Literature DB >> 22854060

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, single-center study.

Muhammad F Dawwas1, Hatim Taha, John S Leeds, Manu K Nayar, Kofi W Oppong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that quantitative EUS elastography, a novel technique that allows real-time quantification of tissue stiffness, can accurately differentiate malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses.
OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the diagnostic utility of this technique in an independent cohort. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Prospective, single-center study. PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND METHODS: A total of 104 patients with evidence of a solid pancreatic mass on cross-sectional imaging and/or endosonography underwent 111 quantitative EUS elastography procedures. Multiple elastographic measurements of the mass lesion and soft-tissue reference areas were undertaken, and the corresponding strain ratios (SRs) were calculated. The final diagnosis was based on pancreatic cytology or histology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign pancreatic masses.
RESULTS: The final diagnoses were primary pancreatic carcinoma (71.2%), neuroendocrine tumor (10.6%), metastatic cancer (1.9%), and pancreatitis (16.3%). Malignant masses had a higher SR (P = .01) and lower mass elasticity (P = .003) than inflammatory ones. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for the detection of pancreatic malignancy of both SR and mass elasticity (0.69 and 0.72, respectively) were less favorable than reported recently. At the cut points providing the highest accuracy in this cohort (4.65 for SR and 0.27% for mass elasticity), quantitative EUS elastography had a sensitivity of 100.0% and 95.7%, specificity of 16.7% and 22.2%, positive predictive value of 86.1% and 86.4%, negative predictive value of 100.0% and 50.0%, and overall accuracy of 86.5% and 83.8%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Relatively small number of patients with benign disease.
CONCLUSION: In the largest single-center study to date, the diagnostic utility of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating pancreatic masses was modest, suggesting that it may only supplement rather than supplant the role of pancreatic tissue sampling in the future.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22854060     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.034

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


  37 in total

1.  Pancreatic cancer in chronic pancreatitis.

Authors:  Puneet Dhar; S Kalghatgi; Vivek Saraf
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-01-21

2.  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 3.  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

4.  Pancreatic cancer: Image enhancement by endoscopic ultrasonography-elastography.

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Mohamad A Eloubeidi
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 46.802

5.  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

Review 6.  Elastography for the pancreas: Current status and future perspective.

Authors:  Natsuko Kawada; Sachiko Tanaka
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Endoscopic ultrasonography elastography in the diagnosis of intrapancreatic ectopic spleen: A case report.

Authors:  Nan Ge; Si-Yu Sun
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 1.337

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

9.  Endoscopic ultrasound elastography strain histograms in the evaluation of patients with pancreatic masses.

Authors:  Dalibor Opačić; Nadan Rustemović; Mirjana Kalauz; Pave Markoš; Zvonimir Ostojić; Matea Majerović; Iva Ledinsky; Ana Višnjić; Juraj Krznarić; Milorad Opačić
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.