CONTEXT: The optimal approach to pre-operative imaging assessment of pancreatic cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess accuracy and performance characteristics of EUS in determining nodal staging, vascular invasion, and prediction of resectability of pancreatic cancer. A secondary aim was to perform head to head comparison of performance characteristics between EUS and CT for nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability. DESIGN: Data from EUS studies were pooled according to bivariate generalized random effects model. Pooled estimates for CT were obtained from studies which performed head to head comparison between EUS and CT. PATIENTS: Patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing pre-operative imaging assessment. INTERVENTION: EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were considered of which 29 met inclusion criteria with a total of 1,330 patients. Pooled summary estimates for EUS-nodal staging were 69% for sensitivity and 81% for specificity. For vascular invasion, sensitivity was 85% and specificity was 91%. The sensitivity and specificity for resectability was 90% and 86%, respectively. CT scan showed lower sensitivity than EUS for nodal staging (24% vs. 58%) and vascular invasion (58% vs. 86%); however, the specificities for nodal staging (88% vs. 85%) and vascular invasion (95% vs. 93%) were comparable in studies where both imaging techniques were performed. The sensitivity and specificity of CT in determining resectability (90% and 69%) was similar to that of EUS (87% and 89%). CONCLUSIONS: EUS is an accurate pre-operative tool in the assessment of nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability in patients with pancreatic cancer.
CONTEXT: The optimal approach to pre-operative imaging assessment of pancreatic cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess accuracy and performance characteristics of EUS in determining nodal staging, vascular invasion, and prediction of resectability of pancreatic cancer. A secondary aim was to perform head to head comparison of performance characteristics between EUS and CT for nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability. DESIGN: Data from EUS studies were pooled according to bivariate generalized random effects model. Pooled estimates for CT were obtained from studies which performed head to head comparison between EUS and CT. PATIENTS: Patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing pre-operative imaging assessment. INTERVENTION: EUS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were considered of which 29 met inclusion criteria with a total of 1,330 patients. Pooled summary estimates for EUS-nodal staging were 69% for sensitivity and 81% for specificity. For vascular invasion, sensitivity was 85% and specificity was 91%. The sensitivity and specificity for resectability was 90% and 86%, respectively. CT scan showed lower sensitivity than EUS for nodal staging (24% vs. 58%) and vascular invasion (58% vs. 86%); however, the specificities for nodal staging (88% vs. 85%) and vascular invasion (95% vs. 93%) were comparable in studies where both imaging techniques were performed. The sensitivity and specificity of CT in determining resectability (90% and 69%) was similar to that of EUS (87% and 89%). CONCLUSIONS: EUS is an accurate pre-operative tool in the assessment of nodal staging, vascular invasion and resectability in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Authors: Shandra Bipat; Saffire S K S Phoa; Otto M van Delden; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Dirk J Gouma; Johan S Laméris; Jaap Stoker Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: John Dewitt; Benedict M Devereaux; Glen A Lehman; Stuart Sherman; Thomas F Imperiale Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 11.382
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
Authors: Augusto P C Carbonari; Juliana Bonfim; Rogerio Colaiacovo; Lucio G B Rossini Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2015 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: Ioannis D Kyrochristos; Georgios K Glantzounis; Demosthenes E Ziogas; Ioannis Gizas; Dimitrios Schizas; Efstathios G Lykoudis; Evangelos Felekouras; Anastasios Machairas; Christos Katsios; Theodoros Liakakos; William C Cho; Dimitrios H Roukos Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: M Hidalgo; R Álvarez; J Gallego; C Guillén-Ponce; B Laquente; T Macarulla; A Muñoz; M Salgado; R Vera; J Adeva; I Alés; S Arévalo; J Blázquez; A Calsina; A Carmona; E de Madaria; R Díaz; L Díez; T Fernández; B G de Paredes; M E Gallardo; I González; O Hernando; P Jiménez; A López; C López; F López-Ríos; E Martín; J Martínez; A Martínez; J Montans; R Pazo; J C Plaza; I Peiró; J J Reina; A Sanjuanbenito; R Yaya; Alfredo Carrato Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Paul D James; Zhao Wu Meng; Mei Zhang; Paul J Belletrutti; Rachid Mohamed; William Ghali; Derek J Roberts; Guillaume Martel; Steven J Heitman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240