Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative EUS elastography for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses: A prospective, single-center study

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volumn 76, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 953-961

  Dawwas, Muhammad F ^a   Taha, Hatim ^a   Leeds, John S ^a   Nayar, Manu K ^a   Oppong, Kofi W ^a  

^a FREEMAN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; CANCER PATIENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELASTICITY; ELASTOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPE; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND ELASTOGRAPHY; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METASTASIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PANCREAS CARCINOMA; PANCREATIC MASS; PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMOR; PANCREATITIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOLID TUMOR; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CARCINOMA; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; ECHOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROENDOCRINE TUMOR; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PANCREAS TUMOR; PATHOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; CARCINOMA; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; ELASTICITY IMAGING TECHNIQUES; ENDOSONOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; PANCREATITIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; ROC CURVE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 84877070112     PISSN: 00165107     EISSN: 10976779     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.034     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Cancer Research UK 2011. Available at: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/ cancerstats/types/pancreas/mortality/. Accessed 14/12/2011.
2. Kohler BA, Ward E, McCarthy BJ, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2007, featuring tumors of the brain and other nervous system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:714-36.
3. Li D, Xie K, Wolff R, et al. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 2004;363:1049-57. (Pubitemid 38410779)
4. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, v.1.2012. National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2011. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2011.
5. Al-Haddad M, DeWitt J. EUS in pancreatic tumors. In: Hawes RH, Fockens P, editors. Endosonography: expert consult, 2nd ed. Philadelphia (Pa): WB Saunders; 2011. p. 148-65.
6. Arcidiacono PG, Carrara S. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the role of endoscopic ultrasonography. In: Dietrich CF, editor. Endoscopic ultrasound: an introductory manual and atlas, 2nd ed. New York (NY): Thieme Medical Publishers; 2011. p. 196-207.
7. Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD, et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:283-90.
8. Hartwig W, Schneider L, Diener MK, et al. Preoperative tissue diagnosis for tumours of the pancreas. Br J Surg 2009;96:5-20.
9. Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:319-31.
10. Brand B, Pfaff T, Binmoeller KF, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound for differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic lesions, confirmed by surgery. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000;35:1221-8.
11. Fritscher-Ravens A, Brand L, Knofel WT, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for focal pancreatic lesions in patients with normal parenchyma and chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:2768-75. (Pubitemid 35265427)
12. Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:728-36. (Pubitemid 41503000)
13. Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, Campos AD, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound and fine needle aspiration in chronic pancreatitis: differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and pancreatic cancer. JOP 2007;8:413-21.
14. Sãftoiu A, Vilmann P, Gorunescu F, et al. Neural network analysis of dynamic sequences of EUS elastography used for the differential diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:1086-94.
15. Havre H, Ødegaard S, Gilja OH, et al. Endoscopic elastography of pancreatic disease. 12th World Congress of the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, August 30-September 3, 2009, Sydney, Australia.
16. Mayerle J, Simon P, Dickson EJ, et al. The role of EUS-guided elastography to diagnose solid pancreatic mass lesions [abstract]. Pancreas 2010;39:1334.
17. Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I, et al. Quantitative endoscopic ultrasound elastography: an accurate method for the differentiation of solid pancreatic masses. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1172-80.
18. Giovannini M. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography. Pancreatology 2011;11(Suppl 2):34-9.
19. Itokawa F, Itoi T, Sofuni A, et al. EUS elastography combined with the strain ratio of tissue elasticity for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol 2011;46:843-53.
20. Surapaneni SN, Maloy M, Linsteadt J, et al. Does real time endoscopic ultrasound elastography (EUS-E) predict pancreatic cancer? [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73(4 Suppl):AB328.
21. Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Dominguez-Munoz E. What is the best method to quantify tissue stiffness by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography: strain ratio or hue histogram analysis? [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 2011;140:S764.
22. Lariño-Noia J, Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE. Quantitative endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography: hue-histogram vs strain ratio for the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Euro-EUS 2011, Marseille, France, May 26-27.
23. Sãftoiu A, Vilmann P, Gorunescu F, et al. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound elastography used for differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. Endoscopy 2011;43:596-603.
24. Sãftoiu A, Vilmann P, Gorunescu F, et al. Efficacy of an artificial neural network-based approach to endoscopic ultrasound elastography in diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:84-90.e1.
25. Giovannini M, Hookey LC, Bories E, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: the first step towards virtual biopsy? Preliminary results in 49 patients. Endoscopy 2006;38:344-8.
26. Janssen J, Schlorer E, Greiner L.EUSelastography of the pancreas: feasibility and pattern description of the normal pancreas, chronic pancreatitis, and focal pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:971-8. (Pubitemid 46770745)
27. Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I, et al. EUS elastography for the characterization of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1101-8.
28. Giovannini M, Thomas B, Erwan B, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of lymph nodes and pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:1587-93.
29. Hocke M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Advanced endosonographic diagnostic tools for discrimination of focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma-elastography, contrast enhanced high mechanical index (CEHMI) and low mechanical index (CELMI) endosonography in direct comparison. Z Gastroenterol 2012;50:199-203.
30. Hirche TO, Ignee A, Barreiros AP, et al. Indications and limitations of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of focal pancreatic lesions. Endoscopy 2008;40:910-7.
31. Hiraoka N, Ino Y, Sekine S, et al. Tumour necrosis is a postoperative prognostic marker for pancreatic cancer patients with a high interobserver reproducibility in histological evaluation. Br J Cancer 2010;103:1057-65.
32. Hattori Y, Gabata T, Zen Y, et al. Poorly enhanced areas of pancreatic adenocarcinomas on late-phase dynamic computed tomography: comparison with pathological findings. Pancreas 2010;39:1263-70.
33. Dietrich CF, Hirche TO, Ott M, et al. Real-time tissue elastography in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2009;41:718-20.
34. Ciurea AI, Bolboaca SD, Ciortea CA, et al. The influence of technical factors on sonoelastographic assessment of solid breast nodules. Ultraschall Med 2011;32(Suppl 1):S27-34.
35. Havre RF, Waage JR, Gilja OH, et al. Real-time elastography: strain ratio measurements are influenced by the position of the reference area. Ultraschall Med. Epub 2011 Jun 10.
36. Yoon JH, Kim MH, Kim EK, et al. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography: how it affects the diagnosis of breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:730-6.
37. Larsen MH, Fristrup CW, Pless T, et al. Interobserver agreement of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic sonoelastography in the evaluation of lymph nodes. Euro EUS 2010, May 30-31st.
38. Sãftoiu A, Iordache SA, Gheonea DI, et al. Combined contrast-enhanced power Doppler and real-time sonoelastography performed during EUS, used in the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:739-47.
39. Giovannini M. The place of endoscopic ultrasound in bilio-pancreatic pathology. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2010;34:436-45.
40. Xu W, Shi J, Zeng X, et al. EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1001-9.