Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Maurits J Wiersema

Publications and source records attributed to Maurits J Wiersema.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Preoperative diagnosis of extrapancreatic neural invasion in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pancreatic cancer recurs in most patients after resection with curative intent. Recurrence is particularly common in patients with extrapancreatic neural invasion (EPNI), the presence of which correlates with poor prognosis. Macroscopic EPNI may be detected with conventional noninvasive imaging and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging, but microscopic EPNI has required postoperative pathologic examination of surgical specimens. We report the preoperative diagnosis of cancer infiltration into celiac ganglia. We hypothesized that microscopic pancreatic cancer metastasis to neural ganglia can be detected by EUS-guided biopsy examination. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing EUS in whom celiac ganglia were sampled to exclude malignant infiltration. RESULTS: Six patients with pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration or trucut biopsy examination of presumed celiac ganglia. Metastatic cancer was found in ganglia of 2 patients. Specimen review identified adenocarcinoma and neural tissue in the absence of lymphocytes. At laparoscopy, 1 of the 2 patients with positive celiac biopsy specimens also had several unexpected peritoneal metastatic deposits. The other patient was considered to have locally advanced unresectable disease. Both patients are receiving supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: EPNI may be shown preoperatively in patients with pancreatic cancer using EUS-guided sampling of celiac ganglia. A preoperative diagnosis of EPNI has the potential to improve staging accuracy and patient outcomes.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2006

Routine vs. selective EUS-guided FNA approach for preoperative nodal staging of esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is the most accurate method for lymph-node staging of esophageal carcinoma; however, it may not be necessary when EUS features are present that strongly suggest a benign or a malignant origin. AIMS: (1) To identify a combination of EUS criteria that have a sufficient sensitivity and specificity to preclude the need for EUS-FNA and (2) to assess the cost savings derived from a selective EUS-FNA approach. METHODS: A total of 144 patients with esophageal carcinoma were prospectively evaluated with EUS. Accuracy of standard (hypoechoic, smooth border, round, or width > 5 mm) and modified (4 standard plus EUS identified celiac lymph nodes, >5 lymph nodes, or EUS T3/4 tumor) criteria were compared (receiver operating characteristic curves). Resource utilization of two diagnostic strategies, routine (all patients with lymph nodes) and selective EUS-FNA (FNA only in those patients in whom the number of EUS malignant criteria provides a sensitivity and a specificity <100%), were compared. RESULTS: Modified EUS criteria for lymph-node staging were more accurate than standard criteria (area under the curve 0.88 vs. 0.78, respectively). No criterion alone was predictive of malignancy; sensitivity and specificity reached 100% when a cutoff value of >1 and >6 modified criteria were used, respectively. The EUS-FNA selective approach may avoid performing FNA in 61 patients (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Modified EUS lymph-node criteria are more accurate than standard criteria. A selective EUS-FNA approach reduced the cost by avoiding EUS-FNA in 42% of patients with esophageal carcinoma. These results require confirmation in future studies.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Frequently asked coding questions.

Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding is not an exact science. Although the CPT code set was developed to describe clearly and comprehensively services provided by health care professionals, the intended application of individual codes is not always clear. In addition, coding that may be correct in terms of CPT definitions and instructions may contradict instructions from payment policies set by insurers. This article provides answers to the gastroenterologists' most commonly asked questions and provides primary sources for coding and payment policies when possible. Answers to the questions are accurate as of the date of publication but may be subject to change.

Biopsy↗
PubMed2006

Current procedural terminology, Resource-based Relative Value Scale, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services: overview.

Coding and payment methodology for physician professional services has been standardized through the introduction of the Current Procedural Terminology, which is maintained by the American Medical Association. The codes contained within this dataset are used by health care professionals to describe their services to payers. Inherent in the development of the procedural codes, the Resource Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee recommends physician work relative value units and practice expense and professional liability inputs to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This article provides an overview of the processes in place that permit regular updates in physician payment continually to be updated.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗
PubMed2006

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pain control for intra-abdominal cancer.

This article summarizes percutaneous and surgical methods for performing celiac plexus neurolysis and focuses on the technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. Published literature concerning endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis is reviewed, indications are proposed, and opinions are offered concerning potential future applications and investigational needs as they apply to this technique.

Abdominal Neoplasms↗
PubMed2005

Prospective study of a Trucut needle for performing EUS-guided biopsy with EUS-guided FNA rescue.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is an accurate technique for sampling extraintestinal masses and lymph nodes. The use of a Trucut needle to perform EUS-guided biopsy (EUS-TCB) may improve the results or simplify the procedure. To date, few studies have prospectively assessed the performance and the safety of EUS-TCB. METHODS: Patients with a known or a suspected malignancy referred for a diagnostic and/or staging EUS examination were enrolled in a prospective study. EUS-guided biopsy was performed first with a 19-gauge Trucut needle. If the Trucut failed to obtain an adequate sample or when the "in room" touch preparation was benign, EUS-FNA was performed with a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. The objective of the study was to assess the yield of detection of malignancy and the safety of EUS-TCB in patients with known or suspected malignancies and to investigate if EUS-FNA has a role for rescue in cases of Trucut failure. OBSERVATIONS: Thirty-nine lesions underwent EUS-TCB in 30 patients. Sufficient follow-up was available for all patients. By using EUS-TCB, we were able to obtain a sample for diagnosis in all but 3 patients (one pancreatic mass and two lymph nodes) in which technical problems arose. In these patients, the diagnosis was obtained in two cases by EUS-FNA and in the other one by EUS-TCB from the primary pancreatic tumor. The yield of detection of malignancy for EUS-TCB was 84%. No complications were recorded in any patients at 1 and 7 days of follow-up. The sample size is limited to generalize conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TCB is a safe and an accurate procedure to obtain a histologic diagnosis in patients with known or suspected malignancies. EUS-FNA can serve as a rescue technique in cases of Trucut failure.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Pancreatic neoplasms.

Patients who present with signs and symptoms suggesting a pancreatic neoplasm typically undergo initial imaging with transabdominal ultrasound or CT. When a pancreatic mass or fullness is identified, it may represent an inflammatory mass, benign process, or malignancy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is performed commonly to further characterize the lesion, obtain a tissue diagnosis, and for staging. This article reviews the role of EUS for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic tumors.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2005

Endoscopic ultrasound for luminal malignancies.

Luminal gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancers are responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Since the first pairing of ultrasonography with endoscopy in 1980, technologic advances and the increased availability of trained endosonographers have propelled endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to the forefront of luminal GI cancer staging. In this article we discuss the role of EUS for evaluating luminal GI cancers.

Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal↗
PubMed2005

EUS features of recurrent transitional cell bladder cancer metastatic to the GI tract.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent transitional cell bladder cancer (TCBC) can metastasize to the GI tract albeit uncommonly. This is the first report of the EUS appearance of metastatic TCBC to the GI tract. In addition to describing the EUS features of recurrent metastatic TCBC, this study determined the number of patients referred for evaluation of a primary GI luminal cancer in which EUS instead established the diagnosis of metastatic recurrent TCBC. METHODS: Patients referred from July 2000 through April 2004 for EUS evaluation of a suspected primary GI luminal cancer were retrospectively reviewed. For patients with an established diagnosis of recurrent metastatic TCBC, EUS images were retrospectively reviewed to identify characteristic features. RESULTS: Of 2216 patients undergoing EUS to evaluate a suspected primary GI luminal cancer, 3 men (0.14%: 95% confidence interval [0.02%, 0.29%]) (mean age 67 years, range 54-74 years) were found instead to have recurrent metastatic TCBC involving the duodenum (n = 1) or rectum (n = 2). The patients presented a mean of 32 months after diagnosis of the primary TCBC with change in bowel habit (n = 1) and symptoms of bowel obstruction (n = 2). In each patient, initial endoscopy revealed circumferential luminal stenosis and mucosal erythema, but mucosal biopsy specimens revealed normal tissue. EUS demonstrated hypoechoic, symmetric, circumferential wall thickening, loss of deep wall layers, and pseudopodia-like extensions into the peri-intestinal tissues. In the two patients with rectal involvement, no evidence of direct infiltration from the bladder bed was seen. EUS-guided FNA was diagnostic of metastatic TCBC in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although most cases of hypoechoic bowel-wall thickening and stenosis are from primary GI neoplasia, recurrent TCBC should be considered in patients with a history of this tumor. Correct diagnosis is important, because this allows selection of appropriate therapeutic interventions. Although firm EUS criteria for TCBC cannot be established based on findings in 3 patients, certain features may prove useful. EUS-guided FNA can confirm the diagnosis.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Age-related changes in the pancreas identified by EUS: a prospective evaluation.

BACKGROUND: EUS is an important modality for the diagnosis of pancreatic disease. An understanding of normal pancreatic ductal and parenchymal variation in asymptomatic individuals is essential to improve EUS accuracy. The primary aim of this study was to determine age-related pancreatic parenchymal and ductular changes identifiable on EUS in individuals with no history or symptoms of pancreaticobiliary disease. Secondary aims were to define demographic and clinical factors associated with identifiable pancreatic parenchymal and ductular changes, and to determine the main pancreatic-duct diameter and pancreatic-gland width according to age. METHODS: Patients referred for either upper endoscopy or EUS for an indication unrelated to pancreaticobiliary disease were prospectively enrolled. Patients were stratified by age (<40, 40-60, >60 years). Each patient was assessed for the presence of EUS findings for chronic pancreatitis. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with an abnormality. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients (63 men, 57 women; median age, 52 years, interquartile range [IQR] 40-61 years) were prospectively evaluated. At least one parenchymal and/or ductular abnormality was identified in 28% of the patients, with a trend of increasing abnormality with age: <40 years (23%), 40 to 60 years (25%), and >60 years (39%); p = 0.13. No patient had more than 3 abnormal EUS features. Hyperechoic stranding (n = 22) was the most common finding in all age groups. The odds for any abnormality in men (relative to women) was significantly higher (OR 2.9: 95% CI[1.2, 6.8], p = 0.01), with 38% of men and 18% of women having an abnormality. Smoking, low alcohol intake, body mass index, and endoscopic finding were not significantly associated with an abnormal EUS. The overall median pancreatic-gland width and main pancreatic duct diameter were 15 mm (IQR 6-25 mm) and 1.7 mm (IQR 0.9-4.3 mm), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of EUS abnormalities in patients without clinical evidence of chronic pancreatitis increases with age, particularly after 60 years of age. The threshold number of EUS criteria for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis is variable. However, the typically used standard of 3 or more criteria appears appropriate. A higher number of threshold criteria may be needed in males and to a lesser extent in patients over 40 years of age, which should be related to clinical history and other structural or functional studies. Ductal or parenchymal calculi, ductal narrowing, ductal dilatation, or more than 3 abnormalities appear to be more specific features for the EUS diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis at any age.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

The utility of EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer to the esophagus and the mediastinum.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer can metastasize to the esophagus and the mediastinum. EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is being used increasingly as a less invasive alternative to mediastinoscopy for procuring a tissue diagnosis of mediastinal disease and may be useful for the diagnosis of breast cancer metastatic to the esophagus and the mediastinum. METHODS: Twelve women (age range 54-82 years) with a history of breast cancer presented with dysphagia or other symptoms between 1 and 15 years after initial diagnosis and treatment. CT and endoscopy with biopsies suggested a mediastinal mass or lymphadenopathy with extrinsic esophageal compression but failed to provide a tissue diagnosis. EUS-FNA was performed for diagnosis. RESULTS: Cytologic evaluation of specimens obtained by EUS-FNA confirmed breast cancer metastases in 11 of 12 patients (91%). Recurrent disease was found in intramural masses and periesophageal lymph nodes. No complication resulted from any EUS-FNA procedure. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is safe and effective for the diagnosis of breast cancer metastases to the esophagus and the mediastinum. EUS-FNA may be useful as a first-line method of evaluation when breast cancer metastasis to the esophagus and the mediastinum is suspected.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

EUS-guided trucut biopsy in establishing autoimmune pancreatitis as the cause of obstructive jaundice.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis can be difficult and often requires a larger specimen than can be provided by FNA alone to determine if the tissue sample obtained with EUS trucut biopsy (TCB) is sufficient to allow adequate histologic review to establish the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. METHODS: EUS TCB was performed in patients presenting with obstructive jaundice who were suspected of having autoimmune pancreatitis based on their clinical, laboratory and imaging studies. The charts were retrospectively reviewed to determine the feasibility of TCB. RESULTS: Between August 2002 and June 2004, 3 patients with obstructive jaundice and suspected autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) underwent EUS TCB. In each case, a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer also was considered, and surgical resection was the planned therapy before the patient underwent EUS TCB. Histologic review of the TCB specimens established the diagnosis of AIP in two patients and identified nonspecific changes of chronic pancreatitis in the third patient. EUS-guided FNA was performed in two of the 3 patients and failed to establish the diagnosis in either patient. Other than mild transient abdominal pain (n = 1), no complications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that EUS TCB can safely establish the diagnosis of AIP. Doing so helps guide management and may help to avoid unnecessary surgery. Prospective studies are needed to verify these findings and to more clearly define the role of EUS TCB in these patients.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut biopsy of the cyst wall for diagnosing cystic pancreatic tumors.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonoperative methods for diagnosis of pancreas cysts often lack sufficient accuracy. Accurate diagnosis is needed to determine prognosis and guide clinical management. The aim of this study was to determine whether the tissue obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut biopsy (EUS TCB) is sufficient for histologic diagnosis of cystic pancreatic tumors (CPTs). METHODS: EUS TCB was performed in patients with a suspected CPT. A dedicated gastrointestinal pathologist reviewed the core biopsies. The final diagnosis was based on clinical, laboratory, imaging, and biopsy findings, and resected specimens when available. RESULTS: EUS TCB was performed in 10 patients with a suspected CPT. Final diagnoses included serous cystadenoma (SCA, n=5), islet cell tumor (n=2), mixed seromucinous lesion (n=1), polycystic disease of the pancreas (n=1), and pseudocyst (n=1). EUS TCB was nondiagnostic in 3 of 10 patients. Among the other 7 patients, TCB diagnosed 4 SCAs, obviating the need for planned surgery in 3 patients. In the fourth patient with an SCA, the TCB result ruled out metastatic disease from locally recurrent lung cancer, allowing a narrowed radiation field. EUS TCB confirmed the need for surgery in 2 patients with an islet cell tumor. In 1 patient, EUS TCB findings were "partially" diagnostic, leading to previously unplanned surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This report establishes the capability and safety of EUS TCB to collect sufficient tissue for diagnosing CPTs. The results might help guide clinical management.

Adenoma, Islet Cell↗
PubMed2005

A randomized trial of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy using pure-cut versus combined cut and coagulation waveforms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy has complication rates of 5%-12%. The output from the electrosurgical generator may influence the degree of coagulation and the rapidity of the incision, and thus rates of pancreatitis, hemorrhage, and perforation. Some modern generators incorporate feedback control to standardize output and automate the alternating cut and coagulation modes. Our aim was to compare 2 feedback-controlled generators, one with constant pure cutting-type output and the other with an alternating cut and coagulation mode. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized study, 133 patients were assigned to the alternating cut/coag output and 134 patients were assigned to constant pure-cut output. Patients were stratified by their risk for pancreatitis. RESULTS: The overall pancreatitis rate was 1.5%, including 3 patients in the cut/coag group and 1 patient in the pure-cut group (P>.05). There were 11 poorly controlled (zipper) incisions in the pure-cut group and none in the cut/coag group (P=.02). The incision was completed in all patients without stalling. Immediate hemorrhage occurred in 35 pure-cut patients and 8 cut/coag patients output (P=.002). There were no episodes of clinically significant bleeding, delayed bleeding, or perforation. CONCLUSIONS: Biliary sphincterotomy using feedback-controlled generators results in dependable progression of incision with a low pancreatitis rate. Control of the incision is improved subjectively with the cut/coagulation output, but this did not translate into a difference in clinically significant complications.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a pooled analysis from EUS centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and the severity of pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. A survey of centers that offer training in EUS in the United States was conducted. METHODS: A list of centers in which training in EUS is offered was obtained from the Web site of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Designated program directors were contacted via e-mail. The information requested included the number of EUS-guided FNA procedures performed for solid pancreatic masses, the number of cases of post-procedure pancreatitis, and the method for tracking complications. For each episode of pancreatitis, technical details were obtained about the procedure, including the location of the mass, the type of fine needle used, the number of needle passes, and the nature of the lesion. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 27 programs contacted returned the questionnaire (70%). In total, 4909 EUS-guided FNAs of solid pancreatic masses were performed in these 19 centers over a mean of 4 years (range 11 months to 9 years). Pancreatitis occurred after 14 (0.29%): 95% CI[0.16, 0.48] procedures. At two centers in which data on complications were prospectively collected, the frequency of acute pancreatitis was 0.64%, suggesting that the frequency of pancreatitis in the retrospective cohort (0.26%) was under-reported (p=0.22). The odds that cases of pancreatitis would be reported were 2.45 greater for the prospective compared with the retrospective cohort (95% CI[0.55, 10.98]). The median duration of hospitalization for treatment of pancreatitis was 3 days (range 1-21 days). The pancreatitis was classified as mild in 10 cases, moderate in 3, and severe in one; one death (proximate cause, pulmonary embolism) occurred after the development of pancreatitis in a patient with multiple comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses is infrequently associated with acute pancreatitis. The procedure appears to be safe when performed by experienced endosonographers. The frequency of post EUS-guided FNA pancreatitis may be underestimated by retrospective analysis.

Acute Disease↗