Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography for Differential Diagnosis of Pancreatic Masses: A Meta-Analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Distinguishing malignant from benign pancreatic tumors is challenging with current imaging techniques. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography has further improved the efficacy of EUS for characterizing pancreatic lesions.

Aims

To assess, by combining data from existing trials, the accuracy of EUS elastography in diagnosing malignant tumors for patients with pancreatic masses.

Methods

All relevant studies published were identified by systematic searching of databases. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to combine study results.

Results

Seven studies involving 752 patients were included. The sensitivity of EUS elastography for differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses was 97 % (95 % CI, 0.95–0.98), and the specificity was 76 % (95 % CI, 0.69–0.82). The area under the curve under summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.9529. The combined positive likelihood ratio was 3.71 (95 % CI, 2.72–5.07), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95 % CI, 0.02–0.13).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis shows that EUS elastography is a useful tool for differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms with very high sensitivity and relatively low specificity. The results indicate that EUS elastography not only provides information complementary to that from EUS but also potentially increases the yield of fine needle aspiration and reduces the number of unnecessary biopsies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eloubeidi MA, Varadarajulu S, Desai S, et al. A prospective evaluation of an algorithm incorporating routine preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in suspected pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:813–819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Soriano A, Castells A, Ayuso C, et al. Preoperative staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer: prospective study comparing endoscopic ultrasonography, helical computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:492–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Agarwal B, Abu-Hamda E, Molke KL, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and multidetector spiral CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:844–850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Giovannini M. The place of endoscopic ultrasound in bilio-pancreatic pathology. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2010;34:436–445.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Frey H. Real-time elastography. A new ultrasound procedure for the reconstruction of tissue elasticity. Radiologe. 2003;43:850–855.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Săftoiu A, Vilmann P. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography—a new imaging technique for the visualization of tissue elasticity distribution. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2006;15:161–165.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Frey H. Realtime elastography. A new ultrasound procedure for the reconstruction of tissue elasticity. Radiologe. 2003;43:850–855.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Giovannini M, Hookey L, Bories E, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: the first step towards virtual biopsy? Preliminary results in 49 patients. Endoscopy. 2006;38:344–348.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Giovannini M, Botelberge T, Bories E, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of lymph nodes and pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:1587–1593.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I, et al. EUS elastography for the characterization of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1101–1108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I, et al. Quantitative endoscopic ultrasound elastography: an accurate method for the differentiation of solid pancreatic masses. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:1172–1180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Săftoiu A, Iordache S, Gheonea DI, et al. Combined contrast-enhanced power Doppler and real-time sonoelastography performed during EUS, used in the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:739–747.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Săftoiu A, Vilmann P, Gorunescu F, et al. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound elastography used for differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2011;43(7):596–603.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Itokawa F, Itoi T, Sofuni A, et al. EUS elastography combined with the strain ratio of tissue elasticity for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:843–853.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hocke M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Advanced endosonographic diagnostic tools for discrimination of focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma–elastography, contrast enhanced high mechanical index (CEHMI) and low mechanical index (CELMI) endosonography in direct comparison. Z Gastroenterol. 2012;50:199–203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–1558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–1316.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002;21:1525–1537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Conde-Agudelo A, Romero R. Cervicovaginal fetal fibronectin for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth in multiple pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23:1365–1376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–1101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006;25:3443–3457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, et al. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging. 1991;13:111–134.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Janssen J, Schlorer E, Greiner L. EUS elastography of the pancreas: feasibility and pattern description of the normal pancreas, chronic pancreatitis, and focal pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:971–978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Săftoiu A. State-of-the-art imaging techniques in endoscopic ultrasound. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:691–696.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Natural Sciences Foundation of China (30972921).

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Rui Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Duan-min Hu, Ting-ting Gong & Qi Zhu

  2. Department of gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of SuZhou University, SuZhou, 215004, JiangSu Province, China

    Duan-min Hu

Authors
  1. Duan-min Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting-ting Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qi Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qi Zhu.

Additional information

Duan-min Hu and Ting-ting Gong contributed equally to this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 105 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hu, Dm., Gong, Tt. & Zhu, Q. Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography for Differential Diagnosis of Pancreatic Masses: A Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci 58, 1125–1131 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-012-2428-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-012-2428-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation