Clinical impact of strain histogram EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS for the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses: A prospective multicentric study.
Chronic pseudotumoral pancreatitis
EUS
contrast-enhanced harmonic imaging
pancreatic adenocarcinoma
pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
strain histogram elastography
Journal
Endoscopic ultrasound
ISSN: 2303-9027
Titre abrégé: Endosc Ultrasound
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101622292
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
17
4
2020
pubmed:
17
4
2020
medline:
17
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent advances in EUS techniques (real-time EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS) have allowed a better characterization of focal pancreatic masses. Mean strain histograms (SHs) are considered a good parameter for the semi-quantitative evaluation of focal pancreatic masses, alongside complementary contrast-enhanced EUS parameters which can be quantified during both the early arterial and late venous phase. The study design was prospective, blinded, and multicentric, assessing real-time EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS results for the characterization of focal pancreatic masses using parametric measurements, in comparison with pathology which is the gold standard. SHs were performed based on the embedded software of the ultrasound system, with the values being reversed as opposed to our initially published data on hue histograms. Consequently, a cutoff of 80 was derived from previous multicentric trials. Contrast-enhanced EUS also allowed the focal masses to be classified as hyper-, iso-, or hypoenhanced in comparison with the normal pancreatic parenchyma. EUS-FNA was then performed for all patients, with a positive cytological diagnosis taken as a final proof of malignancy for the pancreatic masses. The diagnoses obtained by EUS-FNA were verified further either by surgery or during a clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. A total number of 97 consecutive patients with focal pancreatic masses were included in the study. Based on previously defined cutoffs of 80, the values of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the mean SHs for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 100%, 29.63%, 78.65%, 100%, and 80.41%, respectively. Corresponding values for contrast-enhanced EUS (taking into consideration hypoenhencement as a predictive factor of malignancy) were 98.57%, 77.78%, 92%, 95.45%, and 92.78%, respectively. Combining contrast enhancement-EUS (hypoenhencement) and semi-quantitative EUS elastography (SH cutoffs <80), the resulting values corresponding for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 98.57%, 81.48%, and 93.81%, respectively. The current study using objective parametric tools for both EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS confirmed the results of previous studies and meta-analyses that indicated a complementary role for the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses. Moreover, the best values for the receiver operating curves were obtained using a sequential clinical algorithm based on the initial use of elastography, followed by contrast enhancement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recent advances in EUS techniques (real-time EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS) have allowed a better characterization of focal pancreatic masses. Mean strain histograms (SHs) are considered a good parameter for the semi-quantitative evaluation of focal pancreatic masses, alongside complementary contrast-enhanced EUS parameters which can be quantified during both the early arterial and late venous phase.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The study design was prospective, blinded, and multicentric, assessing real-time EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS results for the characterization of focal pancreatic masses using parametric measurements, in comparison with pathology which is the gold standard. SHs were performed based on the embedded software of the ultrasound system, with the values being reversed as opposed to our initially published data on hue histograms. Consequently, a cutoff of 80 was derived from previous multicentric trials. Contrast-enhanced EUS also allowed the focal masses to be classified as hyper-, iso-, or hypoenhanced in comparison with the normal pancreatic parenchyma. EUS-FNA was then performed for all patients, with a positive cytological diagnosis taken as a final proof of malignancy for the pancreatic masses. The diagnoses obtained by EUS-FNA were verified further either by surgery or during a clinical follow-up of at least 6 months.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total number of 97 consecutive patients with focal pancreatic masses were included in the study. Based on previously defined cutoffs of 80, the values of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the mean SHs for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 100%, 29.63%, 78.65%, 100%, and 80.41%, respectively. Corresponding values for contrast-enhanced EUS (taking into consideration hypoenhencement as a predictive factor of malignancy) were 98.57%, 77.78%, 92%, 95.45%, and 92.78%, respectively. Combining contrast enhancement-EUS (hypoenhencement) and semi-quantitative EUS elastography (SH cutoffs <80), the resulting values corresponding for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 98.57%, 81.48%, and 93.81%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The current study using objective parametric tools for both EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS confirmed the results of previous studies and meta-analyses that indicated a complementary role for the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses. Moreover, the best values for the receiver operating curves were obtained using a sequential clinical algorithm based on the initial use of elastography, followed by contrast enhancement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32295969
pii: EndoscUltrasound_2020_9_2_116_282537
doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_69_19
pmc: PMC7279079
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
116-121Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Jan-Feb;7(1):20-28
pubmed: 29451165
Endoscopy. 2018 Nov;50(11):1071-1079
pubmed: 29689572
Ultraschall Med. 2012 Aug;33(4):344-51
pubmed: 22843433
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jan 7;17(1):42-8
pubmed: 21218082
Endosc Ultrasound. 2017 Jan-Feb;6(1):12-20
pubmed: 28218195
Korean J Intern Med. 2018 Jan;33(1):36-63
pubmed: 29161800
Endosc Ultrasound. 2013 Apr;2(2):77-85
pubmed: 24949369
Endosc Ultrasound. 2012 Oct;1(3):150-5
pubmed: 24949353
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Dec 21;21(47):13212-24
pubmed: 26715804
Eur J Cancer. 2013 Apr;49(6):1374-403
pubmed: 23485231
Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 May-Jun;7(3):196-203
pubmed: 28836516
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Dec;84(6):933-940
pubmed: 27155592
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75(2):319-31
pubmed: 22248600
Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Mar-Apr;7(2):119-127
pubmed: 28721972
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jul;78(1):188-9
pubmed: 23820413
Ultrasound Int Open. 2017 Sep;3(4):E137-E149
pubmed: 29226273
Pancreatology. 2018 Oct;18(7):833-840
pubmed: 30093353
Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 May-Jun;7(3):141-160
pubmed: 29941723
Endosc Ultrasound. 2017 Dec;6(Suppl 3):S111-S114
pubmed: 29387705
Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Apr;58(4):1125-31
pubmed: 23306838
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Sep;28(9):1434-43
pubmed: 23731128
Med Ultrason. 2017 Apr 22;19(2):150-158
pubmed: 28440348
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Apr;77(4):578-89
pubmed: 23199646
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec;70(6):1101-8
pubmed: 19647248
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 14;23(30):5567-5578
pubmed: 28852316
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Jan-Feb;65(1):5-29
pubmed: 25559415