Eus Differentiates Primary Adenocarcinoma From Other Mass Lesions Of The Pancreas

volume of fluid withdrawn, serum tumor markers and final surgical pathology. Patients were identified as those where EUS correctly predicted surgical pathology based on radiologic imaging, cytology, biochemical and molecular analyses of cystic fluid. Patients in whom EUS correctly predicted surgical pathology a compartive analysis was done. Results: 33 patients (mean age 65.4 11.6, female 76%) were identified as having a cystic pancreatic lesion on EUS that subsequently underwent surgical resection. 28/33 had FNA performed during EUS. The final surgical pathology was: IPMN 13; MCN 3; SCN 4; Pseudocyst 2; Squamoid Cyst 1; Enterogenous Cyst 1; Schwanomma 1; Neuroendocrine tumor 3; in 5 patients there were no pathological diagnosis (Table 1). In 21/33 (64%) preoperative EUS correctly identified the final surgical diagnosis. In a comparative analyses of patients in whom preoperative EUS did not correctly identify the surgical diagnosis, only the diameter of the cyst between the two groups was statistically significant (35.6 15.3mm vs 22.4 14.7mm) (pZ .02) (Table 2). EUS cytology was only positive In 10/28 (36%) patients . Conclusion: In our series EUS was more accurate in predicting final surgical pathology in larger pancreatic cystic lesions. Improved modalities are needed to better characterize pancreatic cystic lesions by EUS for appropiate classification of patients into different management pathways.