During the last ten years EUS-FNA was established as a low risk diagnostic tool in PC. The complication rate of EUS-FNA is considered to be very low, ranging between 0.3% and 1.6% (20,46-48). Controversy

has arisen about the preferred method of choice to obtain pancreatic diagnostic tissue: the percutaneous approach with CT/US guidance or the EUS-guided endoscopic one. To our knowledge, till now there are only retrospective studies (49,50) and one prospective, randomized study (51) comparing the performance of percutaneous CT/US-guided FNA with EUS-guided FNA in pancreatic lesions. A retrospective analysis suggested that Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the sensitivity of CT-FNA was superior to EUS-FNA (71% vs. 42%) (49), while another retrospective study found an equivalent accuracy between EUS-FNA, CT/US-FNA and surgical learn more biopsies (50). In the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical only prospective, randomized, crossover trial EUS-FNA resulted numerically, though not quite statistically, superior to CT/US FNA for the diagnosis of PC (51). So why should we choose EUS-guided sampling instead of CT/US-FNA? Indeed some arguments in favour Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of this choice exist and can be summarized as follow: (I) the ability to sample lesions (including lymph nodes) too small to be identified by other methods; (II) concern about cutaneous

and peritoneal seeding: a study from Micames et al. showed lower frequency of peritoneal seeding in patients with PC diagnosed by EUS-FNA vs. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical percutaneous FNA (52); a shorter needle path, the use of smaller needles and the ability to biopsy the lesion through a segment of the GI wall, which becomes part of the resected specimen, in case of surgery, can minimize the risk of needle-tract seeding; (III) the possibility of targeting more confidently small lesions adjacent to vessels, using the color Doppler capability or lesions located in seats difficult Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical to be reached percutaneously; (IV) the provision of sometimes remarkable additional diagnostic and staging information through the EUS examination; (V) there are some initial data about the superior cost-effectiveness

of EUS-guided FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma compared with CT-FNA and surgery (53). Finally, the true strength of EUS in a patient with suspected PC is the possibility to offer a really “all inclusive” service; it can in a single step: (I) detect the lesion (diagnosis); (II) assess the local extent and vascular Rutecarpine invasion of the tumor (staging and resectability assessment); (III) if the tumor is deemed unresectable, biopsy the lesion for cytopathological confirmation (EUS-FNA); (IV) if the patient is symptomatic, treat the pain (coeliac plexus neurolysis) or even the jaundice (EUS-guided biliary drainage) (palliative treatment). At our institution as well as in other centers all around the world we are witnessing a clear trend toward increasing referrals for pancreatic EUS-FNA with a parallel decrease in referrals for percutaneous FNA.