Background/Aims: The role of cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level in differentiating mucinous pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is controversial. We investigated the role of cyst fluid CEA in differentiating low-risk (LR)-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) from high-risk (HR)-IPMNs and LR-mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs). Methods: This was a retrospective study of 466 patients with PCLs who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needleaspiration over a 7-year period. On histology, low-grade dysplasia and intermediate-grade dysplasia were considered LR, whereas high-grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma were considered HR. Results: Data on cyst fluid CEA levels were available for 50/102 mucinous PCLs with definitive diagnoses. The median CEA (range) levels were significantly higher in HR cysts than in LR cysts (2,624 [0.5–266,510] ng/mL vs. 100 [16.8–53,445]ng/mL, p=0.0012). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.930 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5–0.8; p<0.001) for differentiating LR-IPMNs from LR-MCNs. The AUROC was 0.921 (95% CI, 0.823–1.000; p<0.001) for differentiating LR-IPMNs from HR-IPMNs. Both had a CEA cutoff level of >100ng/mL, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. Conclusions Cyst fluid CEA levels significantly vary between LR-IPMNs, LR-MCNs, and HR-IPMNs. A CEA cutoff level of >100ng/mL had a 100% NPV in differentiating LR-IPMNs from LR-MCNs and HR-IPMNs.

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.