Literature DB >> 15545675

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and multidetector computed tomography for detecting and staging pancreatic cancer.

John DeWitt1, Benedict Devereaux, Melissa Chriswell, Kathleen McGreevy, Thomas Howard, Thomas F Imperiale, Donato Ciaccia, Kathleen A Lane, Dean Maglinte, Kenyon Kopecky, Julia LeBlanc, Lee McHenry, James Madura, Alex Aisen, Harvey Cramer, Oscar Cummings, Stuart Sherman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative detection and staging of pancreatic cancer may identify patients with locoregional disease that is amenable to surgical resection.
OBJECTIVE: To compare endoscopic ultrasonography and multidetector computed tomography (CT) for the detection, staging, and resectability of known or suspected locoregional pancreatic cancer.
DESIGN: Prospective, observational, cohort study.
SETTING: Single, tertiary referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. PATIENTS: 120 participants with known or suspected locoregional pancreatic cancer.
INTERVENTIONS: Endoscopic ultrasonography followed by multidetector CT was performed in all patients. Patients with known or suspected pancreatic cancer deemed potentially resectable by 1 or both tests were considered for surgery. MEASUREMENTS: Detection, staging, and resectability of pancreatic cancer. Surgically resected pancreatic cancer with negative microscopic histologic margins was considered resectable.
RESULTS: Of 120 patients enrolled, 104 (87%) underwent endoscopic ultrasonography and CT. Of the 80 patients with pancreatic cancer, 27 (34%) were managed nonoperatively, and 53 (66%) treated surgically had resectable (n = 25) or unresectable (n = 28) cancer. For the 80 patients with cancer, the sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasonography (98% [95% CI, 91% to 100%]) for detecting a pancreatic mass was greater than that of CT (86% [CI, 77% to 93%]; P = 0.012). For the 53 surgical patients, endoscopic ultrasonography was superior to CT for tumor staging accuracy (67% vs. 41%; P < 0.001) but equivalent for nodal staging accuracy (44% vs. 47%; P > 0.2). Of the 25 resectable pancreatic tumors in patients recommended for surgery, endoscopic ultrasonography and CT correctly identified 88% and 92%, respectively, as resectable. Of the 28 unresectable pancreatic tumors in patients recommended for surgery, endoscopic ultrasonography and CT correctly identified 68% and 64%, respectively, as unresectable. LIMITATIONS: Radiologists who read the scans and endosonographers were not blinded to previous radiographic information. Because of the modest sample size, CIs of the sensitivity estimates were sometimes wide.
CONCLUSION: Compared with multidetector CT, endoscopic ultrasonography is superior for tumor detection and staging but similar for nodal staging and resectability of preoperatively suspected nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15545675     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  110 in total

Review 1.  Hereditary pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Shilpa Grover; Sapna Syngal
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Computed tomography-based diagnostics might be insufficient in the determination of pancreatic cancer unresectability.

Authors:  Vyacheslav I Egorov; Roman V Petrov; Elena N Solodinina; Gregory G Karmazanovsky; Natalia S Starostina; Natalia A Kuruschkina
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-04-27

Review 3.  Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

Authors:  Domenico Tamburrino; Deniece Riviere; Mohammad Yaghoobi; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-09-15

Review 4.  Investigation of abdominal pain to detect pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  J Ashley Guthrie; Maria B Sheridan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-10

Review 5.  Pancreatic cancer and the FAMMM syndrome.

Authors:  Henry T Lynch; Ramon M Fusaro; Jane F Lynch; Randall Brand
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Single-session endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disorders.

Authors:  Gil Ascunce; Afonso Ribeiro; Caio Rocha-Lima; Marcelo Larsen; Danny Sleeman; Jaime Merchan; Deborah Szabo; Joe U Levi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Masato Matsuyama; Hiroshi Ishii; Kensuke Kuraoka; Seigo Yukisawa; Akiyoshi Kasuga; Masato Ozaka; Sho Suzuki; Kouichi Takano; Yuko Sugiyama; Takao Itoi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography predictors of pancreatic cancer resectability.

Authors:  Philip Q Bao; J Chad Johnson; Elizabeth H Lindsey; David A Schwartz; Ron C Arildsen; Ewa Grzeszczak; Alexander A Parikh; Nipun B Merchant
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Surgical resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: CTA.

Authors:  Jimmie C Wong; Steven Raman
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2009-05-26

Review 10.  Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and staging using multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Authors:  Isaac R Francis
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.