Cargando…

The diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography for pancreatic carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic carcinoma is a highly fatal disease, and early diagnosis is of vital importance. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) against contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for pancreatic carcinoma, using pat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yan, Xiaoyi, Lv, Ke, Xiao, Mengsu, Tan, Li, Gui, Yang, Zhang, Jing, Chen, Xueqi, Jia, Wanying, Li, Jinglin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9641093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36388042
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr-22-601
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pancreatic carcinoma is a highly fatal disease, and early diagnosis is of vital importance. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) against contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for pancreatic carcinoma, using pathological results or alternative imaging modality as the gold standard. METHODS: A thorough search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Two investigators selected the studies and extracted the data independently. A bivariate mixed-effects regression model was used to calculate the pooled data. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to explore the causes of heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 1,227 records were identified, of which 7 articles with 588 patients were assessed for eligibility. The overall sensitivity, specificity of CEUS and CECT with their 95% confidential intervals (95% CI) were 0.91 (0.85–0.94) and 0.88 (0.81–0.92), 0.83 (0.70–0.91) and 0.87 (0.73–0.94), respectively. The area under curve (AUC) of CEUS and CECT were 0.94 and 0.93. Subgroup analysis showed CEUS may be good at diagnosing lesions with diameters less than 2 cm. Tumor features, region and study type were the main causes of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS has a satisfying diagnostic performance for pancreatic carcinoma and it has high sensitivity for small pancreatic carcinomas (≤2 cm); besides, it performs well in discriminating pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, CEUS can be a useful supplement to CECT.