Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Paolo Bocus
Based on 3 articles published since 2010
(Why 3 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, Paolo Bocus wrote the following 3 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms. 2014

Anonymous4770793 / Anonymous4780793 / Buscarini, Elisabetta / Pezzilli, Raffaele / Cannizzaro, Renato / De Angelis, Claudio / Gion, Massimo / Morana, Giovanni / Zamboni, Giuseppe / Arcidiacono, Paolo / Balzano, Gianpaolo / Barresi, Luca / Basso, Daniela / Bocus, Paolo / Calculli, Lucia / Capurso, Gabriele / Canzonieri, Vincenzo / Casadei, Riccardo / Crippa, Stefano / D'Onofrio, Mirko / Frulloni, Luca / Fusaroli, Pietro / Manfredi, Guido / Pacchioni, Donatella / Pasquali, Claudio / Rocca, Rodolfo / Ventrucci, Maurizio / Venturini, Silvia / Villanacci, Vincenzo / Zerbi, Alessandro / Falconi, Massimo / Anonymous4790793. ·Gastroenterology Unit, Maggiore Hospital, Crema, Italy. Electronic address: ebuscarini@rim.it. · Pancreas Unit, Department of Digestive Diseases and Internal Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, CRO-National Cancer Institute, Aviano, Italy. · Gastroenterology and Hepatology Department, A.O. San Giovanni Battista/Molinette, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. · Department of Clinical Pathology, AULSS 12, Venice, Italy. · Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Ospedale CĂ  Foncello, Treviso, Italy. · Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Division of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita-Salute, Italy. · Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, ISMETT, Palermo, Italy. · Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital, Padua, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria, Negrar, Verona, Italy. · Department of Radiology, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Digestive and Liver Disease Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome at S. Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy. · Division of Pathology, CRO-National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Aviano, Italy. · Department of Surgery, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Pancreas Unit, UniversitĂ  Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. · Department of Radiology, University Hospital G.B. Rossi, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Surgical and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, Maggiore Hospital, Crema, Italy. · Pathology Unit, A.O. San Giovanni Battista/Molinette, Turin, Italy. · Surgery Unit IV, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Bentivoglio Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · 2nd Pathology Section, Spedali Civili, Brescia, Brescia, Italy. · Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy. ·Dig Liver Dis · Pubmed #24809235.

ABSTRACT: This report contains clinically oriented guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms in patients fit for treatment. The statements were elaborated by working groups of experts by searching and analysing the literature, and then underwent a consensus process using a modified Delphi procedure. The statements report recommendations regarding the most appropriate use and timing of various imaging techniques and of endoscopic ultrasound, the role of circulating and intracystic markers and the pathologic evaluation for the diagnosis and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms.

2 Article The role of K-ras gene mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA cytology specimens for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. 2013

Fuccio, Lorenzo / Hassan, Cesare / Laterza, Liboria / Correale, Loredana / Pagano, Nico / Bocus, Paolo / Fabbri, Carlo / Maimone, Antonella / Cennamo, Vincenzo / Repici, Alessandro / Costamagna, Guido / Bazzoli, Franco / Larghi, Alberto. ·Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #23660563.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is still challenging in about 15% of cases. Mutation of the K-ras gene is present in over 75% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PADC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosing PADC. DESIGN: We systematically searched the electronic databases for relevant studies published. Data from selected studies underwent meta-analysis by use of a bivariate model providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. SETTING: Meta-analysis of 8 prospective studies. PATIENTS: Total of 931 patients undergoing EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. INTERVENTION: K-ras mutation analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation analysis and of combined diagnostic strategy by using EUS-FNA and K-ras mutation analysis in the diagnosis of PADC. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the differential diagnosis of PADC was 80.6%, and the specificity was 97%. Estimated sensitivity and specificity were 76.8% and 93.3% for K-ras gene analysis, respectively, and 88.7% and 92% for combined EUS-FNA plus K-ras mutation analysis. Overall, K-ras mutation testing applied to cases that were inconclusive by EUS-FNA reduced the false-negative rate by 55.6%, with a false-positive rate of 10.7%. Not repeating EUS-FNA in cases in which mutation testing of the K-ras gene is inconclusive would reduce the repeat-biopsy rate from 12.5% to 6.8%. LIMITATIONS: Small number of studies and between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: K-ras mutation analysis can be useful in the diagnostic work-up of pancreatic masses, in particular when tissue obtained by EUS-FNA is insufficient, and the diagnosis inconclusive.

3 Article Interobserver agreement in contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound. 2012

Fusaroli, Pietro / Kypraios, Dimitrios / Mancino, Maria Grazia / Spada, Alessia / Benini, Maria Chiara / Bianchi, Marco / Bocus, Paolo / De Angelis, Claudio / De Luca, Leonardo / Fabbri, Carlo / Grillo, Antonino / Marzioni, Marco / Reggio, Dario / Togliani, Thomas / Zanarini, Stefano / Caletti, Giancarlo. ·Department of Clinical Medicine, GI Unit, University of Bologna/Imola Hospital, Italy Gastroenterology Unit, Bellaria Hospital, Bologna, Italy. pietro.fusaroli@unibo.it ·J Gastroenterol Hepatol · Pubmed #22414180.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIM: Contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) was recently introduced to clinical practice; its reproducibility among endosonographers is unknown. Our aim was to assess the interobserver agreement (IA) in CH-EUS. METHODS: Fifteen endosonographers (eight experienced and seven non-experienced) from 11 Italian EUS centers evaluated 80 video-cases (40 solid pancreatic lesions, 20 pancreatic cystic lesions and 20 submucosal lesions) of CH-EUS, according to the degree of enhancement, the pattern of distribution and the washout of the contrast agent. IA within each group and between the two groups of observers was assessed with the Fleiss kappa statistic. RESULTS: Overall IA was moderate for the uptake and fair for the pattern of distribution and the washout. In solid pancreatic lesions, IA was moderate for the uptake and fair for the pattern and the washout. In cystic pancreatic lesions, IA was uniformly moderate for the assessment of uptake, slight for the pattern and fair for the washout. In submucosal tumors, IA was substantial for the uptake, slight for the pattern and fair for the washout. Non-experienced endosonographers demonstrated, in most cases, comparable IA with the experienced ones. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement among endosonographers for CH EUS was satisfactory. In particular, overall IA varied from slight to substantial, being fair in the majority of cases. Inherent structural features of the lesions, as well as technical differences between the variables assessed, could have accounted for the fluctuation of the results. Outcomes of IA were reproducible between experienced and non-experienced endosonographers.