MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3017163364 · doi:10.4103/eus.eus_5_20

Pancreatico-gastric fistula mimicking malignant infiltration following transgastric EUS-FNA of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

2020· article· en· W3017163364 sur OpenAlexaff
Marco Le Grazie, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Armando Gabbrielli, Giuseppe Malleo, Stefano Marletta, Paola Capelli

Notice bibliographique

RevueEndoscopic Ultrasound · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensPancreas Centre (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBiopsyRadiologyPancreasPancreatic ductMalignancyAdenocarcinomaStomachEndoscopic ultrasoundLesionPathologyCancerInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION In the presence of a solid pancreatic mass suspicious for malignancy and without major vascular involvement, biopsy proof is not mandatory before proceeding with upfront resection.[1] However, the steady global uptake of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for borderline resectable and even anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has led to an increasing number of EUS-guided biopsies being performed. Novel end-cutting forward-acquiring EUS needles, including the SharkCore™ (Medtronic Parkway, Minneapolis, MN, USA), provide better core biopsy specimens and allow for molecular and genetic studies that will possibly aid in guiding therapy.[2] When tumors are located in the pancreatic body and tail, tissue acquisition is performed through a transgastric route.[34] Although exceedingly uncommon, needle tract seeding at the gastric wall level has been described.[34] We herein report two cases of intraoperatively found gastric wall infiltration following EUS-fine needle biopsy (FNB) of resectable PDAC, that required associated partial gastric resection but was demonstrated to be nonneoplastic on final pathological analysis. CASE 1 The first patient was a 72-year-old female, affected by an incidentally discovered 13 mm pancreatic solid lesion in the body of the pancreas, with upstream main pancreatic duct (MPD) dilation and parenchymal atrophy and without distant metastases on cross-sectional imaging. Ca 19.9 was normal. The lesion was hypoechoic on EUS and hypovascular after contrast injection (Sonovue™, Bracco S. p. a., Milan, Italy) [Figure 1a]. No ultrasonographic signs of neoplastic infiltration of the stomach by the pancreatic lesion were observed. To confirm the diagnosis, transgastric FNB was performed with three passes of a 22G SharkCore™ needle. Ten–twenty to-and-fro movements using the slow-pull and the fanning techniques were performed. Histological diagnosis of PDAC was obtained.Figure 1: EUS examination revealing a small (13 mm) hypoechoic solid lesion in the body of the pancreas. No signs of suspected gastric infiltration were observed (a). Histological view of the portion of stomach firmly attached to the pancreas (black arrows) and resected during surgical operation (b, low magnification, H and E). A whole-thickness tumor-free gastric wall involved by inflammatory infiltrate with the histological hallmarks of granulation tissue that reach the gastric mucosa from the outer layers of the stomach (c, H and E, ×10 and d, H and E ×40). These are the pathological key features of a “fistula” and witness a secondary gastric involvement from an external underlying diseaseCASE 2 The second patient was a 69-year-old male. A small (9 mm) solid lesion in the body of the pancreas was incidentally discovered. Laboratory tests (including Ca 19.9) were normal and features on cross-sectional imaging (upstream MPD dilatation with parenchymal atrophy, no distant metastases) and on EUS (hypoechoic/hypovascular lesion without signs of gastric wall infiltration) were similar to those observed in the first case. Transgastric FNB was performed with two passes of a 25G SharkCore™ needle using the same technique described for Case 1. Histological diagnosis of PDAC was obtained. SURGICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL FINDINGS During surgical exploration, in the both cases, unexpected infiltration of the posterior gastric wall was found, and a distal pancreatectomy with en bloc partial gastric resection was performed to achieve complete tumor clearance. The surgical specimens consisted of a distal splenopancreasectomy with an adherent portion of the gastric wall. Although a needle tract seeding was suspected, histological examination revealed no malignant cells implantation, but an inflammatory infiltrate with granulation tissue through the gastric wall, from the outer to the inner layers [Figure 1b-d]. These pathologic hallmarks suggested the formation of a pancreatico-gastric fistula along the needle tract.[5] It is likely that, given the small size of the lesions, the MPD was inadvertently injured during the back and forth movements of the needle, with subsequent leakage of pancreatic juice into the gastric cavity. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of EUS-FNB-related nonneoplastic fibroinflammatory reactions mimicking PDAC infiltration of the posterior gastric wall. Surgeons should be aware of this sampling-related adverse event to avoid intraoperative overestimation of tumor stage, especially when no evidence of pancreatico-gastric adherence is observed at preoperative imaging. Future larger prospective EUS-FNB studies employing end-cutting needles and including small resectable PDAC could assess the incidence of this adverse event. Informed consent statement The patients involved in this study gave their written informed consent authorizing use and disclosure of their protected health information. Declaration of patient consent The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient has given her consent for her images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patient understands that name and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,138
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEndoscopic UltrasoundMême sujetGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207