Abstract
Background/Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Notes
Acknowledgments
We thank Fumiyoshi Fujishima, MD, PhD, Department of Pathology, Tohoku University School of Medicine and Miwa Uzuki, MD, PhD, Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medical Science and Welfare, Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University for histological evaluations using cytological specimens and resected specimens from all subjects, and all staff in the Department of Pathology at Sendai City Medical Center for immunostaining all specimens in this case. In addition, we are grateful to Dr. Brian Breedlove, Associate Professor, Tohoku University School of Science, for the English proofreading.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: KY, SK; Date curation: KY, SK; Formal analysis: KY, SK, TT, TSaw, YN, KI; Investigation: KY, SK, YK, TO, HK, TSak, KM, FM, HA, HO, MO; Methodology: KY, SK; Project administration: KY, SK; Supervision: SK, KI; Writing–original draft: KY, SK; Writing–review & editing: all authors.
REFERENCES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, % (number/total number), or median (range).
FAIP, focal autoimmune pancreatitis; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; OR, odds ratios; CI, confidence intervals; CT, computed tomography; ERP, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography; MPD, main pancreatic duct; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound.
Table 3.
Values are presented as number (%).
EUS-TA, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acqusition; FAIP, focal autoimmune pancreatitis; EUS-FNA, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration; EUS-FNB, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy; G, gauge; LPSP, lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis; HPF, high-power field.
Table 4.
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient no. | Parenchymal imaging, level | Serum IgG4 levels, level (value, mg/dL) | Ductal Imaging, level (ERP findings) | Other organ involvement, level (involved sites) | Diagnosis by using 1–4 | Histology determined by using EUS-TA, level | Needles used for EUS-TA | Number of EUS-TA | Diagnosis by using 1–5 | Steroid trial | Diagnosis by using 1–6 | Histology determined by using resected specimen, level | Diagnosis by using 1–7 |
EUS-TA | |||||||||||||
1 | 2 | 1 (328) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Definitive | 2 | 22 G, FNB needle | 1 | - | - | - | - | - |
2 | 2 | 1 (466) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Definitive | No malignancy | 22G, FNA needle | 1 | - | - | - | - | - |
3 | 2 | 1 (1,030) | N/P | 1 (Hilar bile duct) | Definitive | No malignancy | 22 G, FNA needle | 1 | - | - | - | - | - |
4 | 2 | 1 (369) | N/A (Upstream MPD dilationa)) | 2 (Submandibular gland) | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNB needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
5 | 2 | 1 (453) | N/A (Upstream MPD dilationa)) | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 20 G, FNB needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
6 | 2 | 2 (141) | N/A (Upstream MPD dilationa)) | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNB needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
7 | 2 | 1 (703) | N/P | 2 (Submandibular gland) | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNA needle | 2 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
8 | 2 | 1 (476) | N/P | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 19 G, FNA needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
9 | 2 | 2 (218) | N/P | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNA needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
10 | 2 | 2 (191) | N/P | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNA needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
11 | 2 | N/A (57) | N/A (obstruction) | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNA needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
12 | 2 | N/A (122) | N/P | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNB needle | 1 | Definitive | - | - | - | - |
13 | 2 | N/A (95) | N/P | N/A | Inconclusive | 1 | 22 G, FNB needle | 2 | Definitive | - | - | ||
14 | 2 | 1 (449) | N/A (obstruction) | N/A | Inconclusive | No malignancy | 22 G, FNA needle | 1 | Inconclusive | Response | Definitive | - | - |
15 | 2 | 2 (182) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Inconclusive | 2 | 22 G, FNA needle | 1 | Inconclusive | Response | Probable | - | - |
16 | 2 | N/A (23.5) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Inconclusive | No malignancy | 22 G, FNA needle | 2 | Inconclusive | Response | NOS | - | - |
17 | 2 | N/A (3.6) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Inconclusive | suspected adenocarcinoma | 25 G, FNA needle | 1 | Inconclusive | - | - | 1 | Definitive |
No EUS-TA | |||||||||||||
18 | 2 | 1 (676) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Definitive | N/P | - | - | - | - | - | ||
19 | 2 | 1 (280) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Definitive | N/P | - | - | - | - | - | ||
20 | 2 | 2 (138) | N/P | N/A | Inconclusive | N/P | - | Response | Probable | - | - | ||
21 | 2 | 2 (146) | N/A (obstruction) | N/A | Inconclusive | N/P | - | - | - | 1 | Definitive | ||
22 | 2 | N/A (76) | 2 (Stenosis) | N/A | Inconclusive | N/P | - | - | - | 1 | Definitive | ||
23 | 2 | N/A (65) | N/A (normal) | N/A | Inconclusive | N/P | - | - | - | 1 | Definitive |
AIP, autoimmune pancreatitis; ICDC, Internal Consensus Diagnostic Criteria; FAIP, focal type autoimmune pancreatitis; ERP, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography; EUS-TA, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition; N/A, not applicable; FNA, fine needle aspiration; FNB, fine needle biopsy; G, gauge; N/P, not performed; MPD, main pancreatic duct; NOS, not otherwise specified; -, not applicable or not performed.