Accuracy of EUS and CEH EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumours
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F18%3A10382178" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/18:10382178 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/61383082:_____/18:00000441
Result on the web
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2018.1524023" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2018.1524023</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2018.1524023" target="_blank" >10.1080/00365521.2018.1524023</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Accuracy of EUS and CEH EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumours
Original language description
Objectives: The main objective is to compare the accuracy of EUS and CEH EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC). The secondary objective is to evaluate the accuracy of EUS FNA and to determine to what extent EUS and CEH EUS findings are affected by endosonographer subjectivity. Methods: A prospective single-centre study was conducted in patients with pancreatic lesions detected on CT. The patients were examined by EUS, CEH EUS and EUS FNA. The obtained results were compared with the final diagnosis that was based on cytology and further clinical findings and on histopathological findings from subjects who underwent surgery. A second reading of the EUS and CEH EUS images was performed by the endosonographer, who was blinded to clinical data of patients. Results: We examined 116 patients, 73 had a final diagnosis of PC, 14 had NETs and 20 had other tumours. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy of EUS for diagnosis of PC were 83.1, 62.5, 83.1, 70.7 and 78.6%, for CEH EUS 94.5, 61.7, 84.1, 84 and 84.1% and for EUS FNA 87.6, 91.2, 95.5, 77.5 and 88.8, respectively. The inter-observer agreement for EUS marker of PC was good (κ = 0.75), and that for CEH EUS was average (κ = 0.59 for arterial phase and κ = 0.68 for washout in venous phase). Conclusion: CEH EUS is a non-invasive method that allows more accurate identification of PC than EUS. The subjectivity of CEH EUS evaluation is worse than that of EUS but acceptable.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30219 - Gastroenterology and hepatology
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju
Others
Publication year
2018
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
ISSN
0036-5521
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
53
Issue of the periodical within the volume
10-11
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
7
Pages from-to
1411-1417
UT code for WoS article
000457980900040
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85056195783