Endoscopic Ultrasound Features Associated with Malignancy and Aggressiveness of Nonhypovascular Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Results from a Prospective Observational Study

Abstract

Background and Study Aims On contrast-enhanced imaging studies, nonhypovascular (i. e., isovascular and hypervascular) patterns can be observed in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) of different nature, prognosis, and management. We aimed to identify endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features of nonhypovascular SPLs associated with malignancy/aggressiveness. The secondary aims were EUS tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) outcome and safety in this setting of patients.

Patients and Methods This prospective observational study included patients with nonhypovascular SPLs detected on cross-sectional imaging and referred for EUS-TA. Lesion features (size, site, margins, echotexture, vascular pattern, and upstream dilation of the main pancreatic duct) were recorded. Malignancy/aggressiveness was determined by evidence of carcinoma at biopsy/surgical pathology, signs of aggressiveness (perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and/or microscopic tumor extension/infiltration or evidence of metastatic lymph nodes) in the surgical specimen, radiologic detection of lymph nodes or distant metastases, and/or tumor growth > 5 mm/6 months. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the primary aim.

Results A total of 154 patients with 161 SPLs were enrolled. 40 (24.8 %) lesions were defined as malignant/aggressive. Irregular margins and size > 20 mm were independent factors associated with malignancy/aggressiveness (p < 0.001, OR = 5.2 and p = 0.003, OR = 2.1, respectively). However, size > 20 mm was not significant in the subgroup of other-than-neuroendocrine tumor (NET) lesions. The EUS-TA accuracy was 92 %, and the rate of adverse events was 4 %.

Conclusion Irregular margins on EUS are associated with malignancy/aggressiveness of nonhypovascular SPLs. Size > 20 mm should be considered a malignancy-related feature only in NET patients. EUS-TA is safe and highly accurate for differential diagnosis in this group of patients.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel In kontrastverstärkten Bildgebungsstudien werden in soliden Pankreasläsionen (SPLs) nicht hypovaskuläre (d. h. isovaskuläre und hypervaskuläre) Muster unterschiedlichsten Ursprungs, Prognose und Behandlung beobachtet. Unser Ziel war die Bestimmung der Merkmale des endoskopischen Ultraschalls (EUS) bei nicht hypovaskulären SPLs, die mit Malignität/Aggressivität assoziiert sind. Die sekundären Ziele waren das Outcome der EUS-Gewebeaufnahme (EUS-TA) und die Patientensicherheit.

Material und Methoden Diese prospektive Beobachtungsstudie umfasste Patienten mit nicht hypovaskulären SPLs, die in einem Schnittbildverfahren entdeckt wurden und zur EUS-TA einbestellt wurden. Läsionsmerkmale (Größe, Lage, Ränder, Echotextur, Gefäßmuster und stromaufwärts gerichtete Dilatation des Hauptpankreasgangs) wurden erfasst. Die Malignität/Aggressivität wurde durch Nachweis eines Karzinoms in der Biopsie/Pathologie, durch Zeichen von Aggressivität (perineurale Invasion, lymphovaskuläre Invasion und/oder mikroskopische Tumorausdehnung/-infiltration oder Nachweis metastasierter Lymphknoten) in der chirurgischen Probe, durch den radiologischer Nachweis von Lymphknoten oder entfernten Metastasen und/oder durch Tumorwachstum > 5 mm in 6 Monaten definiert. Zur Beurteilung des Primärziels wurden uni- und multivariate Analysen durchgeführt.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 154 Patienten mit 161 SPLs aufgenommen. 40 (24,8 %) Läsionen wurden als maligne/aggressiv definiert. Unabhängige, mit Malignität/Aggressivität assoziierte Faktoren waren unregelmäßige Ränder (p < 0,001; OR = 5,2) und eine Größe > 20 mm (p = 0,003; OR = 2,1). Allerdings war der Faktor Größe > 20 mm in der Untergruppe der nicht neuroendokrinen Tumor (NET) -Läsionen nicht signifikant. Die Genauigkeit der EUS-TA betrug 92 % und die Rate der unerwünschten Ereignisse 4 %.

Schlussfolgerung Unregelmäßige Ränder in EUS sind mit Malignität/Aggressivität von nicht hypovaskulären SPLs assoziiert. Eine Größe > 20 mm sollte nur bei NET-Patienten als Marker für Malignität angesehen werden. Die EUS-TA ist sicher und von hoher Genauigkeit für die Differenzialdiagnose in dieser Patientengruppe.

Key words

pancreas - neuroendocrine tumor - pancreatic cancer

Publication History

Received: 25 May 2019

Accepted: 05 September 2019

Article published online:
09 October 2019

• References

• 1 D’Onofrio M, Barbi E, Dietrich CF. et al. Pancreatic multicenter ultrasound study (PAMUS). Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 630-638
• 2 D’Onofrio M, Gallotti A, Pozzi Mucelli R. Imaging techniques in pancreatic tumors. Expert Rev Med Devices 2010; 7: 257-273
• 3 Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Braden B. et al. Improved differentiation of pancreatic tumors using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 590-597
• 4 Fusaroli P, Spada A, Mancino MG. et al. Contrast harmonic echo-endoscopic ultrasound improves accuracy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 629-634.e1–2
• 5 Kitano M, Kudo M, Yamao K. et al. Characterization of small solid tumors in the pancreas: the value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 303-310
• 6 Fusaroli P, Napoleon B, Gincul R. et al. The clinical impact of ultrasound contrast agents in EUS: a systematic review according to the levels of evidence. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 587-596.e10
• 7 Raman SP, Hruban RH, Cameron JL. et al. Pancreatic imaging mimics: part 2, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and their mimics. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 309-318
• 8 Bhosale PR, Menias CO, Balachandran A. et al. Vascular pancreatic lesions: spectrum of imaging findings of malignant masses and mimics with pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging 2013; 38: 802-817
• 9 Manfrin E, Perini C, Di Stefano S. et al Pseudo solid-appearing pancreatic serous microcystic adenomas: Histologic diagnosis with the fork-tip EUS-fine-needle biopsy needle. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; Ahead of print.
• 10 Crinò SF, Bernardoni L, Manfrin E. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound features of pancreatic schwannoma. Endosc Ultrasound 2016; 5: 396-398
• 11 Ishikawa T, Itoh A, Kawashima H. et al. Usefulness of EUS combined with contrast-enhancement in the differential diagnosis of malignant versus benign and preoperative localization of pancreatic endocrine tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 951-959
• 12 Fusaroli P, Saftoiu A, Mancino MG. et al. Techniques of image enhancement in EUS (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 645-655
• 13 Di Leo M, Crinò SF, Bernardoni L. et al EUS-guided core biopsies of pancreatic solid masses using a new fork-tip needle: A multicenter prospective study. Dig Liver Dis 2019; [Epub ahead of print]
• 14 Armellini E, Manfrin E, Trisolini E. et al. Histologic retrieval rate of a newly designed side-bevelled 20G needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J 2019; 7: 96-104
• 15 Crinò SF, Conti Bellocchi MC, Bernardoni L. et al. Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of small (≤15 mm) solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge needle. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2018; 17: 70-74
• 16 Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Mukai T. et al. Macroscopic on-site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy during EUS-guided FNA using a 19-gauge needle for solid lesions: a single-center prospective pilot study (MOSE study). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 177-185
• 17 Ieni A, Todaro P, Crino SF. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in pancreaticobiliary carcinomas: diagnostic efficacy of cell-block immunocytochemistry. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2015; 14: 305-312
• 18 Nanno Y, Toyama H, Otani K. et al. Microscopic venous invasion in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor as a potential predictor of postoperative recurrence. Pancreatology 2016; 16: 882-887
• 19 Perren A, Couvelard A, Scoazec JY. et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Standards of Care in Neuroendocrine Tumors: Pathology: Diagnosis and Prognostic Stratification. Neuroendocrinology 2017; 105: 196-200
• 20 Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G. et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines Update for the Management of Patients with Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Non-Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Neuroendocrinology 2016; 103: 153-171
• 21 Pitman MB, Centero B, Ali SZ. et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreaticobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou society of Cytopathology Guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 338-350
• 22 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
• 23 Lloyd RV, Osamura R, Kloppel G. et al WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. 4th. ed Lyon: IARC Press; 2017
• 24 Wcislak SM, Stiles ZE, Deneve JL. et al Hypervascular lesions of the pancreas: Think before you act. Am J Surg 2018; [Epub ahead of print]
• 25 Zhu H, Ying L, Tang W. et al. Can MDCT or EUS features predict the histopathological grading scheme of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms?. Radiol Med 2017; 122: 319-326
• 26 Okabe H, Hashimoto D, Chikamoto A. et al. Shape and Enhancement Characteristics of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor on Preoperative Contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography May be Prognostic Indicators. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24: 1399-1405
• 27 D’Onofrio M, Ciaravino V, Cardobi N. et al. CT Enhancement and 3D Texture Analysis of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 2176
• 28 Palazzo M, Napoléon B, Gincul R. et al. Contrast harmonic EUS for the prediction of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor aggressiveness (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1481-1488
• 29 Nanno Y, Matsumoto I, Zen Y. et al. Pancreatic Duct Involvement in Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors is an Independent Poor Prognostic Factor. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24: 1127-1133
• 30 Baxi AC, Jiang Q, Hao J. et al. The effect of solid pancreatic mass lesions on pancreatic duct diameter at endoscopic ultrasound. Endosc Ultrasound 2017; 6: 103-108
• 31 Dietrich CF, Sahai AV, D’Onofrio M. et al. Differential diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 933-940
• 32 Vamadevan S, Le K, Shen L. et al. 68Ga-DOTATATE Uptake in Solitary Pancreatic Metastasis From Clear Cell Renal Cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2017; 42: 700-701
• 33 Rufini V, Inzani F, Stefanelli A. et al. The Accessory Spleen Is an Important Pitfall of 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in the Workup for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasm. Pancreas 2017; 46: 157-163