What is the role of endotherapy in chronic pancreatitis?

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) can have debilitating clinical course due to chronic abdominal pain, malnutrition and related complications. Medical, endoscopic and surgical treatment of CP should aim at control of symptoms, prevention of progression of the disease and correction of complications. Endoscopic management plays a specific role in carefully selected patients as primary interventional therapy when medical measures fail or in high-risk surgical candidates. Endotherapy for CP is utilized also as a bridge to surgery or to assess potential response to pancreatic surgery. In this review we address the role of endotherapy for the relief of obstruction of the pancreatic duct (PD) and bile duct, closure of PD leaks and drainage of pseudocysts in the setting of CP. In addition, endotherapy for relief of pancreatic pain by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for CP is discussed

The no endosonographic detection of tumor (NEST) study: A case series of pancreatic cancers missed on endoscopic ultrasonography

Background and Study Aims: The purpose of this study was to identify possible associated factors that may have contributed to failure to detect a pancreatic neoplasm during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examinations by experienced endosonographers. Patients and Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was organized, and 20 cases of pancreatic neoplasms missed by nine experienced endosonographers were identified. Careful analysis of each case was carried out to identify the factors that might have led to the missed diagnosis on EUS. Results: Twelve patients with a missed pancreatic neoplasm had EUS features of chronic pancreatitis. Other factors that might have increased the likelihood of a false-negative EUS examination included a diffusely infiltrating carcinoma (n = 3), a prominent ventral/dorsal split (n = 2), and a recent episode (within the previous 4 weeks) of acute pancreatitis (n = 1). Five patients with a negative initial EUS underwent a follow-up EUS after 2-3 months, with a pancreatic mass being found in all cases. Three patients had a diffusely infiltrating pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: EUS is not a foolproof method of detecting a pancreatic neoplasm. Possible associated factors that may increase the likelihood of a false-negative EUS examination include chronic pancreatitis, a diffusely infiltrating carcinoma, a prominent ventral/dorsal split and a recent episode (<4 weeks) of acute pancreatitis. If there is a high clinical suspicion of pancreatic neoplasm, if EUS and other imaging methods are negative, and if the patient does not undergo surgery, this study suggests that a repeat EUS after 2-3 months may be useful for detecting an occult pancreatic neoplasm. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart