OBJECTIVE: To compare ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and determination of resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Articles reporting US, CT, or MRI data of patients with known or suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma and at least 20 patients verified with histopathology, surgical findings, or follow-up were included. A bivariate random effects approach was used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis and resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Sixty-eight articles fulfilled all inclusion criteria. For diagnosis, sensitivities of helical CT, conventional CT, MRI, and US were 91%, 86%, 84%, and 76% and specificities were 85%, 79%, 82%, and 75% respectively. Sensitivities for MRI and US were significantly lower compared with helical CT (P = 0.04 and P = 0.0001). For determining resectability, sensitivities of helical CT, conventional CT, MRI, and US were 81%, 82%, 82, and 83% and specificities were 82%, 76%, 78%, and 63% respectively. Specificity of US was significantly lower compared with helical CT (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Helical CT is preferable as an imaging modality for the diagnosis and determination of resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
OBJECTIVE: To compare ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and determination of resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Articles reporting US, CT, or MRI data of patients with known or suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma and at least 20 patients verified with histopathology, surgical findings, or follow-up were included. A bivariate random effects approach was used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis and resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Sixty-eight articles fulfilled all inclusion criteria. For diagnosis, sensitivities of helical CT, conventional CT, MRI, and US were 91%, 86%, 84%, and 76% and specificities were 85%, 79%, 82%, and 75% respectively. Sensitivities for MRI and US were significantly lower compared with helical CT (P = 0.04 and P = 0.0001). For determining resectability, sensitivities of helical CT, conventional CT, MRI, and US were 81%, 82%, 82, and 83% and specificities were 82%, 76%, 78%, and 63% respectively. Specificity of US was significantly lower compared with helical CT (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Helical CT is preferable as an imaging modality for the diagnosis and determination of resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Elliot B Tapper; Diego Martin; N Volkan Adsay; David Kooby; Bobby Kalb; Juan M Sarmiento Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Dirk Domagk; Johannes Wessling; Beate Conrad; Roman Fischbach; Christina Schleicher; Werner Böcker; Norbert Senninger; Achim Heinecke; Walter Heindel; Wolfram Domschke; Torsten Kucharzik Journal: Gut Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 23.059
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
Authors: Annelie Slaar; Wietse J Eshuis; Niels A van der Gaag; C Yung Nio; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Johannes B Reitsma; Dirk J Gouma Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.352