Browsing by Author "LeBlanc, Julia"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Performance characteristics of EUS for locoregional evaluation of ampullary lesions
    (Elsevier, 2015-02) Ridtitid, Wiriyaporn; Schmidt, Suzette E.; Al-Haddad, Mohammad A.; LeBlanc, Julia; DeWitt, John M.; McHenry, Lee; Fogel, Evan L.; Watkins, James L.; Lehman, Glen A.; Sherman, Stuart; Cote, Gregory A.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background The accuracy of EUS in the locoregional assessment of ampullary lesions is unclear. Objectives To compare EUS with ERCP and surgical pathology for the evaluation of intraductal extension and local staging of ampullary lesions. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary-care referral center. Patients All patients who underwent EUS primarily for the evaluation of an ampullary lesion between 1998 and 2012. Intervention EUS. Main Outcome Measurements Comparison of EUS sensitivity/specificity for intraductal and local extension with ERCP and surgical pathology by using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and outcomes of the subgroup referred for endoscopic papillectomy. Results We identified 119 patients who underwent EUS for an ampullary lesion, of whom 99 (83%) had an adenoma or adenocarcinoma. Compared with ERCP (n = 90), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS for any intraductal extension was 56%/97% (AUROC = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.89). However, when using surgical pathology as the reference (n = 102), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS (80%/93%; AUROC = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and ERCP (83%/93%; AUROC = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99) were comparable. The overall accuracy of EUS for local staging was 90%. Of 58 patients referred for endoscopic papillectomy, complete resection was achieved in 53 (91%); in those having intraductal extension by EUS or ERCP, complete resection was achieved in 4 of 5 (80%) and 4 of 7 (57%), respectively. Limitation Retrospective design. Conclusions EUS and ERCP perform similarly in evaluating intraductal extension of ampullary adenomas. Additionally, EUS is accurate in T-staging ampullary adenocarcinomas. Future prospective studies should evaluate whether EUS can identify characteristics of ampullary lesions that appropriately direct patients to endoscopic or surgical resection. (Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:380-8.)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Role of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration evaluating adrenal gland enlargement or mass
    (Baishideng Publishing Group Inc., 2014-08-06) Martinez, Melissa; LeBlanc, Julia; Al-Haddad, Mohammad; Sherman, Stuart; DeWitt, John; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    AIM: To report the clinical impact of adrenal endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the evaluation of patients with adrenal gland enlargement or mass. METHODS: In a retrospective single-center case-series, patients undergoing EUS-FNA of either adrenal gland from 1997-2011 in our tertiary care center were included. Medical records were reviewed and results of EUS, cytology, adrenal size change on follow-up imaging ≥ 6 mo after EUS and any repeat EUS or surgery were abstracted. A lesion was considered benign if: (1) EUS-FNA cytology was benign and the lesion remained < 1 cm from its original size on follow-up computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging or repeat EUS ≥ 6 mo after EUS-FNA; or (2) subsequent adrenalectomy and surgical pathology was benign. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients had left (n = 90) and/or right (n = 5) adrenal EUS-FNA without adverse events. EUS indications included: cancer staging or suspected recurrence (n = 31), pancreatic (n = 20), mediastinal (n = 10), adrenal (n = 7), lung (n = 7) mass or other indication (n = 19). Diagnoses after adrenal EUS-FNA included metastatic lung (n = 10), esophageal (n= 5), colon (n = 2), or other cancer (n = 8); benign primary adrenal mass or benign tissue (n = 60); or was non-diagnostic (n = 9). Available follow-up confirmed a benign lesion in 5/9 non-diagnostic aspirates and 32/60 benign aspirates. Four of the 60 benign aspirates were later confirmed as malignant by repeat biopsy, follow-up CT, or adrenalectomy. Adrenal EUS-FNA diagnosed metastatic cancer in 24, and ruled out metastasis in 10 patients. For the diagnosis of malignancy, EUS-FNA of either adrenal had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 86%, 97%, 96% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adrenal gland EUS-FNA is safe, minimally invasive and a sensitive technique with significant impact in the management of adrenal gland mass or enlargement.