Binglan Zhang1, Fuping Zhu2, Pan Li1, Shishi Yu1, Yajing Zhao3, Minmin Li4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. 2. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Ninth People's Hospital of Chongqing, Chongqing, 400700, China. 3. Department of Sonography, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. 4. Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. Electronic address: lmmlqklmm@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a novel non-invasive technique that can be used for distinguishing benign from malignant pancreatic masses. However, the studies have reported widely varied sensitivities and specificities. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the performance of EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic masses. METHODS: All the eligible studies were searched by PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to examine the accuracy. RESULTS: A total of nineteen studies which included 1687 patients were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant pancreatic masses were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.99) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.58-0.69) for qualitative EUS elastography, 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The positive and negative LR were 2.60 (95% CI 1.84-3.66) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.10) for qualitative EUS elastography, 2.64 (95% CI 1.82-3.82) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.06-0.16) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the AUC were 60.59 (95% CI 28.12-130.56) and 0.91 (Q* = 0.842) for qualitative EUS elastography, 30.09 (95% CI 15.40-58.76) and 0.93 (Q* = 0.860) for quantitative EUS elastography. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that both qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography have high accuracy in the detection of malignant pancreatic masses, which could be used as a valuable complementary method to EUS-FNA for the differentiation of pancreatic masses in the future.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a novel non-invasive technique that can be used for distinguishing benign from malignant pancreatic masses. However, the studies have reported widely varied sensitivities and specificities. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the performance of EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic masses. METHODS: All the eligible studies were searched by PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to examine the accuracy. RESULTS: A total of nineteen studies which included 1687 patients were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant pancreatic masses were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.99) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.58-0.69) for qualitative EUS elastography, 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The positive and negative LR were 2.60 (95% CI 1.84-3.66) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.10) for qualitative EUS elastography, 2.64 (95% CI 1.82-3.82) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.06-0.16) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the AUC were 60.59 (95% CI 28.12-130.56) and 0.91 (Q* = 0.842) for qualitative EUS elastography, 30.09 (95% CI 15.40-58.76) and 0.93 (Q* = 0.860) for quantitative EUS elastography. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that both qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography have high accuracy in the detection of malignant pancreatic masses, which could be used as a valuable complementary method to EUS-FNA for the differentiation of pancreatic masses in the future.
Authors: Marcel Gheorghiu; Zeno Sparchez; Ioana Rusu; Sorana D Bolboacă; Radu Seicean; Cristina Pojoga; Andrada Seicean Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mădălin Ionuţ Costache; Irina M Cazacu; Christoph F Dietrich; Maria Chiara Petrone; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Marc Giovannini; Erwan Bories; Julio Iglesias Garcia; Sun Siyu; Erwin Santo; Carmen Florina Popescu; Alina Constantin; Manoop S Bhutani; Adrian Saftoiu Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2020 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Sean Burmeister; Stephan Hollerbach; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Barbara Braden; Pietro Fusaroli; Michael Hocke; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Masayuki Kitano; Alberto Larghi; Bertrand Napoleon; Kofi W Oppong; Mihai Rimbas; Adrian Saftoiu; Anand V Sahai; Siyu Sun; Yi Dong; Silvia Carrara; Joo Ha Hwang; Christian Jenssen Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2020 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.628