Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Donatella Pacchioni
Based on 3 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, D. Pacchioni 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

Anonymous4750793 / Anonymous4760793 / 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 / Anonymous4770793. ·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 Analysis of cyst fluid obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration supporting the diagnosis of a pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm. 2011

Maletta, F / Pacchioni, D / Carucci, P / Accinelli, G / Bruno, M / Brizzi, F / Allegranza, P / Rizzetto, M / Bussolati, G / De Angelis, C. ·Department of Biomedical Science and Oncology, University of Turin, Italy. ·Endoscopy · Pubmed #21271532.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

3 Article Preliminary experience with a new cytology brush in EUS-guided FNA. 2009

Bruno, Mauro / Bosco, Martino / Carucci, Patrizia / Pacchioni, Donatella / Repici, Alessandro / Mezzabotta, Lavinia / Pellicano, Rinaldo / Fadda, Maurizio / Saracco, Giorgio Maria / Bussolati, Gianni / Rizzetto, Mario / De Angelis, Claudio. ·Department of Gastro-Hepatology, Molinette Hospital, Torino, Italy. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #19665706.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite the high diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA, room for technical improvements remains. Recently, the EchoBrush (Cook Endoscopy, Winston-Salem, NC), a disposable cytologic brush, was introduced to the market. To date, only 1 study, limited to 10 pancreatic cyst cases, using this device has been published. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic yield of the EchoBrush in a cohort of consecutive patients, irrespective of the target lesion. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Tertiary care university hospital (Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy). PATIENTS: Thirty-nine consecutive patients (12 with solid pancreatic masses, 12 with pancreatic cysts, 7 with enlarged lymph nodes, and 8 with submucosal masses) were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: The material collected with the EchoBrush and with a standard FNA needle was double-blind evaluated by 2 cytopathologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Adequacy of the sample and sensitivity and specificity of the EchoBrush method. RESULTS: Adequate material for cytologic analysis was collected in 17 of 39 patients (43.6%) with a single pass of the EchoBrush. Results were better for pancreatic lesions (for solid and cystic lesions, the adequacy was 58.3% and 50%, respectively); adequacy was low (28.6% and 25%, respectively) for lymph nodes and submucosal masses. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 57.9% and 31.2%, respectively. There were no adverse events with the procedure. LIMITATION: Preliminary study. CONCLUSIONS: This report suggests that the EchoBrush may provide adequate cellularity to diagnose solid and cystic pancreatic lesions. More extensive studies are needed to compare the EchoBrush and standard needles.