RESUMO

Cytological smear is widely employed to analyse specimens obtained from endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), but false-negative or inconclusive results may occur. A better diagnostic yield can be obtained from processing cell blocks. We compared the effectiveness of the cell block technique and cytological smear in the diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms. From January 1997 to December 2006, 611 patients with pancreatic tumors were evaluated by EUS-FNA. Surgery was performed in 356 cases, and the other 255 patients were followed clinically for an average of 12.8 months. In total, 282 (46.2%) patients were evaluated with cytological smears, and 329 (53.8%) were evaluated using only cell blocks. Malignant disease was detected in 352 (57.6%) cases, in which adenocarcinoma accounted for 236 (67%) cases. A benign disease was found in the other 259 cases, including 35.1% focal chronic pancreatitis and 32.4% pseudocysts. Aspiration samples were satisfactory in 595 (97.4%) patients after an average of 2.2 (1-4) passes of the needle. Regardless of the cytopathological examination technique, EUS-FNA confirmed malignancy in 269 of 352 (76.4%) cases, and a benign disease in 257 of 259 (99.2%) cases. For patients who received surgery with histologically confirmed lesions, the sensitivity specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the smears versus cell blocks in diagnosing pancreatic tumors were 61% versus 85.2% (P<0.001), 100% versus 93.1%, 100% versus 98.4%, 36% versus 55.1% (P=0.046) and 68% versus 86.5% (P<0.001), respectively The cell block technique demonstrated a hig her sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy than cytological smears.

Assuntos

RESUMO

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...

Assuntos

RESUMO

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic solid tumors larger or smaller than 3 cm, and cystic lesions. METHODS: From January/1997 to December/2006, 611 patients with pancreatic tumors were subjected to EUS-FNA. The final diagnosis was obtained either by surgery (356 cases) or after a mean clinical follow-up of 11.8 mo in the remaining patients. RESULTS: There were 405 solid tumors, 189 cystic lesions and 17 mixed. Pancreatic specimens for cytological assessment were successfully obtained by EUS-FNA in 595 (97.4%) cases. There were 352 (57.6%) malignancies and 259 (42.4%) benign tumors. Among the malignancies, pancreatic adenocarcinomas accounted for 67% of the lesions. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were, respectively, 78.4%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 77.2% and 87.2%. Specifically for solid tumors, the same parameters for neoplasms larger and smaller than 3 cm were, respectively, 78.8% vs 82.4%, 100% vs 98.4%, 100% vs 99%, 54.8% vs 74.1% and 83.1% vs 87.8%. For cystic lesions, the values were, respectively, 72.2%, 99.3%, 97.5%, 91% and 92.2%. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA can be used to sample pancreatic tumors in most patients. Even though the negative predictive value is inadequate for large solid tumors, the results are rather good for small solid tumors, especially concerning the sensitivity, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. Among all pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNA for cystic lesions can reveal the best negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy, both higher than 90%.

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

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.

Assuntos

Assuntos