These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Role of EUS for preoperative evaluation of cholangiocarcinoma: a large single-center experience.
    Author: Mohamadnejad M, DeWitt JM, Sherman S, LeBlanc JK, Pitt HA, House MG, Jones KJ, Fogel EL, McHenry L, Watkins JL, Cote GA, Lehman GA, Al-Haddad MA.
    Journal: Gastrointest Endosc; 2011 Jan; 73(1):71-8. PubMed ID: 21067747.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) remain difficult. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of EUS in the diagnosis and preoperative evaluation of CCA. DESIGN: Observational study of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Single tertiary referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with CCA from January 2003 through October 2009. INTERVENTIONS: EUS and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity of EUS for the detection of a tumor and prediction of unresectability compared with CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); sensitivity of EUS-FNA to provide tissue diagnosis, by using surgical pathology as a reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients with biliary strictures undergoing EUS were identified. Of these, 81 (mean age 70 years, 45 men) had CCA. Fifty-one patients (63%) had distal and 30 (37%) had proximal CCA. For those with available imaging, tumor detection was superior with EUS compared with triphasic CT (76 of 81 [94%] vs 23 of 75 [30%], respectively; P < .001). MRI identified the tumor in 11 of 26 patients (42%; P = .07 vs EUS). EUS identified CCA in all 51 (100%) distal and 25 (83%) of 30 proximal tumors (P < .01). EUS-FNA (median, 5 passes; range, 1-12 passes) was performed in 74 patients (91%). The overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of CCA was 73% (95% confidence interval, 62%-82%) and was significantly higher in distal compared with proximal CCA (81% vs 59%, respectively; P = .04). Fifteen tumors were definitely unresectable. EUS correctly identified unresectability in 8 of 15 and correctly identified the 38 of 39 patients with resectable tumors (53% sensitivity and 97% specificity for unresectability). CT and/or MRI failed to detect unresectability in 6 of these 8 patients. LIMITATION: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: EUS and EUS-FNA are sensitive for the diagnosis of CCA and very specific in predicting unresectability. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA is significantly higher in distal than in proximal CCA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]