Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

Accuracy of EUS and CEH EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumours

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v 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>

  • Nalezeny alternativní kódy

    RIV/61383082:_____/18:00000441

  • Výsledek na webu

    <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>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    Accuracy of EUS and CEH EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumours

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    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.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    Accuracy of EUS and CEH EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumours

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    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.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

  • CEP obor

  • OECD FORD obor

    30219 - Gastroenterology and hepatology

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2018

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

  • ISSN

    0036-5521

  • e-ISSN

  • Svazek periodika

    53

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    10-11

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

  • Počet stran výsledku

    7

  • Strana od-do

    1411-1417

  • Kód UT WoS článku

    000457980900040

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

    2-s2.0-85056195783