Is there still a role for laparoscopy combined with laparoscopic ultrasonography in the staging of pancreatic cancer?

Matteo Barabino, Roberto Santambrogio, Andrea Pisani Ceretti, Rocco Scalzone, Marco Montorsi, Enrico Opocher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study was designed to compare our laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) experience in the resectability evaluation of pancreatic or periampullary cancers (PAC) in two different periods: before and after the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT). Methods: We prospectively enrolled 104 CT-resectable patients with PAC. During Step 1 (1995-1999), we performed LUS on all patients, whereas during Step 2 (2002-2007), LUS was performed selectively according to Pisters' criteria. Results: LUS was satisfactorily performed in all cases. At Step 1 accuracy of LUS in predicting pancreatic resectability was high (96%) but it was markedly lower in a subgroup of patients with close contact between tumor and portal vein (sensibility of 57%). At Step 2, selective LUS was performed on 9 of 64 patients (14%). LUS confirmed the MDCT finding of unresectability in 8 of 9 cases, and allowed curative resection in 1 case. Only 1 of 55 of the patients who did not undergo LUS would have benefited from the procedure. The yield of LUS decreased from 45% before to 1.8% after MDCT. Conclusions: In resectable-MDCT patients, routine LUS is unjustified. However, in doubtful MDCT cases, LUS has yet a good yield. In the event of close vascular contact, neither MDCT nor LUS seem to be conclusive, and laparotomy is still the only solution.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)160-165
Number of pages6
JournalSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2011

Fingerprint

Pancreatic Neoplasms
Laparoscopy
Ultrasonography
Neoplasms
Portal Vein
Laparotomy
Blood Vessels

Keywords

  • Laparoscopic ultrasonography
  • Pancreatic cancer
  • Staging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Is there still a role for laparoscopy combined with laparoscopic ultrasonography in the staging of pancreatic cancer? / Barabino, Matteo; Santambrogio, Roberto; Pisani Ceretti, Andrea; Scalzone, Rocco; Montorsi, Marco; Opocher, Enrico.

In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, Vol. 25, No. 1, 01.2011, p. 160-165.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Barabino, Matteo ; Santambrogio, Roberto ; Pisani Ceretti, Andrea ; Scalzone, Rocco ; Montorsi, Marco ; Opocher, Enrico. / Is there still a role for laparoscopy combined with laparoscopic ultrasonography in the staging of pancreatic cancer?. In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2011 ; Vol. 25, No. 1. pp. 160-165.
@article{15f737f3fb4e4ef3960c7587845ef291,
title = "Is there still a role for laparoscopy combined with laparoscopic ultrasonography in the staging of pancreatic cancer?",
abstract = "Purpose: This study was designed to compare our laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) experience in the resectability evaluation of pancreatic or periampullary cancers (PAC) in two different periods: before and after the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT). Methods: We prospectively enrolled 104 CT-resectable patients with PAC. During Step 1 (1995-1999), we performed LUS on all patients, whereas during Step 2 (2002-2007), LUS was performed selectively according to Pisters' criteria. Results: LUS was satisfactorily performed in all cases. At Step 1 accuracy of LUS in predicting pancreatic resectability was high (96{\%}) but it was markedly lower in a subgroup of patients with close contact between tumor and portal vein (sensibility of 57{\%}). At Step 2, selective LUS was performed on 9 of 64 patients (14{\%}). LUS confirmed the MDCT finding of unresectability in 8 of 9 cases, and allowed curative resection in 1 case. Only 1 of 55 of the patients who did not undergo LUS would have benefited from the procedure. The yield of LUS decreased from 45{\%} before to 1.8{\%} after MDCT. Conclusions: In resectable-MDCT patients, routine LUS is unjustified. However, in doubtful MDCT cases, LUS has yet a good yield. In the event of close vascular contact, neither MDCT nor LUS seem to be conclusive, and laparotomy is still the only solution.",
keywords = "Laparoscopic ultrasonography, Pancreatic cancer, Staging",
author = "Matteo Barabino and Roberto Santambrogio and {Pisani Ceretti}, Andrea and Rocco Scalzone and Marco Montorsi and Enrico Opocher",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-010-1150-7",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "160--165",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is there still a role for laparoscopy combined with laparoscopic ultrasonography in the staging of pancreatic cancer?

AU - Barabino, Matteo

AU - Santambrogio, Roberto

AU - Pisani Ceretti, Andrea

AU - Scalzone, Rocco

AU - Montorsi, Marco

AU - Opocher, Enrico

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Purpose: This study was designed to compare our laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) experience in the resectability evaluation of pancreatic or periampullary cancers (PAC) in two different periods: before and after the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT). Methods: We prospectively enrolled 104 CT-resectable patients with PAC. During Step 1 (1995-1999), we performed LUS on all patients, whereas during Step 2 (2002-2007), LUS was performed selectively according to Pisters' criteria. Results: LUS was satisfactorily performed in all cases. At Step 1 accuracy of LUS in predicting pancreatic resectability was high (96%) but it was markedly lower in a subgroup of patients with close contact between tumor and portal vein (sensibility of 57%). At Step 2, selective LUS was performed on 9 of 64 patients (14%). LUS confirmed the MDCT finding of unresectability in 8 of 9 cases, and allowed curative resection in 1 case. Only 1 of 55 of the patients who did not undergo LUS would have benefited from the procedure. The yield of LUS decreased from 45% before to 1.8% after MDCT. Conclusions: In resectable-MDCT patients, routine LUS is unjustified. However, in doubtful MDCT cases, LUS has yet a good yield. In the event of close vascular contact, neither MDCT nor LUS seem to be conclusive, and laparotomy is still the only solution.

AB - Purpose: This study was designed to compare our laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) experience in the resectability evaluation of pancreatic or periampullary cancers (PAC) in two different periods: before and after the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT). Methods: We prospectively enrolled 104 CT-resectable patients with PAC. During Step 1 (1995-1999), we performed LUS on all patients, whereas during Step 2 (2002-2007), LUS was performed selectively according to Pisters' criteria. Results: LUS was satisfactorily performed in all cases. At Step 1 accuracy of LUS in predicting pancreatic resectability was high (96%) but it was markedly lower in a subgroup of patients with close contact between tumor and portal vein (sensibility of 57%). At Step 2, selective LUS was performed on 9 of 64 patients (14%). LUS confirmed the MDCT finding of unresectability in 8 of 9 cases, and allowed curative resection in 1 case. Only 1 of 55 of the patients who did not undergo LUS would have benefited from the procedure. The yield of LUS decreased from 45% before to 1.8% after MDCT. Conclusions: In resectable-MDCT patients, routine LUS is unjustified. However, in doubtful MDCT cases, LUS has yet a good yield. In the event of close vascular contact, neither MDCT nor LUS seem to be conclusive, and laparotomy is still the only solution.

KW - Laparoscopic ultrasonography

KW - Pancreatic cancer

KW - Staging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79251618463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79251618463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-010-1150-7

DO - 10.1007/s00464-010-1150-7

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 160

EP - 165

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 1

ER -