RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Data from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium studies have demonstrated that screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma can be effective and that surveillance improves survival in high-risk individuals. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and cross-sectional imaging are both used, although there is some suggestion that EUS is superior. Demonstration of the cost-effectiveness of screening is important to implement screening in high-risk groups. METHODS: Results from centers with EUS-predominant screening were pooled to evaluate efficacy of index EUS in screening. A decision analysis model simulated the outcome of high-risk patients who undergo screening and evaluated the parameters that would make screening cost-effective at a US $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year willingness to pay. RESULTS: One-time index EUS has a sensitivity of 71.25% and specificity of 99.82% to detection to detect high-risk lesions. Screening with index EUS was cost-effective, particularly at lifetime pancreatic cancer probabilities of greater than 10.8%, or at lower probabilities if life expectancy after resection of a lesion that was at least 16 years, and if missed, lesion rates on index EUS are 5% or less. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic cancer screening can be cost-effective through index EUS, particularly for those individuals at high-lifetime risk of cancer.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/diagnóstico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio/métodos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Endosonografía/métodos , Páncreas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico , Estudios de Cohortes , Análisis Costo-Beneficio/economía , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/economía , Endosonografía/economía , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Económicos , Páncreas/patología , Factores de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) are a complication that occurs in acute and chronic pancreatitis. They comprise 75% of cystic lesions of the pancreas. There are scarce data about surgical versus endoscopic treatment on PPC. The aim of this study was to compare both treatment modalities regarding clinical success, complication rate, recurrence, hospital stay and cost. METHODS: Retrospectively, data obtained prospectively from 2000 to 2012 were analyzed. A PPC was defined as a fluid collection in the pancreatic or peripancreatic area that had a well-defined wall and contained no solid debris or recognizable parenchymal necrosis. Clinical success was defined as complete resolution or a decrease in size of the PPC to 2 cm or smaller. RESULTS: Overall, 64 procedures in 61 patients were included: 21 (33%) cases were drained endoscopically guided by EUS and 43 (67%) cases were drained surgically. The clinical success of the endoscopic group was 90.5 versus 90.7% for the surgical group (P = 0.7), with a complication rate of 23.8 and 25.6%, respectively (P = 0.8), and a mortality rate of 0 and 2.3% for each group, respectively (P = 0.4). The hospital stay was lower for the endoscopic group: 0 (0-10) days compared with 7 (2-42) days in the surgical group (P < 0.0001). Likewise, the cost was lower in the endoscopic group (P < 0.001). The recurrence rate was similar in both groups: 9.5 and 4.5% respectively (P = 0.59). The two recurrences found in the endoscopic group were associated with stent migration, and the recurrence in the surgical group was due to the type of surgery performed (open drainage). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatment of PPC offers the same clinical success, recurrence, complication and mortality rate as surgical treatment but with a shorter hospital stay and lower costs.