Objective This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and cross-sectional imaging including multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a preoperative diagnostic modality for the pancreatic cystic lesions. Methods Three hundred eighteen patients with surgically proven pancreatic cystic lesions were enrolled as a study cohort from 1998 to 2011. Preoperative radiological, EUS, and final histopathologic diagnosis were correlated to measure several kinds of diagnostic performance. Results A total of 318 patients underwent preoperative MDCT, with additional imaging modalities such MRI and/or EUS in 215 (67.6%) and 108 (34.0%) patients, respectively. κ Values among the different modalities were as follows: MDCT versus pathology = 0.52 (P < 0.0001), MDCT + MRI versus pathology = 0.674 (P < 0.0001), and EUS versus pathology = 0.558 (P < 0.0001). The sensitivity and specificity in terms of ability to predict neoplastic cysts were as follows: MDCT, 83.1%/70.0%; MDCT + MRI, 94.7%/58.7%; and EUS, 88.5%/52.9%. The diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and MDCT + MRI were 61.4% (62/101) and 80.5% (173/215), respectively, and that of EUS was 70.4% (76/108). Conclusions Magnetic resonance imaging as an additional diagnostic modality to MDCT increased the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, as well in terms of predicting neoplastic cysts.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.