Linear-array EUS improves detection of pancreatic lesions in high-risk individuals: a randomized tandem study.
BACKGROUND
Studies comparing linear and radial EUS for the detection of pancreatic lesions in an asymptomatic population with increased risk for pancreatic cancer are lacking.


OBJECTIVE
To compare pancreatic lesion detection rates between radial and linear EUS and to determine the incremental diagnostic yield of a second EUS examination.


METHODS
Randomized controlled tandem study.


METHODS
Five academic centers in the United States.


METHODS
Asymptomatic high-risk individuals (HRIs) for pancreatic cancer undergoing screening EUS.


METHODS
Linear and radial EUS performed in randomized order.


METHODS
Pancreatic lesion detection rate by type of EUS, miss rate of 1 EUS examination, and incremental diagnostic yield of a second EUS examination (second-pass effect).


RESULTS
Two hundred seventy-eight HRIs were enrolled, mean age 56 years (43.2%), and 90% were familial pancreatic cancer relatives. Two hundred twenty-four HRIs underwent tandem radial and linear EUS. When we used per-patient analysis, the overall prevalence of any pancreatic lesion was 45%. Overall, 16 of 224 HRIs (7.1%) had lesions missed during the initial EUS that were detected by the second EUS examination. The per-patient lesion miss rate was significantly greater for radial followed by linear EUS (9.8%) than for linear followed by radial EUS (4.5%) (P = .03). When we used per-lesion analysis, 73 of 109 lesions (67%) were detected by radial EUS and 99 of 120 lesions (82%) were detected by linear EUS (P < .001) during the first examination. The overall miss rate for a pancreatic lesion after 1 EUS examination was 47 of 229 (25%). The miss rate was significantly lower for linear EUS compared with radial EUS (17.5% vs 33.0%, P = .007).


CONCLUSIONS
Most detected pancreatic lesions were not confirmed by pathology.


CONCLUSIONS
Linear EUS detects more pancreatic lesions than radial EUS. There was a "second-pass effect" with additional lesions detected with a second EUS examination. This effect was significantly greater when linear EUS was used after an initial radial EUS examination.
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Eun Ji
EJ
Shin
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Mark
M
Topazian
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michael G
MG
Goggins
Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sapna
S
Syngal
Division of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
John R
JR
Saltzman
Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Jeffrey H
JH
Lee
Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
James J
JJ
Farrell
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Marcia I
MI
Canto
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer / Q000592:standards* / Q000639:trends; D019160:Endosonography / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010179:Pancreas / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D010190:Pancreatic Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D011446:Prospective Studies; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012307:Risk Factors; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D014481:United States