Literature DB >> 33964311

Pancreatic cyst fluid glucose in differentiating mucinous from nonmucinous pancreatic cysts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thomas R McCarty1, Rajat Garg2, Tarun Rustagi3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recently, low levels of intracystic glucose acquired with EUS-guided pancreatic cyst fluid sampling have been shown to help to differentiate mucinous from nonmucinous cystic neoplasms. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of pancreatic cyst fluid glucose compared with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for pancreatic cystic lesions.
METHODS: Individualized searches were developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines and meta-analysis analyzed according to Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy working group methodology. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristics curve for intracystic glucose or CEA alone or combination testing.
RESULTS: Eight studies (609 lesions; mean patient age, 63.56 ± 2.75 years; 60.36% women) were included. The pooled sensitivity for pancreatic cyst fluid glucose was significantly higher compared with CEA alone (91% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 88-94; I2 = .00] vs 56% [95% CI, 46-66; I2 = 537.14]; P < .001) with no difference in specificity (86% [95% CI, 81-90; I2 = 24.16] vs 96% [95% CI, 90-99; I2 = 38.06]; P > .05). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher for pancreatic cyst fluid glucose versus CEA alone (94% [95% CI, 91-96] vs 85% [95% CI, 82-88]; P < .001). Combination testing with pancreatic cyst fluid glucose and CEA did not improve the diagnostic accuracy compared with glucose alone (97% [95% CI, 95-98] vs 94% [95% CI, 91-96]; P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Low pancreatic cyst fluid glucose was associated with a high sensitivity and specificity with significantly improved diagnostic accuracy compared with CEA alone for the diagnosis of mucinous versus nonmucinous pancreatic cystic lesions.
Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33964311     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.04.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  6 in total

Review 1.  [Diagnostics and clinical management of premalignant diseases of the pancreas].

Authors:  S M Buchholz; C Ammer-Herrmenau; V Ellenrieder; A Neesse
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  State-of-the-art surgical treatment of IPMNs.

Authors:  Roberto Salvia; Anna Burelli; Giampaolo Perri; Giovanni Marchegiani
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 3.  Recent advances in the diagnostic evaluation of pancreatic cystic lesions.

Authors:  Devarshi R Ardeshna; Troy Cao; Brandon Rodgers; Chidiebere Onongaya; Dan Jones; Wei Chen; Eugene J Koay; Somashekar G Krishna
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 5.374

4.  The clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration on the patients with low-risk pancreatic cystic lesions.

Authors:  Shubo Pan; Jie Liu; Jiefang Guo; Qilin Zhu; Liangjing Wang; Xiaohua Shi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 5.  Advances in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions.

Authors:  Claudia Irina Pușcașu; Mihai Rimbaş; Radu Bogdan Mateescu; Alberto Larghi; Victor Cauni
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-22

6.  Exosomal glypican-1 is elevated in pancreatic cancer precursors and can signal genetic predisposition in the absence of endoscopic ultrasound abnormalities.

Authors:  Pedro Moutinho-Ribeiro; Ines A Batista; Sofia T Quintas; Bárbara Adem; Marco Silva; Rui Morais; Armando Peixoto; Rosa Coelho; Pedro Costa-Moreira; Renato Medas; Susana Lopes; Filipe Vilas-Boas; Manuela Baptista; Diogo Dias-Silva; Ana L Esteves; Filipa Martins; Joanne Lopes; Helena Barroca; Fátima Carneiro; Guilherme Macedo; Sonia A Melo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 5.374

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.