4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Pancreatic cyst fluid glucose: rapid, inexpensive, and accurate diagnosis of mucinous pancreatic cysts

期刊

SURGERY
卷 163, 期 3, 页码 600-605

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.09.051

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The most widely accepted biochemical test for preoperative differentiation of mucinous from benign, nonmucinous pancreatic cysts is cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen. However, the diagnostic accuracy of carcinoembryonic antigen ranges from 70% to 86%. Based on previous work, we hypothesize that pancreatic cyst fluid glucose may be an attractive alternative to carcinoembryonic antigen. Methods. Pancreatic cyst fluid was collected during endoscopic or operative intervention. Diagnoses were pathologically confirmed. Glucose and carcinoembryonic antigen were measured using a patient glucometer and automated analyzer/enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and receiver operator characteristic analyses were performed. Results. Cyst fluid samples from 153 patients were evaluated (mucinous: 25 mucinous cystic neoplasms, 77 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, 4 ductal adenocarcinomas; nonmucinous: 21 serous cystic neoplasms, 9 cystic neuroendocrine tumors, 14 pseudocysts, 3 solid pseudopapillary neoplasms). Median cyst fluid glucose was lower in mucinous versus nonmucinous cysts (19 vs 96 mg/dL; P<.0001). With a threshold of 50 mg/dL, cyst fluid glucose was 92% sensitive, 87% specific, and 90% accurate in diagnosing mucinous pancreatic cysts. In comparison, cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen with a threshold of >192 ng/mL was 58% sensitive, 96% specific, and 69% accurate. Area under the curve for glucose and CEA were similar at 0.91 and 0.92. Conclusion. Cyst fluid glucose has significant advantages over carcinoembryonic antigen and should be considered for use as a routine diagnostic test for pancreatic mucinous cysts. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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