...
首页> 外文期刊>European journal of gastroenterology and hepatology >The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound vs. contrast-enhanced computed tomography in local staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a bi-national multicenter study
【24h】

The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound vs. contrast-enhanced computed tomography in local staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a bi-national multicenter study

机译:超声内窥镜与造影剂增强计算机断层扫描在胰腺癌局部分期中的诊断准确性:一项两国多中心研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Identification of pancreatic cancer (PC) local invasion is crucial to optimize patients’ selection for surgery. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in local staging of PC. We performed a multicenter study including all patients with PC who underwent surgery. One hundred twelve patients were included. Surgical findings of peri-pancreatic lymph nodes (LN), vascular and adjacent organ involvement were seen in 67 (59.8%), 33 (29.5%) and 19 patients (17%), respectively. The diagnostic performance of EUS was better than CECT in peri-pancreatic LN. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) of CECT vs. EUS were 28.4%, 80%, 67.9% and 42.9% vs. 70.2%, 75.6%, 81% and 63%, respectively. For vascular and adjacent organ involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 45.5%, 93.7%, 75%, 80.4% and 31.6%, 89.2%, 37.5% and 86.5% for CECT, respectively, vs. 63.6%, 93.7%, 80.8%, 86.1% and 36.8%, 94.6%, 58.3% and 88% for EUS, respectively. Combining both CECT and EUS, the sensitivity for peri-pancreatic LN, vascular and adjacent organ involvement improved (76.1%, 78.8% and 42%), respectively. EUS was superior to CECT in local staging. Combined EUS and CECT had a higher sensitivity than either alone.
机译:胰腺癌 (PC) 局部浸润的鉴定对于优化患者手术选择至关重要。确定造影剂增强计算机断层扫描 (CECT) 和超声内窥镜 (EUS) 在 PC 局部分期中的诊断准确性。我们进行了一项多中心研究,包括所有接受手术的PC患者。共纳入112例患者。胰周淋巴结(LN)、血管和邻近器官受累的手术表现分别为67例(59.8%)、33例(29.5%)和19例(17%)。EUS在胰周LN中的诊断性能优于CECT。CECT与EUS的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)分别为28.4%、80%、67.9%和42.9%,而分别为70.2%、75.6%、81%和63%。对于血管和邻近器官受累,CECT的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为45.5%、93.7%、75%、80.4%和31.6%、89.2%、37.5%和86.5%,而EUS的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为63.6%、93.7%、80.8%、86.1%和36.8%、94.6%、58.3%和88%。结合 CECT 和 EUS,胰周 LN、血管和邻近器官受累的敏感性分别提高 (76.1%、78.8% 和 42%)。EUS在局部分期方面优于CECT。EUS 和 CECT 联合使用比单独使用任何一种都具有更高的敏感性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号