Literature DB >> 18247044

Pancreatic cancer--EUS and early diagnosis.

Lars Helmstaedter1, Juergen Ferdinand Riemann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the last decades, the incidence of pancreatic cancer has increased. Prognosis remains poor despite rapid improvements in imaging technologies and therapeutic modalities. Curative treatment is dependant on early diagnosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: One of the most promising techniques for early detection of pancreatic lesions seems to be endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). With or without fine needle aspiration (FNA), it has been described as highly sensitive and accurate in staging. Superior to other imaging modalities in early studies, results in later publications declined. There are three fundamental different techniques of EUS available at present: radial scanning scopes, linear scanning scopes and radial or linear scanning probes, each with different pros and cons. Indications for EUS are persistent epigastric and/or back pain, acute onset of diabetes in the elderly, unclairified weight loss and suspect results in ultrasonography, especially in individuals over 45 years of age and in high-risk subpopulations.
RESULTS: In early studies, EUS was superior or at least equal to other imaging modalities regarding sensitivity, determining tumour size and extent, lymph node involvement and vascular infiltration. With rapid advances in technology, first of all, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging have reached better results. The highest accuracy in assessing extent of primary tumour, locoregional extension, vascular invasion, distant metastasis, tumour TNM stage and tumour resectability seems to have helical CT, whereas EUS has the highest accuracy in assessing tumour size and lymph node involvement. For assessment of tumour resectability, a combination of CT and EUS seems to be the procedure with the highest accuracy. Some new techniques promise improvement of the diagnostic yield of EUS. In differentiation to focal inflammation, contrast-enhanced EUS has shown to increase sensitivity and specificity for pancreatic cancer. Another major problem is the assessment of vascular invasion. 3D reconstructions additional to conventional EUS seemed to improve the evaluation of vessel-tumour-relationships. Endoscopic ultrasound is not a foolproof method; there are several reasons for failure, and it shows a high interobserver variety even among experienced endosonographers. Nevertheless, EUS proved to have a high negative predictive value. Poor overall survival rates and some reports of high survival rates among small resected stage 1 ductal adenocarcinomas suggest a high benefit for screening and early detection of pancreatic neoplasia, and treatment of precursor lesions might prevent their progression to invasive cancer. Because of low incidence and the lack of accurate, inexpensive and non-invasive diagnostic tests for early disease, screening for pancreatic cancer and its precursor lesions in the entire population is not reasonable. But a EUS- and CT-based screening among high-risk individuals discovered pancreatic neoplasms in eight of 78 patients, in contrast to no pancreatic neoplasia among 149 control subjects.
CONCLUSION: Screening for pancreatic cancer and its precursor lesions in the general population is not feasible, but high-risk subpopulations seem to be suitable targets for screening programs. EUS is an essential tool for diagnosis and assessment of extension and resectability of pancreatic tumours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18247044     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-007-0275-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  22 in total

1.  Radial scanning and linear array endosonography for staging pancreatic cancer: a prospective randomized comparison.

Authors:  F Gress; T Savides; O Cummings; S Sherman; G Lehman; S Zaidi; R Hawes
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Pancreatic tumors: comparison of dual-phase helical CT and endoscopic sonography.

Authors:  P Legmann; O Vignaux; B Dousset; A J Baraza; L Palazzo; I Dumontier; J Coste; A Louvel; G Roseau; D Couturier; A Bonnin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  EUS diagnosis of vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer: surgical and histologic correlates.

Authors:  Harry Aslanian; Ronald Salem; Jeffrey Lee; Dana Andersen; Marie Robert; Mark Topazian
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  EUS compared with CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography and the influence of biliary stenting on staging accuracy of ampullary neoplasms.

Authors:  M E Cannon; S L Carpenter; G H Elta; T T Nostrant; M L Kochman; G G Ginsberg; B Stotland; E F Rosato; J B Morris; F Eckhauser; J M Scheiman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Clinicopathologic features of small pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A collective study.

Authors:  H Furukawa; S Okada; H Saisho; J Ariyama; E Karasawa; A Nakaizumi; S Nakazawa; K Murakami; T Kakizoe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Interobserver agreement among endosonographers for the diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic pancreatic cystic lesions.

Authors:  Nuzhat A Ahmad; Michael L Kochman; Colleen Brensinger; William R Brugge; Douglas O Faigel; Frank G Gress; Michael B Kimmey; Nicholas J Nickl; Thomas J Savides; Michael B Wallace; Maurits J Wiersema; Gregory G Ginsberg
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  The No Endosonographic Detection of Tumor (NEST) Study: a case series of pancreatic cancers missed on endoscopic ultrasonography.

Authors:  M S Bhutani; F G Gress; M Giovannini; R A Erickson; M F Catalano; A Chak; P H Deprez; D O Faigel; C C Nguyen
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Preoperative staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer: prospective study comparing endoscopic ultrasonography, helical computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography.

Authors:  Antonio Soriano; Antoni Castells; Carmen Ayuso; Juan Ramón Ayuso; Maria Teresa de Caralt; Maria Angels Ginès; Maria Isabel Real; Rosa Gilabert; Llorenç Quintó; Antoni Trilla; Faust Feu; Xavier Montanyà; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Salvador Navarro
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound in discrimination between focal pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Michael Hocke; Ewald Schulze; Peter Gottschalk; Theodor Topalidis; Christoph F Dietrich
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Comparison of image quality between electronic and mechanical radial scanning echoendoscopes in pancreatic diseases.

Authors:  Katsushi Niwa; Yoshiki Hirooka; Yasumasa Niwa; Akihiro Itoh; Naoki Ohmiya; Senju Hashimoto; Hideki Ishikawa; Naoto Okada; Terutomo Itoh; Hidemi Goto
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.029

View more
  28 in total

1.  Poor 'real-life' negative predictive value of cross-sectional imaging in obstructive jaundice.

Authors:  Brian A Brunson; Robert Hawes; Brenda Hoffman; Stacie Vela; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug

2.  Quantitative assessment of tumor angiogenesis using real-time motion-compensated contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging.

Authors:  Marybeth A Pysz; Ismayil Guracar; Kira Foygel; Lu Tian; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Angiogenesis       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 9.596

Review 3.  Endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic neoplasms-solid and cystic: A review.

Authors:  Eric M Nelsen; Darya Buehler; Anurag V Soni; Deepak V Gopal
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

4.  Carlos Fernández-del Castillo Confronts The Challenge of Pancreatic Cancer: Although Progress Has Been Slow, a Renowned Expert On the Disease Sees Reasons for Hope.

Authors:  Jack McCain
Journal:  P T       Date:  2014-04

Review 5.  Advances in biomarker research for pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Kruttika Bhat; Fengfei Wang; Qingyong Ma; Qinyu Li; Sanku Mallik; Tze-Chen Hsieh; Erxi Wu
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.116

6.  Feasibility and preliminary accuracy of high-resolution imaging of the liver and pancreas using FNA compatible microendoscopy (with video).

Authors:  Renu Regunathan; Jenny Woo; Mark C Pierce; Alexandros D Polydorides; Mohammad Raoufi; Sasan Roayaie; Myron Schwartz; Daniel Labow; Dongsuk Shin; Rei Suzuki; Manoop S Bhutani; Lezlee G Coghlan; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Sharmila Anandasabapathy; Michelle Kang Kim
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 7.  Imaging in pancreatic disease.

Authors:  Julien Dimastromatteo; Teresa Brentnall; Kimberly A Kelly
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 8.  Clinical approach to the patient with a solid pancreatic mass.

Authors:  Reinhold Függer; Odo Gangl; Uwe Fröschl
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2014-02-28

9.  Combining in Vitro Diagnostics with in Vivo Imaging for Earlier Detection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Challenges and Solutions.

Authors:  Paul F Laeseke; Ru Chen; R Brooke Jeffrey; Teresa A Brentnall; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Endoscopic ultrasonography for surveillance of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Gabriele Lami; Maria Rosa Biagini; Andrea Galli
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.