Literature DB >> 30377133

[Value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in pretest prediction and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma].

Liquan Wu1, Wen Guo1, Yue Li1, Tianming Cheng1, Yongli Yao1, Yali Zhang1, Bixuan Liu1, Muxiao Zhong1, Sinan Li1, Xiujin Deng1, Wei Zhu1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the predictive factors for differentiating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions and assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of PDAC.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients referred for EUS-FNA evaluation of pancreatic lesions in the Digestive Endoscopic Center of Nanfang Hospital between January, 2009 and May, 2016. The cases with unknown diagnosis, missing data, repeated punctures, cystic lesions and benign lesions were excluded from the analysis. The positivity rates of EUS-FNA were compared between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA were assessed in the diagnosis of PDAC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the factors for differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions based on the demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, laboratory data, and endoscopic ultrasonography imaging features of the patients.
RESULTS: Among the 75 patients with solid neoplastic pancreatic lesions, 54 (72.0%) were found to have PDAC and 21 (28.0%) had non-PDAC lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 77.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 63.6% and 84.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the positivity rate of EUS-FNA between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions (77.8% vs 76.2%, P > 0.05). Multivariate regression analysis identified abdominal pain (OR=5.163, 95%CI: 1.093-24.389, P=0.038), lesion size (OR=0.926, 95%CI: 0.877-0.978, P=0.006), characteristics of the solid lesions (OR=7.105, 95%CI: 1.440-35.043, P=0.016), and evidence of metastases (OR=6.165, 95%CI: 1.332-28.533, P=0.020) as the independent factors for predicting PDAC.
CONCLUSIONS: The pretest characteristics including abdominal pain, evidence of metastases, and lesion size and lesion characteristics defined by endoscopic ultrasonography findings can reliably predict a diagnosis of PDAC. EUS-FNA has a high sensitivity and a high specificity for the diagnosis of PDAC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  endoscopic ultrasonography; fine needle aspiration; neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; predictive diagnosis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30377133      PMCID: PMC6744051          DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4254.2018.10.04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao        ISSN: 1673-4254


  21 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ge Chen; Shanglong Liu; Yupei Zhao; Menghua Dai; Taiping Zhang
Journal:  Pancreatology       Date:  2013-02-10       Impact factor: 3.996

2.  Impact of avascular areas, as measured by contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS, on the accuracy of FNA for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Ken Kamata; Mamoru Takenaka; Shunsuke Omoto; Takeshi Miyata; Kosuke Minaga; Kentaro Yamao; Hajime Imai; Toshiharu Sakurai; Naoshi Nishida; Takaaki Chikugo; Yasutaka Chiba; Ippei Matsumoto; Yoshifumi Takeyama; Masatoshi Kudo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas-616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators.

Authors:  T A Sohn; C J Yeo; J L Cameron; L Koniaris; S Kaushal; R A Abrams; P K Sauter; J Coleman; R H Hruban; K D Lillemoe
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Pancreatic FNA in 1000 cases: a comparison of imaging modalities.

Authors:  Keith E Volmar; Robin T Vollmer; Paul S Jowell; Rendon C Nelson; H Bill Xie
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 5.  Environmental risk factors for pancreatic cancer: an update.

Authors:  Elisa Barone; Alda Corrado; Federica Gemignani; Stefano Landi
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 6.  Recent progress in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Christopher L Wolfgang; Joseph M Herman; Daniel A Laheru; Alison P Klein; Michael A Erdek; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions: a tertiary oncology center experience.

Authors:  Somashekar G Krishna; Feng Li; Abhik Bhattacharya; Harshad Ladha; Kyle Porter; Amanpal Singh; William A Ross; Manoop S Bhutani; Jeffrey H Lee
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Japan Pancreatic Cancer Registry; 30th year anniversary: Japan Pancreas Society.

Authors:  Shinichi Egawa; Hiroki Toma; Hiroaki Ohigashi; Takuji Okusaka; Akimasa Nakao; Takashi Hatori; Hiroyuki Maguchi; Akio Yanagisawa; Masao Tanaka
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.327

9.  Endosonography in solid and cystic pancreatic tumors.

Authors:  Somashekar G Krishna; Jeffrey H Lee
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-01

Review 10.  Pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Terumi Kamisawa; Laura D Wood; Takao Itoi; Kyoichi Takaori
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Early screening and diagnosis strategies of pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Jinshou Yang; Ruiyuan Xu; Chengcheng Wang; Jiangdong Qiu; Bo Ren; Lei You
Journal:  Cancer Commun (Lond)       Date:  2021-07-31
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.