e106 Abstracts of the 24 th National Congress of Digestive Diseases / Digestive and Liver Disease 50/S2 (2018) e63–e238 The more striking difference between the two Surveys consisted in centers who declared to perform EUS guided drainage. In the 2013 Survey, 26% of centers performed at least one EUS guided drainage while the centers that performed at least one EUS guided drainage in the 2017 Survey were 86% (p>0.0001). Even more impressive are the data on the singles procedures: a total of 51 EUS guided drainage were declared in the 2013 Survey, while in the 2017 Survey centers performed 133 biliary drainage;37 gallbladder drainage; 224 pancreatic collection drainage and 104 pancreatic necrosectomies. Conclusions: The comparison of data beetween this Survey and the previous one, after 4 years, shows a strong push towards operational procedures such as EUS guided drainage especially in the pancreatic-biliary district. OC.15.2 QUALITY INDICATORS OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY: A NATIONWIDE SURVEY A. Amato *,1 , M. Bianchi 2 , C. Fabbri 3 , S. Carrara 4 , S. De Lisi 6 , I. Tarantino 5 1 Ospedale Valduce, Como, Italy; 2 Ospedale San Filippo Neri, Roma, Italy; 3 Ospedale Bellaria-Maggiore, Bologna, Italy; 4 Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy; 5 IRCCS ISMETT, Palermo, Italy; 6 ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milano, Italy Background and aim: Specific quality indicators for endoscopic ul- trasonography (EUS) were published and updated in 2015 by a joint American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force. However, most of the papers in the literature a focus on the technical aspects of the procedure while poor interest has been paid at evaluating the quality provided. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the quality of EUS perfor- mances provided in Italy Material and methods: Endoscopists members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED), have been invited to a structured, 30 questions on-line survey. Organizational indicators, practice variations and compliance with guidelines were analyzed Results: Data from 61 EUS centers were analyzed: 67.75% had a EUS-dedicated room, 31.37% had always anesthesiologist assis- tance and only 33.3% had rapid on site evaluation (ROSE). As far as pre-procedure quality indicators are concerned, Italian centers resulted not far from achieving the performance target in terms of appropriate indication of the procedures (76.60%; target: >80%) and appropriate use of antibiotics in cystic lesions (failure in only 2.13%), whereas a specific EUS informed consent was avail- able in only 82.98% (target: >98%). Regarding intra-procedural indicators, diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic malignancies was >70% (performance target) in 86.49% of the centers. About post- procedural indicators, only 46.81% of the centers conducted a systematic recording of adverse events, whereas in all the cases the post-procedural diagnostic/therapeutic program was established by the endosonographers, a dedicated gastroenterologist or by a multidisciplinary team. Conclusions: The present survey shows a promising but still sub- optimal level of adherence to quality indicators of EUS centers in Italy. The compliance with quality requirements has been achieved more easily for technical/clinical indicators than for organizational ones. Scientific societies need to organize intervention aimed at improving quality of endoscopic ultrasonography provided in Italy. OC.15.3 ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND AND FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY (EUS-FNB) IN CHRONIC PANCREATITIS: DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS BETWEEN PSEUDOTUMORAL MASSES AND PANCREATIC CANCER R. Grassia *,1 , P. Capone 1 , N. Imperatore 4 , F. Cereatti 1 , E. Iiritano 1 , G.P. Tanzi 2 , K. Vjero 1 , M. Martinotti 3 , F. Buffoli 1 1 Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva ASST di Cremona, Cremona, Italia; 2 Anatomia Patologica ASST di Cremona, Cremona, Italia; 3 Chirurgia Generale ASST di Cremona, Cremona, Italia; 4 Gastroenterologia Università “Federico II” di Napoli, Napoli, Italia Background and aim: Differential diagnosis between pseudotu- moral masses and pancreatic neoplasms can be challenging in the setting of chronic pancreatitis because of very similar imaging features and clinical presentation. The role of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic tumors has been evaluated in several, well-designed studies showing a high sensitivity and accuracy for malignancy (from 75 to 92% and from 79 to 92%, respectively). This accuracy may be even higher using on-site evaluation of the sample by an experienced pathologist. However, the reported EUS-FNA sensitivity for malignancy in parenchymal masses of patients with concurrent chronic pancreatitis was inferior (ranging from 59 to 73%), whereas there were no differences in terms of specificity. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB in differentiat- ing between inflammatory masses and malignancies in chronic pancreatitis. Material and methods: Between June 2014 and January 2017, we retrospectively evaluated 10 patients (60% males, mean age 66±9 years) with pancreatic masses and radiological or endosonographic features of chronic pancreatitis undergoing EUS-FNB. All procedures were performed using a linear echoendoscope and 22 or 25 gauge core-needles (EchoTip ® ProCore™, Cook Medical). Final diagnoses were obtained from surgery or after at least 6 months of clinical and radiological follow-up. Results: When all 10 cases included in the study were analyzed, 6 lesions (60%) were finally considered as malignant and 4 lesions (40%) as benign (mean lesion size 28.1±11.8). In seven out of 10 patients (70%) EUS-FNB was performed by using a 22-gauge needle, while a 25-gauge needle was used in the remaining subjects (30%). An adequate histology sample was obtained in all cases. Overall, a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but one case (diagnostic accuracy 90% (95% CI: 55.5–99.75%), sensitivity 90% (95% CI: 55.5– 99.75%), specificity 0%, PPV 100%, NPV 0%). When we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of both needles in detecting a correct diagnosis, we found that the 22-gauge needle performed a correct diagnosis in all but 1 case (diagnostic accuracy 85.7% (95% CI: 42.1–99.6%), with sensitivity 85.7% (95% CI: 42.1–99.6%), specificity 0%, positive predictive value 100% and negative predictive value 0%. On the other hand, the 25-gauge needle presented sensibility and PPV of 100%, thus a diagnostic accuracy of 100% (95% CI: 29.2–100%) in detecting a correct diagnosis. At binary logistic regression, we were not able to find any predictor of correct diagnosis (size or place of lesion, needle used, number of passages). Conclusions: In our pilot study we demonstrated that EUS-FNB was effective in the differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and solid neoplasms in the setting of chronic pancreatitis. Although in the context of a retrospective experience, we found that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB core-needles was very high (90%) especially if compared to EUS-FNA results described in present literature. EUS-FNB showed a higher accuracy even if compared to EUS-FNA coupled with on-site pathological evaluation. Prospective studies with a larger population are needed to better evaluate such hypothesis.