a clear thin wall, 2) smooth contour, 3) round or oval shape, 4) no septum or nodules, 5) asymptomatic clinical presentation, and 6) no findings of chronic pancreatitis. The cystic lesions remained stable in 30/31 patients, and only one lesion increased in size. This lesion was resected and was found to be a retention cyst. We are optimistic that the role of EUS in the management of cystic neoplasms will continue to evolve and expand as future studies evaluate the clinical utility of imaging modalities for the optimal practice algorithm for managing these neoplasms.