Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Christian Jenssen
Based on 5 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, C. Jenssen wrote the following 5 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline - March 2017. 2017

Polkowski, Marcin / Jenssen, Christian / Kaye, Philip / Carrara, Silvia / Deprez, Pierre / Gines, Angels / Fernández-Esparrach, Gloria / Eisendrath, Pierre / Aithal, Guruprasad P / Arcidiacono, Paolo / Barthet, Marc / Bastos, Pedro / Fornelli, Adele / Napoleon, Bertrand / Iglesias-Garcia, Julio / Seicean, Andrada / Larghi, Alberto / Hassan, Cesare / van Hooft, Jeanin E / Dumonceau, Jean-Marc. ·Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Oncology, Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The M. Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland Strausberg/Wriezen, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Medical University of Brandenburg, Germany. · Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, UK. · Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. · Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. · Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, ICMDM, IDIBAPS, CIBEREHD, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme & Hôpital Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. · Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. · Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital NORD AP-HM, Aix-Marseille-Université, Marseille, France. · Gastroenterology Department Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal. · Anatomic Pathology Unit, AUSL of Bologna, Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology, Ramsay Générale de Santé, Private Hospital Jean Mermoz, Lyon, France. · Gastroenterology Department, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. · Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. · Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Gedyt Endoscopy Center, Buenos Aires, Argentina. ·Endoscopy · Pubmed #28898917.

ABSTRACT: For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

2 Review Serous pancreatic neoplasia, data and review. 2017

Dietrich, Christoph F / Dong, Yi / Jenssen, Christian / Ciaravino, Valentina / Hocke, Michael / Wang, Wen-Ping / Burmester, Eike / Moeller, Kathleen / Atkinson, Nathan Ss / Capelli, Paola / D'Onofrio, Mirko. ·Christoph F Dietrich, Medizinische Klinik 2, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany. ·World J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #28852316.

ABSTRACT: AIM: To describe the imaging features of serous neoplasms of the pancreas using ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: This multicenter international collaboration enhances a literature review to date, reporting features of 287 histologically confirmed cases of serous pancreatic cystic neoplasms (SPNs). RESULTS: Female predominance is seen with most SPNs presenting asymptomatically in the 5 CONCLUSION: The described ultrasound features can aid differentiation of SPN from other neoplastic lesions under most circumstances.

3 Review [Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy: diagnostic yield, pitfalls, quality management]. 2008

Jenssen, C / Möller, K / Wagner, S / Sarbia, M. ·Klinik für Innere Medizin, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland GmbH, Prçtzeler Chaussee 5, 15344 Strausberg. c.jenssen@khmol.de ·Z Gastroenterol · Pubmed #18810676.

ABSTRACT: The differential diagnosis of tumorous lesions in the pancreas, liver, adrenal gland or lymph nodes is ambiguous. Specific tissue diagnoses are essential for treatment decisions. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy has proven to be a reliable and effective modality in obtaining samples for cytological or histological examinations either primarily or in cases in which other biopsy techniques have failed. The reproducibility of cytopathological diagnoses among pathologists with special experience in assessing material obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsies is very high. False positive diagnoses of malignancy in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy are rare; false negative diagnoses appear in a variable frequency depending on target tissue, technical factors, and expertise of the endosonographer and cytopathologist. There are numerous challenges and pitfalls in the differential diagnostic classification of benign and malignant lesions. These problems are related to the characteristics of samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy, as well as to the multiple diagnoses with similar or overlapping cytological or histological characteristics. This review discusses the performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy in establishing specific tissue diagnoses, possible pitfalls as well as opportunities to minimise differential diagnostic errors.

4 Review [Differential diagnosis of pancreatic lesions using endoscopic ultrasound]. 2008

Dietrich, C F / Jenssen, C / Allescher, H-D / Hocke, M / Barreiros, A P / Ignee, A. ·Innere Medizin 2, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim. christoph.dietrich@ckbm.de ·Z Gastroenterol · Pubmed #18537088.

ABSTRACT: The most common pancreatic tumour is the ductal adenocarcinoma. Many other benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms have to be recognised and now account for more than 50 % of the pancreatic lesions seen in our daily routine. An improved differential diagnosis is, therefore, mandatory and will be discussed in this review.

5 Article Differential diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions. 2016

Dietrich, Christoph Frank / Sahai, Anand Vasante / D'Onofrio, Mirko / Will, Uwe / Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio / Petrone, Maria Chiara / Hocke, Michael / Braden, Barbara / Burmester, Eike / Möller, Kathleen / Săftoiu, Adrian / Ignee, Andre / Cui, Xin-Wu / Iordache, Sevastita / Potthoff, Andrej / Iglesias-Garcia, Julio / Fusaroli, Pietro / Dong, Yi / Jenssen, Christian. ·Sino-German Research Center of Ultrasound in Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, China; Medical Department, Caritas-Krankenhaus, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. · Division of Gastroenterology, CHUM, Hopital Saint Luc, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · Department of Radiology, G.B. Rossi University Hospital, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · SRH Wald Klinikum Gera, Germany. · PancreatoBiliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. · Medical Department, Helios Klinikum Meiningen, Meiningen, Germany. · Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, United Kingdom. · Medical Department I, Sana Hospital Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. · Medical Department I/Gastroenterology; SANA Hospital Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania; Endoscopy Department, Gastrointestinal Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Herlev, Denmark. · Medical Department, Caritas-Krankenhaus, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. · Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania. · Gastroenterology, Hepatology und Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Gastroenterology and Hepatology Department, Foundation for Research in Digestive Diseases, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. · Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna and Hospital of Imola, Imola, Italy. · Medical Department, Caritas-Krankenhaus, Bad Mergentheim, Germany; Department of Ultrasound, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. · Medical Department, Krankenhaus Maerkisch-Oderland, Strausberg, Germany. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #27155592.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is typically diagnosed at a late stage. Little is known about the incidental finding of early-stage PDAC. The aim of the current study was to determine the etiology of small solid pancreatic lesions (≤15 mm) to optimize clinical management. METHODS: Inclusion criterion for the retrospective study analysis was the incidental finding of primarily undetermined small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm in 394 asymptomatic patients. Final diagnoses were based on histology or cytology obtained by imaging-guided biopsy (and at least 12-month follow-up) and/or surgery. Contrast-enhanced US or contrast-enhanced EUS was performed in 219 patients. RESULTS: The final diagnoses of 394 patients were as follows: 146 PDACs, 156 neuroendocrine tumors, 28 metastases into the pancreas from other primary sites, and 64 various other etiologies. Contrast-enhanced US allowed differential diagnosis of PDAC and non-PDAC in 189 of 219 patients (86%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 40% of patients with small solid pancreatic lesions had very early stage PDAC. Approximately 60% of small solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm are not PDAC and, therefore, do not require radical surgery. Without preoperative diagnosis, an unacceptably large proportion of patients would be exposed to radical surgery with significant morbidity and mortality.