Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Double-Duct Sign in the Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound: The Prevalence of Occult Pancreaticobiliary Malignancy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Aim

Simultaneous dilatation of the common bile duct and pancreatic duct, “double-duct sign” (DDS), is an ominous finding concerning for pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Little evidence exists to guide the initial evaluation and subsequent follow-up for patients with DDS in the absence of jaundice or focal mass noted on computed tomography (CT)/ magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is often recommended in the evaluation of such patients, however, the prevalence of malignancy remains unclear. We sought to determine the prevalence of pancreaticobiliary neoplasm in this patient group on initial EUS evaluation and on subsequent clinical follow-up.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database at a tertiary-care academic medical center between 2010 and 2012. Eighty-two patients were identified who underwent EUS evaluation for DDS without evidence of a mass on CT/MRI and without jaundice.

Results

Sixty-eight of 82 patients had confirmed DDS on EUS with biductal dilation. Six (9 %) of 68 patients were found to have a mass lesion on EUS. In these patients, final diagnoses were pancreatic carcinoma (n = 4), ampullary carcinoma (n = 1) and ampullary adenoma (n = 1). In the 62 patients without evidence of a focal mass on initial EUS, the most common diagnoses were benign ductal dilation (n = 42), chronic pancreatitis (n = 9) and choledocholithiasis (n = 8). Fifty-eight (94 %) of 62 patients had documented median follow-up of 13 months, and none developed subsequent evidence of previously unrecognized malignancy.

Conclusions

The presence of double-duct sign on EUS in patients without jaundice or mass lesion on CT/MRI is most frequently associated with benign conditions. When a mass is not detected on EUS, subsequent evidence of malignancy is unlikely.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Freeny PC, Bilbao MK, Katon RM. “Blind” evaluation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma: the “double duct” and other signs. Radiology. 1976;119:271–274.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Plumley TF, Rohrmann CA, Freeny PC, Silverstein FE, Ball TJ. Double duct sign: reassessed significance in ERCP. Am J Roentgenol. 1982;138:31–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahualli J. The double duct sign. Radiology. 2007;244:314–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baillie J, Paulson EK, Vitellas KM. Biliary imaging: a review. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:1686–1699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Menges M, Lerch MM, Zeitz M. The double duct sign in patients with malignant and benign pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:74–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharma M, Mahadevan B. An unusual cause of double duct sign. Type I sphincter of Oddi dysfunction due to chronic opium addiction. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:e1–e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Edge MD, Hoteit M, Patel AP, Wang X, Baumgarten DA, Cai Q. Clinical significance of main pancreatic duct dilation on computed tomography: single and double duct dilation. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:1701–1705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Krishna N, Tummala P, Reddy AV, Mehra M, Agarwal B. Dilation of both pancreatic duct and the common bile duct on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans in patients with or without obstructive jaundice. Pancreas. 2012;41:767–772.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carriere V, Conway J, Evans J, Shokoohi S, Mishra G. Which patients with dilated common bile and/or pancreatic ducts have positive findings on EUS? J Interv Gastroenterol. 2012;2:168–171.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tanaka S, Nakaizumi A, Ioka T, et al. Main pancreatic duct dilatation: a sign of high risk for pancreatic cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2002;32:407–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanaka S, Nakao M, Ioka T, et al. Slight dilatation of the main pancreatic duct and presence of pancreatic cysts as predictive signs of pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. Radiology. 2010;254:965–972.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sirli R, Sporea I. Ultrasound examination of the normal pancreas. Medical Ultrasonogr. 2010;12:62–65.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Feng B, Song Q. Does the common bile duct dilate after cholecystectomy? Sonographic evaluation in 234 patients. Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:859–861.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Reinus WR, Shady K, Lind M, Scott R. Ultrasound evaluation of the common duct in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87:489–492.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coss A, Enns R. The investigation of unexplained biliary dilatation. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2009;11:155–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Erickson RA. EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:267–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin F, Staerkel G. Cytologic criteria for well differentiated adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Cancer. 2003;99:44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bounds BC. Diagnosis and fine needle aspiration of intraductal papillary mucinous tumor by endoscopic ultrasound. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2002;12:735–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Agarwal B, Krishna NB, Labundy JL, Safdar R, Akduman EI. EUS and/or EUS-guided FNA in patients with CT and/or magnetic resonance imaging findings of enlarged pancreatic head or dilated pancreatic duct with or without a dilated common bile duct. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:237–242. quiz 334, 5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Malik S, Kaushik N, Khalid A, et al. EUS yield in evaluating biliary dilatation in patients with normal serum liver enzymes. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52:508–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Andersen HB, Effersoe H, Tjalve E, Burcharth F. CT for assessment of pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Acta Radiol. 1993;34:569–572.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pasanen PA, Partanen KP, Pikkarainen PH, Alhava EM, Janatuinen EK, Pirinen AE. A comparison of ultrasound, computed tomography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant jaundice and cholestasis. Europ J Surgery. 1993;159:23–29.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Muller MF, Meyenberger C, Bertschinger P, Schaer R, Marincek B. Pancreatic tumors: evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1994;190:745–751.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mackillop W. Toward Canadian Benchmarks for waiting times for radiotherapy for cancer: Synthesizing the evidence and establishing research priorities—review on tumour doubling time 2008.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Shannon Drew for her assistance with technical support as well as Dr. Kenneth Mukamal and Dr. Gordon Strewler for their support of this research.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tyler M. Berzin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, J., Sawhney, M.S., Pleskow, D.K. et al. Double-Duct Sign in the Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound: The Prevalence of Occult Pancreaticobiliary Malignancy. Dig Dis Sci 59, 2280–2285 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3133-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3133-3

Keywords

Navigation