2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.051
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contrast-enhanced EUS for differential diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
102
0
7

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
3
102
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Both techniques have an excellent accuracy, with a high sensitivity and low specificity reported in published meta-analyses [11][12][13][14][15]. RTE-EUS has a high sensitivity (95-100%) but a lower specificity varying widely (22-74%) [11][12][13].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Both techniques have an excellent accuracy, with a high sensitivity and low specificity reported in published meta-analyses [11][12][13][14][15]. RTE-EUS has a high sensitivity (95-100%) but a lower specificity varying widely (22-74%) [11][12][13].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Real-time elastographic EUS (RTE-EUS) and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) are two useful methods for the assessment of patients with focal pancreatic masses both reported to have a high sensitivity and specificity [11][12][13][14][15][16]. The high negative predictive value of the combination between elastography and contrast enhancement during EUS as reported [16] has raised hopes that these imaging methods might help the clinical decision making the process of differentiation between benign and malignant focal pancreatic masses, especially in patients with negative EUS-FNA samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12,13 Several other studies have recapitulated these findings. Gong et al 14 performed a large metaanalysis which also showed lesion hypoenhancement using CEH-EUS as a reliable means of differentiating pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a pooled sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 93%. [14][15][16] Most notably, Fusaroli et al 17 showed that hyperenhancement essentially excludes pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a specificity of 98%.…”
Section: Contrast-enhanced Harmonic Eusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gong et al 14 performed a large metaanalysis which also showed lesion hypoenhancement using CEH-EUS as a reliable means of differentiating pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a pooled sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 93%. [14][15][16] Most notably, Fusaroli et al 17 showed that hyperenhancement essentially excludes pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a specificity of 98%. CEH-EUS has also proven to be complementary to EUS-FNA, particularly if FNA is inconclusive; CEH-EUS has correctly diagnosed pancreatic adenocarcinoma in these instances to guide appropriate management.…”
Section: Contrast-enhanced Harmonic Eusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, CEUS seemed superior to CT scan in detecting lesions under 2 cm in diameter [98]. In total, a meta-analysis of both power Doppler and harmonic CEUS showed that hypoenhancement was associated with pooled sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 89% [99]. Qualitative interpretation can be subjective, however, and quantification of contrast uptake is expected to yield new information with improved accuracy.…”
Section: Contrast-enhanced Eusmentioning
confidence: 99%