Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) Elastography And Contrast Enhanced Eus For Discrimination Of Pancreatic Masses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Taleb ◽  
A Abd El-Rahim ◽  
A Abdel-Fattah ◽  
N Zayed ◽  
M Ibrahim
2012 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. AB205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Ionut Gheonea ◽  
Costin T. Streba ◽  
Ana Maria Ioncica ◽  
Tudorel Ciurea ◽  
Adrian Saftoiu

2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. AB442
Author(s):  
Andrada Seicean ◽  
A.N.C.A. Moldovan-Pop ◽  
Adrian Saftoiu ◽  
Costin T. Streba ◽  
Simona Vultur ◽  
...  

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 888
Author(s):  
Masahiro Itonaga ◽  
Reiko Ashida ◽  
Masayuki Kitano

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, lymph nodes, and liver lesions, inadequate sampling may result in an incorrect pathological diagnosis. The accuracy of EUS for the evaluation of pancreatobiliary lesions may be increased by image enhancement technologies, including contrast-enhanced harmonic (CH)-EUS and EUS-elastography. These methods can provide information that complement EUS-FNA for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatobiliary cancer, and can help to identify the EUS-FNA target, reducing the requirement for repeat FNA.


Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 792
Author(s):  
Antonio Facciorusso ◽  
Christian Cotsoglou ◽  
Andrea Chierici ◽  
Ruxandra Mare ◽  
Stefano Francesco Crinò ◽  
...  

Background: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008–2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (p = 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (p = 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (p = 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. Conclusions: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.


Pancreatology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. e35 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Iglesias-Garcia ◽  
B. Lindkvist ◽  
J.B. Cruz-Soares ◽  
L.M. Lopes ◽  
C. Marra-Lopez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document