The role of EUS in managing asymptomatic pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) remains unresolved. We retrospectively evaluated EUS in risk stratification of PCLs when adhering to the most recent AGA guidelines.
Asymptomatic PCLs that were evaluated by EUS from January 2014 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed including associated cytology, fluid analysis, and relevant surgical pathology. Cross-sectional imaging reports were reviewed blindly by an expert radiologist using AGA risk stratification terminology. Accepted imaging high-risk features (HRF) included cyst diameter > 3 cm, dilated upstream pancreatic ducts, and a solid component in the cyst.
We reviewed 125 patients who underwent EUS. Expert review of cross-sectional imaging resulted in a different interpretation 25% of the time including 1 malignant cyst. Ninety-three patients (75%) had no HRFs on cross-sectional imaging; 28 patients (22%) were diagnosed with 1 HRF and 4 patients (3%) had 2 HRFs. Adhering to AGA guidelines using 2 HRF as threshold for use of EUS, the diagnosis of malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions (including pancreatic adenocarcinoma, mucinous cystadenoma, neuroendocrine tumors, and IPMN with dysplasia) had a 40% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Had EUS been utilized based on a threshold of 1 HRF on imaging, malignant and high-risk premalignant lesions would have been identified with 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. By adding EUS to radiographic imaging, the specificity for detecting carcinomas (p = 0.0009) and detection of all premalignant lesions (p = 0.003) statistically improved. Furthermore, EUS allowed 14 patients (11%) to avoid further surveillance by lowering their risk stratification.
EUS remains an essential risk stratification modality for incidental PCLs. Current guideline suggestions of its utility may be too stringent. Our study justifies expert radiology review when managing PCLs. Further studies are required to identify the optimal approach to PCL management.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,442,668
of 26,523,931 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#587
of 7,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,960
of 455,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#26
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,523,931 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 455,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
