4.4 Article

A Prospective Study on Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound for Differential Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 64, Issue 12, Pages 3616-3622

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05718-z

Keywords

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography; Endoscopic ultrasonography; Pancreatic neoplasms; diagnostic imaging; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims To determine the value of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CE-EUS) for differentiation of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs). Methods From April 2015 to December 2017, 82 patients were enrolled in this study. All patients were confirmed to have PCNs by surgical pathology. Prior to surgery, all patients underwent fundamental B-mode EUS (FB-EUS) and CE-EUS, 65 of whom underwent computed tomography (CT) and 71 of whom underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The enhanced mode data of PCNs were recorded. The diagnostic accuracy of CE-EUS in classifying PCNs was compared with that of CT, MRI and FB-EUS. The ability of CE-EUS to identify PCNs was evaluated by comparing the enhanced mode of PCNs. Results There was a significant difference between benign and malignant lesions in enhanced mode (P = 0.017). The enhanced modes of benign lesions were mostly type II and type III, while those of malignant lesions were type 0, type I, and type IV. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of type 0, type I, and type IV enhanced mode as the diagnostic criterion for malignant lesions were 80%, 65.3%, and 67.1%, respectively. CE-EUS demonstrated greater accuracy in identifying PCNs than did CT, MRI, and FB-EUS (CE-EUS vs. CT: 92.3% vs. 76.9%; CE-EUS vs. MRI: 93.0% vs. 78.9%; CE-EUS vs. FB-EUS: 92.7% vs. 84.2%). Conclusion Compared with CT, MRI, and FB-EUS, CE-EUS is better at differentiating PCNs. CE-EUS is expected to be another important imaging technique for the diagnosis of PCNs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available