Literature DB >> 20674916

Combined contrast-enhanced power Doppler and real-time sonoelastography performed during EUS, used in the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos).

Adrian Săftoiu1, Sevasti A Iordache, Dan Ionu Gheonea, Carmen Popescu, Anca Maloş, Florin Gorunescu, Tudorel Ciurea, Alexandru Iordache, Gabriel Lucian Popescu, C T Lin Manea.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced power Doppler (CEPD) and real-time sonoelastography (RTSE) performed during EUS were previously described to be useful for the differential diagnosis between chronic pseudotumoral pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the accuracy of the combination of CEPD and RTSE to differentiate pancreatic focal masses.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional feasibility study.
SETTING: A tertiary-care academic referral center. PATIENTS: The study group included 54 patients with chronic pancreatitis (n = 21) and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n = 33).
INTERVENTIONS: Both imaging methods (CEPD and RTSE) were performed sequentially during the same EUS examination. Power Doppler mode examination was performed after intravenous injection of a second-generation contrast agent (2.4 mL of SonoVue), and the data were digitally recorded, comprising both the early arterial phase and venous/late phase. Three 10-second sonoelastographic videos were also digitally recorded that included the focal mass and the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma. Postprocessing analyses based on specially designed software were used to analyze the CEPD and RTSE videos. A power Doppler vascularity index was used to characterize CEPD videos, the values being averaged during a 10-second video in the venous phase. Hue histogram analysis was used to characterize RTSE videos, with the mean hue histogram values being also averaged during a 10-second video. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: To differentiate chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.
RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of combined information provided by CEPD and RTSE to differentiate hypovascular hard masses suggestive of pancreatic carcinoma were 75.8%, 95.2%, and 83.3%, respectively, with a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 96.2% and 71.4%, respectively. LIMITATION: A single-center, average size of study population.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of CEPD and RTSE performed during EUS seems to be a promising method that allows characterization and differentiation of focal pancreatic masses.
Copyright © 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20674916     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.02.056

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


  43 in total

Review 1.  Levels of evidence in endoscopic ultrasonography: a systematic review.

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Dimitrios Kypraios; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Giancarlo Caletti
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-11-05       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differentiating between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and inflammatory masses: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Wei Xu; Jian Shi; Yong Lin; Xin Zeng
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Endoscopic ultrasonography: an advancing option with duality in both diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal oncology.

Authors:  Fenglin Chen
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 4.  Head mass in chronic pancreatitis: Inflammatory or malignant.

Authors:  Amit K Dutta; Ashok Chacko
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-03-16

Review 5.  Maximizing the endosonography: The role of contrast harmonics, elastography and confocal endomicroscopy.

Authors:  Andrada Seicean; Ofelia Mosteanu; Radu Seicean
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Applications of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Leticia Perondi Luz; Mohammad Ali Al-Haddad; Michael Sai Lai Sey; John M DeWitt
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: contrast-enhanced harmonic (CEH-EUS), quantitative-elastography (QE-EUS), or both?

Authors:  Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Björn Lindkvist; Jose Lariño-Noia; Ihab Abdulkader-Nallib; J Enrique Dominguez-Muñoz
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 4.623

8.  The Role of Real Time Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Elastography for Targeting EUS-FNA of Suspicious Pancreatic Masses: A Review of the Literature and A Single Center Experience.

Authors:  Mikram Jafri; Amit H Sachdev; Lauren Khanna; Frank G Gress
Journal:  JOP       Date:  2016-09

Review 9.  JSUM ultrasound elastography practice guidelines: pancreas.

Authors:  Yoshiki Hirooka; Takamichi Kuwahara; Atsushi Irisawa; Fumihide Itokawa; Hiroki Uchida; Naoki Sasahira; Natsuko Kawada; Yuya Itoh; Tsuyoshi Shiina
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 1.314

Review 10.  Pancreatico-biliary endoscopic ultrasound: a systematic review of the levels of evidence, performance and outcomes.

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Dimitrios Kypraios; Giancarlo Caletti; Mohamad A Eloubeidi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.