Follow-up of @entity1 with XXXX : outcome and surveillance.

@entity1 @entity788 @entity6 @entity5 @entity6437 @entity6123 @entity1689 @entity490
AIM: To follow up @entity1 with @entity1689 ( @entity1689 ) to assess their outcome and identify an optimal surveillance interval. METHODS: Data obtained prospectively were analyzed in a retrospective manner. @entity1 with clinical evidence of chronic @entity788 ( @entity490 in the epigastrium, @entity6123 , and @entity6 ), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria > 4, and EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) were included. A @entity6437 was defined as a non-neoplastic space-occupying lesion, a cause of chronic @entity788 that may mimic changes typical of @entity788 on CT or endoscopic ultrasound but without histological evidence. A real @entity5 was defined as a neoplastic space-occupying lesion because of @entity788 confirmed by histology. RESULTS: Thirty-five @entity1 with chronic @entity788 were included, 26 (74.2%) of whom were @entity1 . Nine (25.7%) @entity1 were diagnosed with @entity1689 and two (2/35; 5.7%) @entity1 with @entity1689 were diagnosed with @entity788 on follow-up. The time between the diagnosis of @entity1689 and @entity788 was 35 and 30 d in the two @entity1 . Definitive diagnosis of @entity788 was made by surgery. In the remaining six @entity1 with @entity1689 , the median of follow-up was 11 mo (range 1-22 mo) and they showed no evidence of @entity5 on surveillance. In the follow-up of @entity1 without @entity1689 but with chronic @entity788 , none were diagnosed with @entity788 . According to our data, older @entity1 with chronic @entity788 are at risk of @entity1689 . CONCLUSION: According to characteristics of @entity1 , detection of @entity1689 should lead a surveillance program for @entity788 with EUS-FNA in < 1 mo or directly to surgical resection.
