Literature DB >> 28000628

Role of contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in other pancreatic solid lesions: Neuroendocrine tumors, autoimmune pancreatitis and metastases.

Maxime Palazzo1.   

Abstract

Contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CH-EUS) is a new technique which allows the dynamic study of the microvascularization of a target tissue. Its application is validated for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma but remains unclear for other solid pancreatic tumors (neuroendocrine tumors [NETs], autoimmune pancreatitis [AIP], metastases). The purpose of this review is to outline the potential role of the CH-EUS in these indications. NETs are typically iso/hyperenhanced at CH-EUS, and a heterogeneous enhancement seems a good predictor of malignancy in neuroendocrine pancreatic tumor. AIP is often iso/hyperenhanced at CH-EUS. Quantitative analysis of time-intensity parameters is promising for the distinction between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and AIP. The appearance of pancreatic metastases at CH-EUS is various depending on the origin of the primary tumor. Data from the literature remain to this day weak to determine the role of the CH-EUS in the management of rare solid tumor of the pancreas (NETs, AIP, and metastases). Specific studies are expected to further clarify the impact of this procedure in this field.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 28000628      PMCID: PMC5206825          DOI: 10.4103/2303-9027.195870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound        ISSN: 2226-7190            Impact factor:   5.628


INTRODUCTION

Contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CH-EUS) is a new technique which allows the dynamic study of the microvascularization of a target tissue. Its application in the characterization of solid tumors of the pancreas is validated for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Its role is less clear for other solid pancreatic tumors (neuroendocrine tumors [NETs], autoimmune pancreatitis [AIP], metastases). The purpose of this review is to outline the potential role of the CH-EUS in these indications.

CONTRAST HARMONIC ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS

Positive diagnosis

Pancreatic NETs (PNETs) represent between 5% and 10% of all pancreatic solid tumors. They are typically richly vascularized and have an early arterial enhancement in cross-sectional imaging. This behavior can be demonstrated in CH-EUS and enables a differential diagnosis with other pancreatic solid masses [Figure 1]. However, no study has specifically addressed PNETs up to now. In the study from Kitano et al.,[1] 95% of PNETs were iso/hyperenhanced (n = 18/19). In work from Gincul et al.,[2] 100% were iso/hyperenhanced (n = 10/10). In another work from Yamashita et al.,[3] 100% (n = 8/8) were iso/hyperenhanced at early arterial phase.
Figure 1

Typical benign G1 neuroendocrine tumor with early homogeneous strong hyperenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

Typical benign G1 neuroendocrine tumor with early homogeneous strong hyperenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

Prediction of malignancy

One study[4] assessed the value of Doppler-EUS sensitized with a second-generation ultrasound contrast agent injection in predicting malignancy of PNETs. Forty-one tumors were evaluated. Heterogeneity after injection of contrast had a diagnostic accuracy of 90.2% with a sensitivity of 90.5% and a specificity of 90%. A study submitted as an abstract at DDW 2015 assessing 92 PNETs had promising results with diagnostic values >90% for the prediction of malignancy in cases of a heterogeneous enhancement [Figures 2–4].
Figure 2

G1 malignant neuroendocrine tumor with heterogeneous enhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

Figure 4

G3 malignant neuroendocrine tumor with almost no enhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

G1 malignant neuroendocrine tumor with heterogeneous enhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection G2 malignant neuroendocrine tumor with heterogeneous enhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection G3 malignant neuroendocrine tumor with almost no enhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

Detection of small neuroendocrine tumors

There is currently no data to conclude about the potential diagnostic value of CH-EUS in detecting some small PNETs such as insulinomas in comparison to conventional EUS.

CONTRAST HARMONIC ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN AUTOIMMUNE PANCREATITIS

The differential diagnosis between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and pseudotumoral forms of pancreatitis such as AIP is difficult, the negativity of EUS fine needle aspiration does not rule out the malignancy with certainty because of insufficient negative predictive value. In two works,[23] AIP was iso/hyperenhanced in more than 90% of cases [Figure 5]. Two studies assessed[56] the use of a quantitative tool for analyzing the dynamic of enhancement to establish the differential diagnosis between AIP and pancreatic cancer. In the first, the intensity reduction rate at 1 min in comparison with the peak-intensity had the best diagnostic value, AIP having a significantly lower rate of reduction than pancreatic cancer. In the latter work, the maximum gain of intensity was significantly higher in AIP than in pancreatic cancer.
Figure 5

Typical mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis with homogeneous intense hyperenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

Typical mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis with homogeneous intense hyperenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

CONTRAST HARMONIC ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN PANCREATIC METASTASES

Only one study[7] specifically focused on the appearance of pancreatic metastases at CH-EUS. Of 11 lesions, 6 appeared hypoenhanced and 5 were iso/hyperenhanced depending on the origin of the primary tumor. In accordance with this study, in my experience, pancreatic metastases from adenocarcinoma (e.g., colon, breast) were hypoenhanced [Figure 6]. Metastases from renal cell carcinoma, lymphoma [Figures 7 and 8], and melanoma were iso/hyperenhanced. Notably, when lesions become larger, they tend to be heterogeneous with hypoenhanced areas.
Figure 6

Metastasis from colon cancer with hypoenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

Figure 7

Metastasis from renal cell cancer with slight hyperenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection

Figure 8

Metastasis from lymphoma with strong enhancement. Image 20 s after injection

Metastasis from colon cancer with hypoenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection Metastasis from renal cell cancer with slight hyperenhancement. (a) Image immediately after injection. (b) Image 20 s after injection Metastasis from lymphoma with strong enhancement. Image 20 s after injection

CONCLUSION

Data from the literature remain to this day weak to determine the role of the CH-EUS in the management of rare solid tumor of the pancreas (NETs, AIP, and metastases). Specific studies are expected to further clarify the impact of this procedure in this field.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
  7 in total

1.  Dynamic quantitative evaluation of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases.

Authors:  Hiroshi Matsubara; Akihiro Itoh; Hiroki Kawashima; Toshifumi Kasugai; Eizaburo Ohno; Takuya Ishikawa; Yuya Itoh; Yosuke Nakamura; Takeshi Hiramatsu; Masanao Nakamura; Ryoji Miyahara; Naoki Ohmiya; Masatoshi Ishigami; Yoshiaki Katano; Hidemi Goto; Yoshiki Hirooka
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.327

2.  Characterization of small solid tumors in the pancreas: the value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography.

Authors:  Masayuki Kitano; Masatoshi Kudo; Kenji Yamao; Tadayuki Takagi; Hiroki Sakamoto; Takamitsu Komaki; Ken Kamata; Hajime Imai; Yasutaka Chiba; Masahiro Okada; Takamichi Murakami; Yoshifumi Takeyama
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Usefulness of EUS combined with contrast-enhancement in the differential diagnosis of malignant versus benign and preoperative localization of pancreatic endocrine tumors.

Authors:  Takuya Ishikawa; Akihiro Itoh; Hiroki Kawashima; Eizaburo Ohno; Hiroshi Matsubara; Yuya Itoh; Yosuke Nakamura; Masanao Nakamura; Ryoji Miyahara; Kazuhiko Hayashi; Masatoshi Ishigami; Yoshiaki Katano; Naoki Ohmiya; Hidemi Goto; Yoshiki Hirooka
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Novel quantitative perfusion analysis with contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  Hiroo Imazu; Keisuke Kanazawa; Naoki Mori; Keiichi Ikeda; Hiroshi Kakutani; Kazuki Sumiyama; Shoryoku Hino; Tiing Leong Ang; Salem Omar; Hisao Tajiri
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  Contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in the characterization of pancreatic metastases (with video).

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Maria Cristina D'Ercole; Roberto De Giorgio; Marta Serrani; Giancarlo Caletti
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.327

6.  Contrast-harmonic endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a prospective multicenter trial.

Authors:  Rodica Gincul; Maxime Palazzo; Bertrand Pujol; Florence Tubach; Laurent Palazzo; Christine Lefort; Fabien Fumex; Alexandra Lombard; Daniel Ribeiro; Monique Fabre; Valerie Hervieu; Michel Labadie; Thierry Ponchon; Bertrand Napoléon
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Pancreatic Tumors.

Authors:  Yasunobu Yamashita; Jun Kato; Kazuki Ueda; Yasushi Nakamura; Yuki Kawaji; Hiroko Abe; Junya Nuta; Takashi Tamura; Masahiro Itonaga; Takeichi Yoshida; Hiroki Maeda; Takao Maekita; Mikitaka Iguchi; Hideyuki Tamai; Masao Ichinose
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 3.411

  7 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Tumors.

Authors:  Kensuke Yokoyama; Atsushi Kanno; Tetsurou Miwata; Hiroki Nagai; Eriko Ikeda; Kozue Ando; Yuki Kawasaki; Kiichi Tamada; Alan Kawarai Lefor; Hironori Yamamoto
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-25

Review 2.  Can endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy replace fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic and mediastinal diseases?

Authors:  Jintao Guo; Manoop S Bhutani; Marc Giovannini; Zhaoshen Li; Zhendong Jin; Aiming Yang; Guoqiang Xu; Guiqi Wang; Siyu Sun
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2017 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.628

3.  Pancreatic cystic neoplasms in 2018: The final cut.

Authors:  Gabriele Capurso; Giuseppe Vanella; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.628

Review 4.  Present status and perspectives of endosonography 2017 in gastroenterology.

Authors:  Michael Hocke; Barbara Braden; Christian Jenssen; Christoph F Dietrich
Journal:  Korean J Intern Med       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 2.884

5.  Clinical profile and treatment outcomes in autoimmune pancreatitis: a report from North India.

Authors:  Surinder S Rana; Rajesh Gupta; Ritambhra Nada; Pankaj Gupta; Rajinder Basher; Bhagwat R Mittal; Ravi Kumar Sharma; Amit Rawat
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-04-28

Review 6.  Resectable pancreatic solid lesions: Time to move from surgical diagnosis?

Authors:  Alberto Larghi; Mihai Rimbaş; Gianenrico Rizzatti; Giuseppe Quero; Antonio Gasbarrini; Guido Costamagna; Sergio Alfieri
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2020 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.628

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.