4.7 Article

EUS elastography combined with the strain ratio of tissue elasticity for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 843-853

出版社

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-011-0399-5

关键词

Endoscopic ultrasound; Elastography; Pancreatic cancer

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23590416] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recently, the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography has been reported for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. In the present study, we retrospectively assessed EUS elastography as a diagnostic tool by evaluating tissue elasticity distribution and elasticity semiquantification, using the strain ratio (SR) of tissue elasticity, in patients with pancreatic masses. Methods One hundred and nine patients who underwent EUS elastography between September 2006 and May 2009 were retrospectively evaluated. The final diagnosis was chronic pancreatitis (CP) in 20 patients [6 with non-mass-forming pancreatitis, 7 with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP), and 7 with autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP)], pancreatic cancer (PC) in 72, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET) in 9, and normal pancreas in 8. The tissue elasticity distribution calculation was performed in real time, and the results were represented in color in fundamental B-mode imaging. In addition, we performed quantification using the SR (non-mass area/mass area). Results Elastography for all PC patients showed intense blue coloration, indicating malignant lesions. In contrast, MFP presented with a mixed coloration pattern of green, yellow, and low-intensity blue. Normal controls showed an even distribution of green to red. The mean SR was 23.66 +/- A 12.65 for MFP and 39.08 +/- A 20.54 for PC (P < 0.05). Conclusions Endoscopic ultrasound elastography is a promising diagnostic tool for defining the tissue characteristics of pancreatic masses. In addition, semiquantitative analysis of elasticity using the SR may allow the differentiation of MFP from PC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据