Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA

Carlos Micames, Paul S. Jowell, Rebekah White, Erik Paulson, Rendon Nelson, Michael Morse, Herbert Hurwitz, Theodore Pappas, Douglas Tyler, Kevin McGrath

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

292 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Studies have suggested an increased risk of peritoneal seeding in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by percutaneous FNA. EUS-FNA is an alternate method of diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a treatment failure pattern in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Methods: Retrospective review of patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer identified 46 patients in whom the diagnosis was made by EUS-FNA and 43 with the diagnosis established by percutaneous FNA. All had neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Patients underwent restaging CT after completion of therapy, followed by attempted surgical resection if there was no evidence of disease progression. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics between the two study groups. In the EUS-FNA group, one patient had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis compared with 7 in the percutaneous FNA group (2.2% vs. 16.3%; p < 0.025). No patient with a potentially resectable tumor in the EUS-FNA group had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis. Conclusions: Peritoneal carcinomatosis may occur more frequently in patients who undergo percutaneous FNA compared with those who have EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. A concern for peritoneal seeding of pancreatic cancer via percutaneous FNA is warranted. EUS-guided FNA is recommended as the method of choice for diagnosis in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)690-695
Number of pages6
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume58
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Carcinoma
Treatment Failure
Disease Progression
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. / Micames, Carlos; Jowell, Paul S.; White, Rebekah; Paulson, Erik; Nelson, Rendon; Morse, Michael; Hurwitz, Herbert; Pappas, Theodore; Tyler, Douglas; McGrath, Kevin.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 58, No. 5, 11.2003, p. 690-695.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Micames, C, Jowell, PS, White, R, Paulson, E, Nelson, R, Morse, M, Hurwitz, H, Pappas, T, Tyler, D & McGrath, K 2003, 'Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 690-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02009-1
Micames, Carlos ; Jowell, Paul S. ; White, Rebekah ; Paulson, Erik ; Nelson, Rendon ; Morse, Michael ; Hurwitz, Herbert ; Pappas, Theodore ; Tyler, Douglas ; McGrath, Kevin. / Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2003 ; Vol. 58, No. 5. pp. 690-695.
@article{4129a8ff809b44659ed54263842b9a4b,
title = "Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA",
abstract = "Background: Studies have suggested an increased risk of peritoneal seeding in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by percutaneous FNA. EUS-FNA is an alternate method of diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a treatment failure pattern in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Methods: Retrospective review of patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer identified 46 patients in whom the diagnosis was made by EUS-FNA and 43 with the diagnosis established by percutaneous FNA. All had neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Patients underwent restaging CT after completion of therapy, followed by attempted surgical resection if there was no evidence of disease progression. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics between the two study groups. In the EUS-FNA group, one patient had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis compared with 7 in the percutaneous FNA group (2.2{\%} vs. 16.3{\%}; p < 0.025). No patient with a potentially resectable tumor in the EUS-FNA group had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis. Conclusions: Peritoneal carcinomatosis may occur more frequently in patients who undergo percutaneous FNA compared with those who have EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. A concern for peritoneal seeding of pancreatic cancer via percutaneous FNA is warranted. EUS-guided FNA is recommended as the method of choice for diagnosis in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.",
author = "Carlos Micames and Jowell, {Paul S.} and Rebekah White and Erik Paulson and Rendon Nelson and Michael Morse and Herbert Hurwitz and Theodore Pappas and Douglas Tyler and Kevin McGrath",
year = "2003",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02009-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "690--695",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA

AU - Micames, Carlos

AU - Jowell, Paul S.

AU - White, Rebekah

AU - Paulson, Erik

AU - Nelson, Rendon

AU - Morse, Michael

AU - Hurwitz, Herbert

AU - Pappas, Theodore

AU - Tyler, Douglas

AU - McGrath, Kevin

PY - 2003/11

Y1 - 2003/11

N2 - Background: Studies have suggested an increased risk of peritoneal seeding in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by percutaneous FNA. EUS-FNA is an alternate method of diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a treatment failure pattern in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Methods: Retrospective review of patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer identified 46 patients in whom the diagnosis was made by EUS-FNA and 43 with the diagnosis established by percutaneous FNA. All had neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Patients underwent restaging CT after completion of therapy, followed by attempted surgical resection if there was no evidence of disease progression. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics between the two study groups. In the EUS-FNA group, one patient had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis compared with 7 in the percutaneous FNA group (2.2% vs. 16.3%; p < 0.025). No patient with a potentially resectable tumor in the EUS-FNA group had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis. Conclusions: Peritoneal carcinomatosis may occur more frequently in patients who undergo percutaneous FNA compared with those who have EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. A concern for peritoneal seeding of pancreatic cancer via percutaneous FNA is warranted. EUS-guided FNA is recommended as the method of choice for diagnosis in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

AB - Background: Studies have suggested an increased risk of peritoneal seeding in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by percutaneous FNA. EUS-FNA is an alternate method of diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a treatment failure pattern in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Methods: Retrospective review of patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer identified 46 patients in whom the diagnosis was made by EUS-FNA and 43 with the diagnosis established by percutaneous FNA. All had neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Patients underwent restaging CT after completion of therapy, followed by attempted surgical resection if there was no evidence of disease progression. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics between the two study groups. In the EUS-FNA group, one patient had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis compared with 7 in the percutaneous FNA group (2.2% vs. 16.3%; p < 0.025). No patient with a potentially resectable tumor in the EUS-FNA group had developed peritoneal carcinomatosis. Conclusions: Peritoneal carcinomatosis may occur more frequently in patients who undergo percutaneous FNA compared with those who have EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. A concern for peritoneal seeding of pancreatic cancer via percutaneous FNA is warranted. EUS-guided FNA is recommended as the method of choice for diagnosis in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=10744232556&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=10744232556&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02009-1

DO - 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02009-1

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 690

EP - 695

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 5

ER -