Pancreas · 2025
Incidental Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas: Performance of the AGA, European, and IAP Guidelines in Advising Further Management After Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pacheco Débora, Micelli-Neto Otávio, Taglieri Eloy, Tabushi Fernando Issamu, Malafaia Osvaldo, Surjan Rodrigo Cañada Trofo, Machado Marcel Autran Cesar, Venco Filadélfio Euclides, Kemp Rafael, Dos Santos José Sebastião, Ardengh José Celso
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We compared the performance of AGA-2015, ESG-2018, and IAP-2024 guidelines in referring patients for surgery versus surveillance when applied to incidental after diagnosis by EUS-FNA.
METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study with prospective data collection. PLs identified incidentally on CT or MRI/MRCP performed for other diseases with inconclusive imaging results were eligible for analysis. After EUS-FNA and microhistologic diagnosis, each of the guidelines was applied; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were compared.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty asymptomatic patients (mean age 64.7 y, 61% females) had a confirmed diagnosis of MN. Of these, 42 (30%) had "high-risk stigmata," and 16 (11.4%) were malignant. AGA-2015, ESG-2018, and IAP-2024 criteria would have advised surgery unnecessarily in 66%, 15%, and 46%, respectively ( P <0.001). AGA-2015, ESG-2018, and IAP-2024 criteria failed to identify 59%, 46.1%, and 33.3% of HGD/IC, respectively ( P =1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: The AGA-2015 criteria were highly specific, while IAP-2024 had superior sensitivity. All had moderate sensitivity to indicate surgery, and all missed similar numbers of malignant lesions. Performing EUS-FNA before the application of guidelines seems appropriate to guide further management of asymptomatic PLs, preventing unnecessary surgery and referring patients appropriately for surveillance. The ESG-2018 guideline proved the most accurate for this purpose.
METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study with prospective data collection. PLs identified incidentally on CT or MRI/MRCP performed for other diseases with inconclusive imaging results were eligible for analysis. After EUS-FNA and microhistologic diagnosis, each of the guidelines was applied; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were compared.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty asymptomatic patients (mean age 64.7 y, 61% females) had a confirmed diagnosis of MN. Of these, 42 (30%) had "high-risk stigmata," and 16 (11.4%) were malignant. AGA-2015, ESG-2018, and IAP-2024 criteria would have advised surgery unnecessarily in 66%, 15%, and 46%, respectively ( P <0.001). AGA-2015, ESG-2018, and IAP-2024 criteria failed to identify 59%, 46.1%, and 33.3% of HGD/IC, respectively ( P =1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: The AGA-2015 criteria were highly specific, while IAP-2024 had superior sensitivity. All had moderate sensitivity to indicate surgery, and all missed similar numbers of malignant lesions. Performing EUS-FNA before the application of guidelines seems appropriate to guide further management of asymptomatic PLs, preventing unnecessary surgery and referring patients appropriately for surveillance. The ESG-2018 guideline proved the most accurate for this purpose.