Endoscopic ultrasound may be unnecessary in the preoperative evaluation of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity788 @entity4929 @entity5 @entity787 @entity1893
OBJECTIVES: Several imaging modalities are commonly performed during work-up of @entity4929 ( @entity4929 ), but guidelines do not suggest any one technique. The aim of this study was to evaluate @entity5 and duct measurements by computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and their ability to predict @entity1893 ( @entity1893 ) and @entity5 within @entity788 . METHODS: @entity1 with @entity4929 who underwent preoperative CT and EUS between 2001 and 2009 were selected. Data were gathered retrospectively from medical records. RESULTS: The study group was comprised of 52 @entity1 , 33% (17/52) of whom had @entity1893 or @entity5 . On fine needle aspirate (FNA), neither @entity787 ( @entity787 ) >200 nor cytological analysis correlated with @entity5 . In multivariate analysis, duct size >=  1.0 cm (P= 0.034) was a significant predictor of @entity1893 or @entity5 , and diameter on CT scan (P= 0.056) approached significance. Lesion diameter of >=  2.5 cm on CT scan identified @entity5 in 71% (12/17) of @entity1 (P= 0.037). When analysed, all @entity1 with @entity1893 or @entity5 had a lesion diameter >=  2.5 cm and/or a duct diameter >=  1.0 cm by CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: The use of radiographic criteria on CT including lesion size >=  2.5 cm and/or pancreatic duct diameter >=  1.0 cm appears to reliably identify @entity1 with either @entity1893 or invasive @entity5 . High-resolution CT scanning may obviate the need for EUS and FNA in @entity1 with suspected @entity4929 .
