Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 6

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography Strain Histograms in the Evaluation of Patients with Pancreatic Masses

Sayfa
519–525
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Higher sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were obtained by using the SR.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background: The Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) quantitative elastography strain ratio (SR) and strain histogram (SH) methods for noninvasive pancreatic masses differentiation have been recently developed.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: This is a prospective study involving 100 cases with pancreatic masses.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Higher sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were obtained by using the SR.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background: The Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) quantitative elastography strain ratio (SR) and strain histogram (SH) methods for noninvasive pancreatic masses differentiation have been recently developed. The aim of this research was to investigate the accuracy of the diagnostic differentiation methods for patients with pancreatic masses, based on the EUS SR and SH. Methods: This is a prospective study involving 100 cases with pancreatic masses. Patients were classified into 2 groups: group that was diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy with positive histopathology by biopsy obtained by fine-needle aspiration or postoperative pathology (72 patients) and the group diagnosed with pancreatitis with negative pathology and follow-up for at least 1 year (28 patients). Results: Based on the ROC curve, the cut-off point for Mode 1 was set at 97. Values under it showed the presence of malignant pancreatic masses. Mode 1 achieved a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 43% with an overall accuracy of 76%. The predictive positive value was 70%, and the predictive negative value was 60%. The cut-off point for SR was set at 3.04, and the values were equal or above the suggested pancreatic malignancy. The SR achieved a sensitivity of 95.83%, a specificity of 61%, with an overall accuracy of 86%. The predictive positive and negative values were 86.2% and 85%, respectively. Conclusion: Mode 1 SH showed good sensitivity in the identification of pancreatic malignant tumors but were disappointingly of low specificity. Higher sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were obtained by using the SR.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

OKASHA, H. H., EL-AMİN, H., SAYED, Z. E., MAGHRABY, A. A. E. (2021). Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography Strain Histograms in the Evaluation of Patients with Pancreatic Masses. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 6, 519–525. https://ajindex.com/articles/408849

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Dumonceau JM, Polkowski M, Larghi A, et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy. 2011
  2. 43(10):897-912. [CrossRef] 2. Seicean A. Endoscopic ultrasound in chronic pancreatitis: where are we now? World J Gastroenterol. 2010
  3. 16(34):4253-4263. [CrossRef] 3. Giovannini M, Hookey LC, Bories E et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: the first step towards virtual biopsy? Preliminary results in 49 patients. Endoscopy. 2006
  4. 38(4):344-348. [CrossRef] 4. Nemakayala D, Patel P, Rahimi E, Fallon MB, Thosani N. Use of quantitative endoscopic ultrasound elastography for diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endosc Ultrasound. 2016
  5. 5(5):342-345. [CrossRef] 5. Shiina T. JSUM ultrasound elastography practice guidelines: basics and terminology. J Med Ultrason. 2013
  6. 40(4):309-323. [CrossRef] 6. Dietrich CF, Bibby E, Jenssen C et al. EUS elastography: how to do it? Endosc Ultrasound. 2018
  7. 7(1):20-28. [CrossRef] 7. Iglesias-García J, Lariño-Noia J, Domínguez-Muñoz JE. New imaging techniques: endoscopic ultrasound-guided elastography. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017
  8. 27(4):551-567. [CrossRef] 8. DeWitt J, McGreevy K, Sherman S, LeBlanc J. Utility of a repeated EUS at a tertiary-referral center. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008
  9. 67(4):610- 619. [CrossRef] 9. Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM. Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006
  10. 63(4):622-629. [CrossRef] 10. Okasha H., Elkholy S, El-Sayed R et.al. Real time endoscopic ultrasound elastography and strain ratio in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. World J Gastroenterol. 2017
  11. 23(32):5962-5968. [CrossRef] 11. Kongkam P, Lakananurak N, Navicharern P et.al. Combination of EUS-FNA and elastography (strain ratio) to exclude malignant solid pancreatic lesions: a prospective single-blinded study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015
  12. 30(11):1683-1689. [CrossRef] 12. Mei M, Ni J, Liu D, Jin P, Sun L. EUS elastography for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013
  13. 77(4):578-589. [CrossRef] 13. Rahimi E, Younes M, Zhang S, Zhang N, Thosani N. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography to diagnose sarcoidosis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2016
  14. 5(3):212-214. [CrossRef] 14. Soares JB, Iglesias-Garcia J, Goncalves B et al. Interobserver agreement of EU