Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(12): E1313-E1318
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-121001
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Does ampullary adenoma size predict invasion on EUS? Does invasion on EUS predict presence of malignancy?

Vaishali Patel
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Paul Jowell
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Jorge Obando
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Cynthia D. Guy
2   Division of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Rebecca A. Burbridge
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted14 October 2015

accepted after revision24 October 2016

Publication Date:
15 December 2016 (online)

Background and study aims: It is common practice to perform ampullectomy without endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for ampullary lesions < 1 cm but no data exists to support it. No studies have explored whether EUS findings of invasion correlate with malignancy or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) on pathology. We explored the association between adenoma size, pathology results, and invasion on EUS. 

Patients and methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study at a large tertiary care academic hospital. Chart review was performed for 161 patients with benign ampullary lesions on endoscopic biopsy (identified by pathology records). The primary outcomes were mean size (mm) of adenomas and pathology findings with and without intraductal and/or duodenal wall invasion on EUS. 

Results: Invasion was identified by EUS in 41 (34.1 %) of 120 patients who underwent EUS. The mean size of the lesion in these patients was 20.9 mm (± 11.6 mm) compared to 13.9 mm (± 11.3 mm, P = 0.0001) in patients without invasion. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC 0.73, 95 % CI 0.63 – 0.83) revealed 100 % sensitivity for absence of invasion on EUS in lesions less than 6.5 mm. Invasion on EUS had sensitivity of 63.0 % (95 % CI 47.0 % – 77.0 %) and specificity 88.0 % (95 % CI 78.0 % – 95.0 %) for presence of malignancy, HGD or invasion on pathology.

Conclusions: EUS should be considered for ampullary lesions > 6.5 mm. This study provides evidence to support the practice of ampullectomy without EUS for smaller adenomas. EUS evidence of invasion is highly specific for pathologic malignancy, HGD, or invasion (which preclude endoscopic ampullectomy).

 
  • References

  • 1 Hirota WK, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG et al. ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 570-580
  • 2 Jordan Jr PH, Ayala G, Rosenberg WR et al. Treatment of ampullary villous adenomas that may harbor carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2002; 6: 770-775
  • 3 Cahen DL, Fockens P, de Wit LT et al. Local resection or pancreaticoduodenectomy for villous adenoma of the ampulla of Vater diagnosed before operation. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 948-951
  • 4 Tran TC, Vitale GC. Ampullary tumors: endoscopic versus operative management. Surg Innov 2004; 11: 255-263
  • 5 Ceppa EP, Burbridge RA, Rialon KL et al. Endoscopic versus surgical ampullectomy: an algorithm to treat disease of the ampulla of Vater. Ann Surg 2013; 257: 315-322
  • 6 Castillo C. Endoscopic ultrasound in the papilla and the periampullary region. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 2: 278-287
  • 7 Ridtidid W, Tan D, Schmidt SE et al. Endoscopic papillectomy: risk factors for incomplete resection and recurrence during long-term follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 289-296
  • 8 You D, Heo J, Choi S et al. Pathologic T1 subclassification of ampullary carcinoma with perisphincteric or duodenal submucosal invasion: Is it T1b?. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 1072-1076
  • 9 Bohnacker S, Seitz U, Nguyen D et al. Endoscopic resection of benign tumors of the duodenal papilla without and with intraductal growth. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 551-560
  • 10 Kim HA, Kim KM, Shin JU et al. Prediction of carcinoma after resection in subjects with ampullary adenomas on endoscopic biopsy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: 346-351
  • 11 Bohnacker S, Seitz U, Nguyen D et al. Endoscopic resection of benign tumors of the duodenal papilla without and with intraductal growth. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 551-560
  • 12 Seewald S, Omar S, Soehendra N. Endoscopic resection of tumors of the ampulla of Vater: how far up and how deep down can we go?. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 789-791
  • 13 Desilets DJ, Dy RM, Ku PM et al. Endoscopic management of tumors of the major duodenal papilla: refined techniques to improve outcome and avoid complications. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 202-208
  • 14 Norton ID, Gostout CJ, Baron TH et al. Safety and outcome of endoscopic snare excision of the major duodenal papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 239-243
  • 15 Catalano MF, Linder JD, Chak A et al. Endoscopic management of adenoma of the major duodenal papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 225-232
  • 16 Ridtitid W, Schmidt SE, Al-Haddad MA et al. Performance characteristics of EUS for locoregional evaluation of ampullary lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 380-388
  • 17 Zadorova Z, Dvofak M, Hajer J. Endoscopic therapy of benign tumors of the papilla of Vater. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 345-347
  • 18 Adler DG, Qureshi W, Davila R et al. ASGE guideline: The role of endoscopy in ampullary and duodenal adenomas. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 849-854
  • 19 Baillie J. Endoscopic ampullectomy. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 2379-2381
  • 20 Chen CH, Tseng LJ, Yang CC et al. The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, computed tomography, and transabdominal ultrasound in the detection and staging of primary ampullary tumors. Hepatogastroenterology 2001; 48: 1750-1753
  • 21 Artifon EL, Couto Jr D, Sakai P et al. Prospective evaluation of EUS versus CT scan for staging of ampullary cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 290-296
  • 22 Manta R, Conigliaro R, Castellani D et al. Linear endoscopic ultrasonography vs magnetic resonance imaging in ampullary tumors. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 5592-5597
  • 23 Chen CH, Yang CC, Yeh YH et al. Reappraisal of endosonography of ampullary tumors: correlation with transabdominal sonography, CT, and MRI. J Clin Ultrasound 2009; 37: 18-25
  • 24 Trikudanathan G, Njei B, Attam R et al. Staging accuracy of ampullary tumors by endoscopic ultrasound: meta-analysis and systematic review. Dig Endosc 2014; 26: 617-626
  • 25 Gaspar J, Shami V. The role of EUS in ampullary lesions: Is the answer black and white?. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 389-390
  • 26 Ito K, Fujita N, Noda Y et al. Preoperative evaluation of ampullary neoplasm with EUS and transpapillary intraductal US: a prospective and histopathologically controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 740-747
  • 27 Azih LC, Broussard BL, Phadnis MA et al. Endoscopic ultrasound evaluation in the surgical treatment of duodenal and peri-ampullary adenomas. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 511-515