Tianli Du1, Katherine A Bill2, Jennifer Ford3, Mohammed Barawi4, Richard D Hayward3, Amer Alame3, Richard N Berri5. 1. St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Detroit, MI, USA. Electronic address: tianlidu@gmail.com. 2. School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. 3. St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Detroit, MI, USA. 4. St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Detroit, MI, USA. 5. St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in United States. We compared Computed Tomography (CT) with pancreas protocol and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in terms of mass detection, mass size, vascular involvement and lymph node involvement. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 93 patients. Concordance between CT and EUS, and accuracy of CT and EUS were assessed using a retrospective chart review and statistical analysis. RESULTS: CT and EUS agreed on mass detection in 88% of the cases and mass size in 67% of the cases. They agreed in 74% of cases about the presence or absence of vascular involvement and 82% in lymph node involvement. Cohen's kappa indicated that the concordance between two tests was moderately reliable. CONCLUSION: CT and EUS agree moderately well in identifying characteristics of pancreatic masses, but discrepancies between the two modalities are common, particularly with respect to involvement of specific blood vessels and lymph nodes. Clinicians should use caution in relying on a single modality to make decisions.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in United States. We compared Computed Tomography (CT) with pancreas protocol and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in terms of mass detection, mass size, vascular involvement and lymph node involvement. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 93 patients. Concordance between CT and EUS, and accuracy of CT and EUS were assessed using a retrospective chart review and statistical analysis. RESULTS: CT and EUS agreed on mass detection in 88% of the cases and mass size in 67% of the cases. They agreed in 74% of cases about the presence or absence of vascular involvement and 82% in lymph node involvement. Cohen's kappa indicated that the concordance between two tests was moderately reliable. CONCLUSION: CT and EUS agree moderately well in identifying characteristics of pancreatic masses, but discrepancies between the two modalities are common, particularly with respect to involvement of specific blood vessels and lymph nodes. Clinicians should use caution in relying on a single modality to make decisions.
Authors: Florian N Loch; Oliver Klein; Katharina Beyer; Frederick Klauschen; Christian Schineis; Johannes C Lauscher; Georgios A Margonis; Claudius E Degro; Wael Rayya; Carsten Kamphues Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Florian N Loch; Patrick Asbach; Matthias Haas; Hendrik Seeliger; Katharina Beyer; Christian Schineis; Claudius E Degro; Georgios A Margonis; Martin E Kreis; Carsten Kamphues Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: C Mattevi; J Garnier; U Marchese; J Ewald; M Gilabert; F Poizat; G Piana; J R Delpero; O Turrini Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 2.102