Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Erez Scapa
Based on 2 articles published since 2010
(Why 2 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, Erez Scapa wrote the following 2 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device. 2019

van Riet, Priscilla A / Larghi, Alberto / Attili, Fabia / Rindi, Guido / Nguyen, Nam Quoc / Ruszkiewicz, Andrew / Kitano, Masayuki / Chikugo, Takaaki / Aslanian, Harry / Farrell, James / Robert, Marie / Adeniran, Adebowale / Van Der Merwe, Schalk / Roskams, Tania / Chang, Kenneth / Lin, Fritz / Lee, John G / Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio / Petrone, Mariachiara / Doglioni, Claudio / Iglesias-Garcia, Julio / Abdulkader, Ihab / Giovannini, Marc / Bories, Erwan / Poizat, Flora / Santo, Erwin / Scapa, Erez / Marmor, Silvia / Bucobo, Juan Carlos / Buscaglia, Jonathan M / Heimann, Alan / Wu, Maoxin / Baldaque-Silva, Francisco / Moro, Carlos Fernández / Erler, Nicole S / Biermann, Katharina / Poley, Jan-Werner / Cahen, Djuna L / Bruno, Marco J. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. · Department of Endoscopy, Catholic University Rome, Rome, Italy. · Department of Pathology, Catholic University Rome, Rome, Italy. · Department of Endoscopy, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. · Department of Pathology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. · Department of Endoscopy, Kinki University, Osaka-Sayama, Japan. · Department of Pathology, Kinki University, Osaka-Sayama, Japan. · Department of Endoscopy, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. · Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. · Department of Endoscopy, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Pathology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Endoscopy, University of California, Irvine, California, USA. · Department of Pathology, University of California, Irvine, California, USA. · Department of Endoscopy, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. · Department of Pathology, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. · Department of Endoscopy, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. · Department of Pathology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. · Department of Endoscopy, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseilles, France. · Department of Pathology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseilles, France. · Department of Endoscopy, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. · Department of Pathology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. · Department of Endoscopy, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, USA. · Department of Pathology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, USA. · Department of Upper GI Diseases, Unit of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of Clinical Pathology/Cytology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands. · Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #30367877.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P < .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836). CONCLUSION: The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02167074.).

2 Article PANCREATIC INCIDENTALOMA: DIFFERENTIATING NONFUNCTIONING PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS FROM INTRAPANCREATIC ACCESSORY SPLEEN. 2016

Osher, Ester / Scapa, Erez / Klausner, Joseph / Greenman, Yona / Tordjman, Karen / Melhem, Alla / Nachmany, Ido / Sofer, Yael / Geva, Ravit / Blachar, Arye / Stern, Naftali / Santo, Erwin. · ·Endocr Pract · Pubmed #26919653.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To improve the preoperative assessment of pancreatic incidentalomas (PIs) by analysis of 1 index case and characterization of the published features of intrapancreatic accessory spleen (IPAS) compared to pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET). METHODS: A search of the literature using the online database MEDLINE. RESULTS: In all, 46 cases of IPAS have been described to date: 17 were "presumed" as IPAS based on technetium-99m (Tc-99m) scanning, fine-needle aspiration (FNA) stain for CD8, or contrast-enhanced sonography; 29 were misdiagnosed as PNET and underwent surgery. The pancreatic lesions were 1) mostly solitary; 2) solid on imaging; 3) well defined; 4) located predominantly at the pancreatic tail; 5) not exceeding 3 cm in the largest diameter; 5) all detected in adults (22-81 years); 6) not related to sex. In subjects referred for surgery, standard imaging studies/imaging protocols did not differentiate between IPAS and PNET. FNA was performed in 5/46 cases, all of which were false-positive for PNET. Immunohistochemical staining for T-cells on FNA material and specific imaging features (characteristic arciform splenic enhancement pattern on dynamic computed tomography [CT]; nuclear scintigraphies with radioisotope specifically trapped by splenic tissue [Tc-99m]) or contrast-enhanced sonography offered valuable clues. Still, distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy was carried out in 72%, and the rest had distal pancreatectomies. CONCLUSION: IPAS should be considered before surgery in patients with PIs. A new practical algorithm is presented for better preoperative evaluation of such lesions; it combines the recognition of early indicators and sequential consideration of cytologic and imaging features to decrease the hazards of unnecessary major surgery. ABBREVIATIONS: CT = computed tomography EUS = endoscopic ultrasound FNA = fine-needle aspiration HDRBC = heat-damaged red blood cells IPAS = intrapancreatic accessory spleen MRI = magnetic resonance tomography NF-PNET = nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor PET = positron emission tomography PNET = pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor PI = pancreatic incidentalomas SPIO = superparamagnetic iron oxide Tc-99m = technetium-99m.