Literature DB >> 25792386

Quantitative contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS in differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos).

Adrian Săftoiu1, Peter Vilmann2, Christoph F Dietrich3, Julio Iglesias-Garcia4, Michael Hocke5, Andrada Seicean6, Andre Ignee7, Hazem Hassan2, Costin Teodor Streba8, Ana Maria Ioncică8, Dan Ionuţ Gheonea8, Tudorel Ciurea8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of EUS with contrast agents can be expanded through the use of time-intensity curve (TIC) analysis and computer-aided interpretation.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the use of parameters derived from TIC analysis in an artificial neural network (ANN) classification model designed to diagnose pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP).
SETTING: Prospective, multicenter, observational trial-endoscopy units from Romania, Denmark, Germany, and Spain. PATIENTS: A total of 167 consecutive patients with PC or CP.
INTERVENTIONS: Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), TIC analysis, and ANN processing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for EUS-FNA, CEH-EUS, and the ANN.
RESULTS: After excluding all of the recordings that did not meet the technical and procedural criteria, 112 cases of PC and 55 cases of CP were included. EUS-FNA was performed in 129 patients, and the diagnosis was confirmed by surgery (n = 15) or follow-up (n = 23) in the remaining cases. Its sensitivity and specificity were 84.82% and 100%, respectively, whereas the PPV and NPV were 100% and 76.63%, respectively. The sensitivity of real-time quantitative assessment of CEH-EUS was 87.5%, specificity 92.72%, PPV 96.07%, and NPV 78.46%. Peak enhancement, wash-in area under the curve, wash-in rate, and the wash-in perfusion index were significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were found between rise time, mean transit time, and time to peak. For the ANN, sensitivity was 94.64%, specificity 94.44%, PPV 97.24%, and NPV 89.47%. LIMITATIONS: Only PC and CP lesions were included.
CONCLUSION: Parameters obtained through TIC analysis can differentiate between PC and CP cases and can be used in an automated computer-aided diagnostic system with good diagnostic results. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01315548.).
Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25792386     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.040

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


  36 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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 3.  A Multidisciplinary Approach to Pancreas Cancer in 2016: A Review.

Authors:  Evan L Fogel; Safi Shahda; Kumar Sandrasegaran; John DeWitt; Jeffrey J Easler; David M Agarwal; Mackenzie Eagleson; Nicholas J Zyromski; Michael G House; Susannah Ellsworth; Ihab El Hajj; Bert H O'Neil; Attila Nakeeb; Stuart Sherman
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Endoscopic Ultrasound and Related Technologies for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Disease - Research Gaps and Opportunities: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop.

Authors:  Linda S Lee; Dana K Andersen; Reiko Ashida; William R Brugge; Mimi I Canto; Kenneth J Chang; Suresh T Chari; John DeWitt; Joo Ha Hwang; Mouen A Khashab; Kang Kim; Michael J Levy; Kevin McGrath; Walter G Park; Aatur Singhi; Tyler Stevens; Christopher C Thompson; Mark D Topazian; Michael B Wallace; Sachin Wani; Irving Waxman; Dhiraj Yadav; Vikesh K Singh
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.327

Review 5.  Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in gallbladder cancer and pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Mitsuru Sugimoto; Tadayuki Takagi; Rei Suzuki; Naoki Konno; Hiroyuki Asama; Ko Watanabe; Jun Nakamura; Hitomi Kikuchi; Yuichi Waragai; Mika Takasumi; Yuki Sato; Takuto Hikichi; Hiromasa Ohira
Journal:  Fukushima J Med Sci       Date:  2017-07-05

Review 6.  Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions.

Authors:  Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-17

Review 7.  Advanced EUS Imaging Techniques.

Authors:  Irina M Cazacu; Adrian Saftoiu; Manoop S Bhutani
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 8.  Scoping out the future: The application of artificial intelligence to gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Scott B Minchenberg; Trent Walradt; Jeremy R Glissen Brown
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2022-05-15

9.  Clinical chronic pancreatitis.

Authors:  Walter G Park
Journal:  Curr Opin Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.287

10.  The efficacy of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in diagnosing gallbladder cancer.

Authors:  Mitsuru Sugimoto; Tadayuki Takagi; Naoki Konno; Rei Suzuki; Hiroyuki Asama; Takuto Hikichi; Ko Watanabe; Yuichi Waragai; Hitomi Kikuchi; Mika Takasumi; Hiromasa Ohira
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.