Somashekar G Krishna1,2, Bhavana B Rao3, Emmanuel Ugbarugba4, Zarine K Shah5, Alecia Blaszczak6, Alice Hinton7, Darwin L Conwell8, Phil A Hart8. 1. Section of Advanced Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. sgkrishna@gmail.com. 2. Section of Pancreatic Disorders, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. sgkrishna@gmail.com. 3. Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 6. The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. 7. Division of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 8. Section of Pancreatic Disorders, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis in part due to delayed diagnosis. Even with advances in cross-sectional imaging, small pancreatic malignancies can be missed. We sought to determine the performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in those without an obvious mass on multi-detector CT scan (MDCT), but with clinical suspicion for pancreatic malignancy. METHODS: Multiple databases were systematically searched to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic performance of EUS after negative or inconclusive pancreatic protocol MDCT for detection of pancreatic malignancy when clinically suspected. A total of four studies met the inclusion criteria. The point estimates in each study were compared to the summary pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity with the aid of forest plots. Funnel plots and Egger's test were employed to evaluate possible publication bias. RESULTS: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration was performed in all studies. EUS was performed in 206 subjects with a clinical suspicion of a pancreatic mass but with an indeterminate MDCT. A pancreatic mass (mean size 21 ± 1.2 mm) was identified in 70% (n = 144) of the subjects, and 42.2% (n = 87) were diagnosed with PDAC. The pooled estimates of EUS for diagnosing pancreatic malignancy in the setting of an indeterminate MDCT were a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 69-94%), specificity of 58% (95% CI 40-74%), positive predictive value of 77% (69-84%), negative predictive value of 66% (95% CI 53-77%), and an accuracy of 75% (95% CI 67-82). The summary area under the ROC curve was 0.80 (95% CI 0.52-0.89). The funnel plots and Egger's test did not show a significant publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of EUS is comparatively higher for the diagnosis of a pancreatic malignancy in patients with suspected cancer, but a non-diagnostic MDCT. Importantly, the majority of the lesions missed on CT represent PDAC, in which early diagnosis is essential.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis in part due to delayed diagnosis. Even with advances in cross-sectional imaging, small pancreatic malignancies can be missed. We sought to determine the performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in those without an obvious mass on multi-detector CT scan (MDCT), but with clinical suspicion for pancreatic malignancy. METHODS: Multiple databases were systematically searched to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic performance of EUS after negative or inconclusive pancreatic protocol MDCT for detection of pancreatic malignancy when clinically suspected. A total of four studies met the inclusion criteria. The point estimates in each study were compared to the summary pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity with the aid of forest plots. Funnel plots and Egger's test were employed to evaluate possible publication bias. RESULTS: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration was performed in all studies. EUS was performed in 206 subjects with a clinical suspicion of a pancreatic mass but with an indeterminate MDCT. A pancreatic mass (mean size 21 ± 1.2 mm) was identified in 70% (n = 144) of the subjects, and 42.2% (n = 87) were diagnosed with PDAC. The pooled estimates of EUS for diagnosing pancreatic malignancy in the setting of an indeterminate MDCT were a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 69-94%), specificity of 58% (95% CI 40-74%), positive predictive value of 77% (69-84%), negative predictive value of 66% (95% CI 53-77%), and an accuracy of 75% (95% CI 67-82). The summary area under the ROC curve was 0.80 (95% CI 0.52-0.89). The funnel plots and Egger's test did not show a significant publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of EUS is comparatively higher for the diagnosis of a pancreatic malignancy in patients with suspected cancer, but a non-diagnostic MDCT. Importantly, the majority of the lesions missed on CT represent PDAC, in which early diagnosis is essential.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endoscopic ultrasound; Fine needle aspiration; Multidetector CT Scan; Pancreas; Pancreatic cancer
Authors: Marcia Irene Canto; Ralph H Hruban; Elliot K Fishman; Ihab R Kamel; Richard Schulick; Zhe Zhang; Mark Topazian; Naoki Takahashi; Joel Fletcher; Gloria Petersen; Alison P Klein; Jennifer Axilbund; Constance Griffin; Sapna Syngal; John R Saltzman; Koenraad J Mortele; Jeffrey Lee; Eric Tamm; Raghunandan Vikram; Priya Bhosale; Daniel Margolis; James Farrell; Michael Goggins Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Eva B Deerenberg; Jan-Werner Poley; John J Hermans; Sjam Ganesh; Erwin van der Harst; Casper H J van Eijck Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Eric P Tamm; Evelyne M Loyer; Silvana C Faria; Douglas B Evans; Robert A Wolff; Chusilp Charnsangavej Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2007 Sep-Oct
Authors: John DeWitt; Benedict Devereaux; Melissa Chriswell; Kathleen McGreevy; Thomas Howard; Thomas F Imperiale; Donato Ciaccia; Kathleen A Lane; Dean Maglinte; Kenyon Kopecky; Julia LeBlanc; Lee McHenry; James Madura; Alex Aisen; Harvey Cramer; Oscar Cummings; Stuart Sherman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Toshiya Abe; Chiho Koi; Shiro Kohi; Ki-Byung Song; Koji Tamura; Anne Macgregor-Das; Naoki Kitaoka; Miguel Chuidian; Madeline Ford; Mohamad Dbouk; Michael Borges; Jin He; Richard Burkhart; Christopher L Wolfgang; Alison P Klein; James R Eshleman; Ralph H Hruban; Marcia Irene Canto; Michael Goggins Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Aaron J Grossberg; Linda C Chu; Christopher R Deig; Eliot K Fishman; William L Hwang; Anirban Maitra; Daniel L Marks; Arnav Mehta; Nima Nabavizadeh; Diane M Simeone; Colin D Weekes; Charles R Thomas Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-07-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: E Martin-Perez; J E Domínguez-Muñoz; F Botella-Romero; L Cerezo; F Matute Teresa; T Serrano; R Vera Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Yasunobu Yamashita; Toshio Shimokawa; Reiko Ashida; Bertrand Napoléon; Andrea Lisotti; Pietro Fusaroli; Rodica Gincul; Christoph F Dietrich; Shunsuke Omoto; Masayuki Kitano Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-02-25