Literature DB >> 10968852

EUS, PET, and CT scanning for evaluation of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

H R Mertz1, P Sechopoulos, D Delbeke, S D Leach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma can be difficult. Computed tomography (CT) is the standard, noninvasive imaging method for evaluation of suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but it has limited sensitivity for diagnosis, local staging, and metastases. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and fluoro-deoxyglucose/positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) are imaging methods that may improve diagnostic accuracy.
METHODS: Thirty-five patients with presumed resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were prospectively evaluated with helical CT, EUS, and FDG-PET.
RESULTS: Sensitivity for the detection of pancreatic cancer was higher for EUS (93%) and FDG-PET (87%) than for CT (53%). EUS was more sensitive than CT for local vascular invasion of the portal and superior mesenteric veins. EUS diagnosis of vascular invasion was associated with poor outcome after surgery. EUS-guided, fine-needle aspiration allowed tissue diagnosis in 14 of 21 attempts (67%). FDG-PET diagnosed 7 of 9 cases of proven metastatic disease, 4 of which were missed by CT. Two of three metastatic liver lesions suspected by CT were indeterminate for metastases. FDG-PET confirmed metastases.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS and PET improve diagnostic capability in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EUS is useful in determining local vascular invasion and obtaining tissue diagnosis. FDG-PET is useful in identifying metastatic disease. Both techniques are more sensitive than helical CT for identification of the primary tumor. (Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:367-71).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10968852     DOI: 10.1067/mge.2000.107727

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  59 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  A Shankar; R C Russell
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasonography.

Authors:  Maurits J Wiersema
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Molecular imaging of Cathepsin E-positive tumors in mice using a novel protease-activatable fluorescent probe.

Authors:  Wael R Abd-Elgaliel; Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate; Craig D Logsdon; Ching-Hsuan Tung
Journal:  Mol Biosyst       Date:  2011-09-20

4.  The clinical utility and limitations of serum carbohydrate antigen (CA19-9) as a diagnostic tool for pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Sundeep Singh; Shou-jiang Tang; Jayaprakash Sreenarasimhaiah; Luis F Lara; Ali Siddiqui
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-04-23       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 5.  Endoscopic ultrasonography: imaging and beyond.

Authors:  T Rösch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 6.  Imaging for the diagnosis and staging of periampullary carcinomas.

Authors:  R M Walsh; M Connelly; M Baker
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Recent developments in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Arjun S Takhar; Ponni Palaniappan; Rajpal Dhingsa; Dileep N Lobo
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-09-18

Review 8.  Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jiong Chen; Renbao Yang; Yin Lu; Yunlian Xia; Hangcheng Zhou
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-06-30       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  Contrast enhanced endoscopic ultrasound: More than just a fancy Doppler.

Authors:  Rachid M Mohamed; Brian M Yan
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-07-16

10.  The value of imaging techniques in the staging of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  J Kulig; T Popiela; A Zajac; S Kłek; P Kołodziejczyk
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-12-02       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.