Cargando…

Discriminating chronic pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer: Contrast-enhanced EUS and multidetector computed tomography in direct comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and contrast-enhanced EUS to discriminate chronic pancreatitis (CP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 215 patients (age: 62 ± 15 years, sex: f/m 80/135) were inc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harmsen, Finn-Jörn, Domagk, Dirk, Dietrich, Christoph F., Hocke, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6289014/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30246709
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_24_18
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and contrast-enhanced EUS to discriminate chronic pancreatitis (CP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 215 patients (age: 62 ± 15 years, sex: f/m 80/135) were included in this retrospective study. All patients were examined by conventional endoscopic B-mode and contrast-enhanced high mechanical index EUS (CEHMI-EUS). CELMI-EUS was performed in 159 patients and endoscopic sonoelastography (ESE) in 210 patients. MDCT was carried out in 131 patients as part of their clinical work-up. Radiological reports were retrospectively analyzed. Final diagnosis was achieved by biopsy and evaluation of cytological specimens collected was performed by EUS-FNA, surgery, or follow-up of 12 months or more in patients with benign findings. In a subgroup of 100 patients, all diagnostic five methods were performed, and head-to-head analysis was performed. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for MDCT were 89% and 70% and for CEHMI-EUS were 96% and 91%, respectively. Sensitivities and specificities for EUS were 92% and 63% for B-Mode EUS, 96% and 38% for ESE, and 82% and 76% for CELMI-EUS, respectively. In the head-to-head analysis, each modality had shown lower numbers for specificity than shown in the overall group analysis because of high drop-out rate. EUS-FNA for PDAC had a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced EUS is a reliable tool in discriminating PDAC from CP.