Quantitative contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS in differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos)
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Quantitative contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS in differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos). / Săftoiu, Adrian; Vilmann, Peter; Dietrich, Christoph F; Iglesias-Garcia, Julio; Hocke, Michael; Seicean, Andrada; Ignee, Andre; Hassan, Hazem; Streba, Costin Teodor; Ioncică, Ana Maria; Gheonea, Dan Ionuţ; Ciurea, Tudorel.
In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 82, No. 1, 07.2015, p. 59-69.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Quantitative contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS in differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos)
AU - Săftoiu, Adrian
AU - Vilmann, Peter
AU - Dietrich, Christoph F
AU - Iglesias-Garcia, Julio
AU - Hocke, Michael
AU - Seicean, Andrada
AU - Ignee, Andre
AU - Hassan, Hazem
AU - Streba, Costin Teodor
AU - Ioncică, Ana Maria
AU - Gheonea, Dan Ionuţ
AU - Ciurea, Tudorel
N1 - Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/7
Y1 - 2015/7
N2 - BACKGROUND: The role of EUS with contrast agents can be expanded through the use of time-intensity curve (TIC) analysis and computer-aided interpretation.OBJECTIVE: To validate the use of parameters derived from TIC analysis in an artificial neural network (ANN) classification model designed to diagnose pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP).SETTING: Prospective, multicenter, observational trial-endoscopy units from Romania, Denmark, Germany, and Spain.PATIENTS: A total of 167 consecutive patients with PC or CP.INTERVENTIONS: Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), TIC analysis, and ANN processing.MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for EUS-FNA, CEH-EUS, and the ANN.RESULTS: After excluding all of the recordings that did not meet the technical and procedural criteria, 112 cases of PC and 55 cases of CP were included. EUS-FNA was performed in 129 patients, and the diagnosis was confirmed by surgery (n = 15) or follow-up (n = 23) in the remaining cases. Its sensitivity and specificity were 84.82% and 100%, respectively, whereas the PPV and NPV were 100% and 76.63%, respectively. The sensitivity of real-time quantitative assessment of CEH-EUS was 87.5%, specificity 92.72%, PPV 96.07%, and NPV 78.46%. Peak enhancement, wash-in area under the curve, wash-in rate, and the wash-in perfusion index were significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were found between rise time, mean transit time, and time to peak. For the ANN, sensitivity was 94.64%, specificity 94.44%, PPV 97.24%, and NPV 89.47%.LIMITATIONS: Only PC and CP lesions were included.CONCLUSION: Parameters obtained through TIC analysis can differentiate between PC and CP cases and can be used in an automated computer-aided diagnostic system with good diagnostic results. (CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01315548.).
AB - BACKGROUND: The role of EUS with contrast agents can be expanded through the use of time-intensity curve (TIC) analysis and computer-aided interpretation.OBJECTIVE: To validate the use of parameters derived from TIC analysis in an artificial neural network (ANN) classification model designed to diagnose pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP).SETTING: Prospective, multicenter, observational trial-endoscopy units from Romania, Denmark, Germany, and Spain.PATIENTS: A total of 167 consecutive patients with PC or CP.INTERVENTIONS: Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) and EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), TIC analysis, and ANN processing.MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for EUS-FNA, CEH-EUS, and the ANN.RESULTS: After excluding all of the recordings that did not meet the technical and procedural criteria, 112 cases of PC and 55 cases of CP were included. EUS-FNA was performed in 129 patients, and the diagnosis was confirmed by surgery (n = 15) or follow-up (n = 23) in the remaining cases. Its sensitivity and specificity were 84.82% and 100%, respectively, whereas the PPV and NPV were 100% and 76.63%, respectively. The sensitivity of real-time quantitative assessment of CEH-EUS was 87.5%, specificity 92.72%, PPV 96.07%, and NPV 78.46%. Peak enhancement, wash-in area under the curve, wash-in rate, and the wash-in perfusion index were significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were found between rise time, mean transit time, and time to peak. For the ANN, sensitivity was 94.64%, specificity 94.44%, PPV 97.24%, and NPV 89.47%.LIMITATIONS: Only PC and CP lesions were included.CONCLUSION: Parameters obtained through TIC analysis can differentiate between PC and CP cases and can be used in an automated computer-aided diagnostic system with good diagnostic results. (CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01315548.).
KW - Adenocarcinoma
KW - Adult
KW - Aged
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Contrast Media
KW - Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted
KW - Diagnosis, Differential
KW - Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
KW - Endosonography
KW - Female
KW - Follow-Up Studies
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Neural Networks (Computer)
KW - Pancreatic Neoplasms
KW - Pancreatitis, Chronic
KW - Prospective Studies
KW - Sensitivity and Specificity
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.040
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.040
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 25792386
VL - 82
SP - 59
EP - 69
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
SN - 0016-5107
IS - 1
ER -
ID: 161858152