• Users Online:440
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
COMMENTARY
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 9  |  Page : 106-110

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of small focal solid pancreatic lesions: A must!


1 Medical Department, Caritas Krankenhaus, Uhlandstr. 7, D-97980 Bad Mergentheim, 23560 Luebeck, Germany; Ultrasound Department, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan province, China, Germany
2 Medical Department I, Sana Hospital Luebeck, Kronsforder Allee 71-73, 23560 Luebeck, Germany

Date of Submission12-Jul-2017
Date of Acceptance31-Aug-2017
Date of Web Publication29-Dec-2017

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Christoph F Dietrich
Medical Department, Caritas Krankenhaus, Uhlandstr. 7, D-97980 Bad Mergentheim
Germany
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_73_17

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Dietrich CF, Burmester E. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of small focal solid pancreatic lesions: A must!. Endosc Ultrasound 2017;6, Suppl S3:106-10

How to cite this URL:
Dietrich CF, Burmester E. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of small focal solid pancreatic lesions: A must!. Endosc Ultrasound [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 Jan 28];6, Suppl S3:106-10. Available from: http://www.eusjournal.com/text.asp?2017/6/9/106/221942




  Introduction of Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound Top


The general use of contrast agents (if not contraindicated) is obvious and has never been questioned performing computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).[1],[2] Why should this not be true for ultrasound to analyze vascularity and perfusion and thereby the etiology of pancreatic lesions? The introduction of ultrasound contrast agents has strengthened the value of ultrasound.[3],[4],[5],[6] In 2003, contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CE-EUS) was introduced for the first time.[7],[8] CE-EUS combines the advantage of high-resolution ultrasound of internal organs with the administration of ultrasound contrast agents.[7],[9] In the following years, CE-EUS has been mainly established in the differential diagnosis of solid and cystic pancreatic lesions,[5],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18] epithelial and submucosal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract,[19],[20] lymph nodes,[21],[22],[23],[24],[25] and less common applications including the biliary tract [26] and vascular indications.[27],[28],[29] As has been shown in several studies including a recently published multicenter trial with more than 1000 patients (Pancreatic Multicenter Ultrasound Study), CE-US and CE-EUS improve the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound techniques for characterization of focal pancreatic lesions.[30],[31],[32],[33],[34]


  Early Detection of Small Solid Pancreatic Lesions (SPLs) Top


Preoperative diagnosis of T1 carcinoma (<20 mm) is important for improved survival.[35] Independently of etiology, most small SPLs are detected incidentally in asymptomatic patients.[36] In large cohorts of SPL, lesions other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have rarely been reported (5%–11%).[37],[38] In most patients (up to 95%), PDAC is diagnosed late with locally advanced or metastatic disease [39],[40] with a low overall 5-year survival rate <5%.[41],[42] Due to the fact that the prevalence of both pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and metastases is reported to be only approximately 3%, most guidelines do not recommend to exclude other pathologies than PDAC before surgery.[34]

EUS is the method of choice to exclude pancreatic neoplasia and to detect and characterize small SPL.[6],[30],[31],[33],[34],[43],[44],[45],[46] Several studies have shown superiority of EUS in detection and characterization of PDAC.[34],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52] This has been strengthened by the inclusion of EUS in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.[53] The role of conventional imaging methods, e.g., CT and MRI in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses, was reported to be disappointing.[42],[54],[55] CT is the most used technique for diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.[42],[43],[53],[54],[56] However, detection of SPL <20 mm is difficult using CT [51],[57],[58] and CT does not reliably allow differential diagnosis.[34],[36],[59]

The value of CE-EUS has been proven in a recently published (SPATEUS) study with data of 394 patients (median age: 61 years; range: 18–100 years; 158 males and 236 females) with small SPL ≤15 mm and a definite histological or cytological diagnosis. The inclusion criteria for this retrospective study analysis were small SPL ≤15 mm, which have been detected in asymptomatic patients with a final diagnosis based on histology or cytology obtained by imaging-guided biopsy and/or surgery.[34] Of 394 patients with small SPLs, 146 (37%) were finally diagnosed as PDAC (median age: 66 years; range: 31–100 years; 55 males and 91 females). All but one patient were operated. In the whole population of small SPL, the PDAC prevalence was 146/394 (37%). In the subgroup of SPL, measuring exactly 15 mm (n = 83), 51 lesions proved to be PDAC (62%). In contrast, only 95 of 311 SPLs <15 mm (31%) were diagnosed to be PDAC (P< 0.01). Approximately 60% of small SPLs were finally diagnosed with lesions other than PDAC, which is important to know before radical surgery.[34] In a small subgroup of patients (n = 38), we were able to evaluate the contrast behavior of PDAC and neuroendocrine tumor (NET) with CT in comparison with CE-EUS. Noteworthy, in 37% of patients, CT was not able to detect an SPL. This might be due to the very small diameter of these lesions (median 8 mm), which however had been described and characterized before by EUS and CE-EUS only. According to the small number of patients in this subgroup and the retrospective design of the study, this observed suboptimal consistency between CT and CE-EUS enhancement patterns must be interpreted with caution. Moreover, contrast enhancement patterns with CT might have been influenced by sequelae of the previously performed biopsy (e.g., hemorrhage).

In addition, a meta-analysis has proved the high accuracy of CE-US and CE-EUS to discriminate between PDAC and other SPL with a high accuracy of nearly 90%, concluding that CE-US and CE-EUS should be used as first-line methods for characterizing neoplastic pancreatic lesions.[60]


  The Problems of Early Detection Top


In patients with solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), a diameter of ≥15 mm is predictive of PDAC and in lesions >25 mm in more than 90% of patients PDAC. A lesion size <15 mm is predictive for etiologies other than PDAC.[34],[58] Therefore, there is a need for differential diagnosis of small SPL. CE-EUS has proven to differentiate PDAC from other SPL by analyzing the enhancement pattern.[30],[33],[34],[44],[61] PDAC is typically hypovascular and, therefore, hypoenhancing in all phases because of the low mean vascular density.[6],[30],[31] The presence of intratumoral fibrosis and necrosis is typical for the highly aggressive types with reduced microvascular density and perfusion.[34],[62] In the SPATEUS study population, 92% of PDAC ≤15 mm were hypoenhancing with CE-EUS.[34]

Most other differential diagnoses of SPL such as NETs,[34],[44] solid serous microcystic neoplasia with only microscopically detectable cysts mimicking solid lesions, metastases (e.g., of renal cell cancer), lymphoma, mesenchymal tumors, pancreatic neoplasia of other origin, and intrapancreatic accessory spleens usually present as iso- or hyper-enhancing masses compared to the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma [Figure 1].[6],[30],[31],[32],[33]
Figure 1: Diagnostic algorithm in small pancreatic lesions. CE-EUS: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound, EUS-FNA: endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration, PDAC: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, NET: neuroendocrine tumor, CT: Computed tomography, MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging

Click here to view



  Summary Top


CE-EUS is mandatory for differential diagnosis of SPL. In principle, all SPLs are presumed to be PDAC if not otherwise proven and therefore radical surgery is recommended by guidelines [55],[63],[64],[65] without biopsy and therefore, without prior histological or cytological verification unless contraindications are present or a strong suspicion of a specific diagnosis other than PDAC is raised due to patients history or ambiguous imaging results.[34],[55] According to more recent studies, all hyperenhancing SPLs are biopsied because they are often of different etiology implying different management of patients.[6],[34] EUS-FNA currently may be regarded the “gold standard” of the final diagnosis in small hypervascular SPL.[11],[12],[13],[34],[52],[58],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73]



 
  References Top

1.
Chiorean L, Tana C, Braden B, et al. Advantages and limitations of focal liver lesion assessment with ultrasound contrast agents: Comments on the European federation of societies for ultrasound in medicine and biology (EFSUMB) guidelines. Med Princ Pract 2016;25:399-407.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Chiorean L, Cantisani V, Jenssen C, et al. Focal masses in a non-cirrhotic liver: The additional benefit of CEUS over baseline imaging. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:1636-43.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – Update 2012: A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013;39:187-210.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – Update 2012: A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:11-29.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas JM, et al. An EFSUMB introduction into dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:344-51.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:33-59.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Frey H. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound with low mechanical index: A new technique. Z Gastroenterol 2005;43:1219-23.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Dietrich CF. Contrast-enhanced low mechanical index endoscopic ultrasound (CELMI-EUS). Endoscopy 2009;41 Suppl 2:E43-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Fusaroli P, Saftoiu A, Dietrich CF. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound: Why do we need it? A foreword. Endosc Ultrasound 2016;5:349-50.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Fusaroli P, Jenssen C, Hocke M, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), Part V – EUS-guided therapeutic interventions (short version). Ultraschall Med 2016;37:412-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Jenssen C, Hocke M, Fusaroli P, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling (Short version). Ultraschall Med 2016;37:157-69.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Jenssen C, Hocke M, Fusaroli P, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling (Long version). Ultraschall Med 2016;37:E33-76.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Hocke M, Dietrich CF. New technology – Combined use of 3D contrast enhanced endoscopic ultrasound techniques. Ultraschall Med 2011;32:317-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hocke M, Dietrich CF. Vascularisation pattern of chronic pancreatitis compared with pancreatic carcinoma: Results from contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound. Int J Inflam 2012;2012:420787.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Hocke M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2011;43:163-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hocke M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2011;43 Suppl 2 UCTN:E381-2.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
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.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Dietrich CF, Dong Y, Froehlich E, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound: A quantification method. Endosc Ultrasound 2017;6:12-20.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Ignee A, Jenssen C, Hocke M, et al. Contrast-enhanced (endoscopic) ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound elastography in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Endosc Ultrasound 2017;6:55-60.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Dietrich CF, Jenssen C, Hocke M, et al. Imaging of gastrointestinal stromal tumours with modern ultrasound techniques – A pictorial essay. Z Gastroenterol 2012;50:457-67.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Dietrich CF. Contrast-enhanced endobronchial ultrasound: Potential value of a new method. Endosc Ultrasound 2017;6:43-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Fusaroli P, Napoleon B, Gincul R, et al. The clinical impact of ultrasound contrast agents in EUS: A systematic review according to the levels of evidence. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:587-96.e10.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ignee A, Atkinson NS, Schuessler G, et al. Ultrasound contrast agents. Endosc Ultrasound 2016;5:355-62.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Chiorean L, Cui XW, Klein SA, et al. Clinical value of imaging for lymph nodes evaluation with particular emphasis on ultrasonography. Z Gastroenterol 2016;54:774-90.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Chiorean L, Barr RG, Braden B, et al. Transcutaneous ultrasound: Elastographic lymph node Evaluation. Current Clinical Applications and Literature Review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016;42:16-30.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Cui XW, Ignee A, Braden B, et al. Biliary papillomatosis and new ultrasound imaging modalities. Z Gastroenterol 2012;50:226-31.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Dietrich CF. EFSUMB guidelines 2015 on interventional ultrasound. Med Ultrason 2015;17:521-7.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Jenssen C, Brkljacic B, Hocke M, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), Part VI – Ultrasound-guided vascular interventions. Ultraschall Med 2016;37:473-6.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Dietrich CF, Horn R, Morf S, et al. US-guided peripheral vascular interventions, comments on the EFSUMB guidelines. Med Ultrason 2016;18:231-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Dietrich CF, Braden B, Hocke M, et al. Improved characterisation of solitary solid pancreatic tumours using contrast enhanced transabdominal ultrasound. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2008;134:635-43.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Braden B, et al. Improved differentiation of pancreatic tumors using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:590-7.e1.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Hocke M, Cui XW, Domagk D, et al. Pancreatic cystic lesions: The value of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound to influence the clinical pathway. Endosc Ultrasound 2014;3:123-30.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
D'Onofrio M, Barbi E, Dietrich CF, et al. Pancreatic multicenter ultrasound study (PAMUS). Eur J Radiol 2012;81:630-8.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Dietrich CF, Sahai AV, D'Onofrio M, et al. Differential diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:933-40.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Ishikawa O, Ohigashi H, Imaoka S, et al. Minute carcinoma of the pancreas measuring 1 cm or less in diameter – Collective review of Japanese case reports. Hepatogastroenterology 1999;46:8-15.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Yasuda I, Iwashita T, Doi S, et al. Role of EUS in the early detection of small pancreatic cancer. Dig Endosc 2011;23 Suppl 1:22-5.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
van Heerde MJ, Biermann K, Zondervan PE, et al. Prevalence of autoimmune pancreatitis and other benign disorders in pancreatoduodenectomy for presumed malignancy of the pancreatic head. Dig Dis Sci 2012;57:2458-65.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Haba S, Yamao K, Bhatia V, et al. Diagnostic ability and factors affecting accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid lesions: Japanese large single center experience. J Gastroenterol 2013;48:973-81.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359-86.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Yu J, Blackford AL, Dal Molin M, et al. Time to progression of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from low-to-high tumour stages. Gut 2015;64:1783-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
D'Onofrio M, Zamboni GA, Malagò R, et al. Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Is the enhancement pattern at contrast-enhanced ultrasonography a pre-operative prognostic factor? Ultrasound Med Biol 2009;35:1929-37.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Network NCC. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Onkology (NCCN Guidelines): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma; 2015. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. [Last accessed on 2017 Jul 29].  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Eloubeidi MA, Decker GA, Chandrasekhara V, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of patients with solid pancreatic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:17-28.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Braden B, Jenssen C, D'Onofrio M, et al. B-mode and contrast-enhancement characteristics of small nonincidental neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors. Endosc Ultrasound 2017;6:49-54.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Fusaroli P, Kypreos D, Alma Petrini CA, et al. Scientific publications in endoscopic ultrasonography: Changing trends in the third millennium. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011;45:400-4.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Mancino MG, et al. Interobserver agreement in contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:1063-9.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Müller MF, Meyenberger C, Bertschinger P, et al. Pancreatic tumors: Evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology 1994;190:745-51.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Goel M, et al. Multimodality imaging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A review of the literature. HPB (Oxford) 2012;14:658-68.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
DeWitt J, Devereaux B, Chriswell M, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and multidetector computed tomography for detecting and staging pancreatic cancer. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:753-63.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Dewitt J, Devereaux BM, Lehman GA, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer: A systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:717-25.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
D'Onofrio M, Crosara S, Signorini M, et al. Comparison between CT and CEUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:377-81.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
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;99:844-50.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Scialpi M, Cagini L, Pierotti L, et al. Detection of small (≤2 cm) pancreatic adenocarcinoma and surrounding parenchyma: Correlations between enhancement patterns at triphasic MDCT and histologic features. BMC Gastroenterol 2014;14:16.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Network NCC, editor. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Neuroendocrine Tumors; 2015. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. [Last accessed on 2017 Jul 29].  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Asbun HJ, Conlon K, Fernandez-Cruz L, et al. When to perform a pancreatoduodenectomy in the absence of positive histology? A consensus statement by the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Surgery 2014;155:887-92.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Lee ES, Lee JM. Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: A state-of-the-art review. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:7864-77.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Khashab MA, Yong E, Lennon AM, et al. EUS is still superior to multidetector computerized tomography for detection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:691-6.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Wang W, Shpaner A, Krishna SG, et al. Use of EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic neoplasm without a definitive mass on CT. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:73-80.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Aso A, Ihara E, Osoegawa T, et al. Key endoscopic ultrasound features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma smaller than 20 mm. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014;49:332-8.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
D'Onofrio M, Biagioli E, Gerardi C, et al. Diagnostic performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound (ECEUS) for the differentiation of pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultraschall Med 2014;35:515-21.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Braden B, et al. Improved differentiation of pancreatic tumors using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:590-7.e1.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Dietrich CF, Hocke M, Gallotti A, et al. Solid pancreatic tumors. In: D'Onofrio M, editor. Ultrasonography of the Pancreas. Italia: Springer-Verlag; 2012. p. 95-112.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Seufferlein T, Bachet JB, Van Cutsem E, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: ESMO-ESDO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2012;23 Suppl 7:vii33-40.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Seufferlein T, Porzner M, Becker T, et al. S3-guideline exocrine pancreatic cancer. Z Gastroenterol 2013;51:1395-440.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Tempero MA, Arnoletti JP, Behrman S, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:972-1017.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Katanuma A, Maguchi H, Yane K, et al. Factors predictive of adverse events associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions. Dig Dis Sci 2013;58:2093-9.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:319-31.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Chen G, Liu S, Zhao Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2013;13:298-304.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Chen J, Yang R, Lu Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: A systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012;138:1433-41.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL, et al. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass?: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas 2013;42:20-6.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Wang KX, Ben QW, Jin ZD, et al. Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-guided FNA: A systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:283-90.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Jenssen C, Alvarez-Sánchez MV, Napoléon B, et al. Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:4659-76.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Dietrich CF, Fusaroli P, Jenssen C. European federation of societies for ultrasound in medicine and biology guidelines 2015 on interventional endoscopic ultrasound. Endosc Ultrasound 2016;5:143-8.  Back to cited text no. 73
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]


This article has been cited by
1 The role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic resection for gastric glomus: A case series and literature review
Jinlong Hu,Nan Ge,Sheng Wang,Xiang Liu,Jintao Guo,Guoxin Wang,Siyu Sun
Journal of Translational Internal Medicine. 2019; 7(4): 149
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Introduction of ...
   Early Detection ...
   The Problems of ...
  Summary
   References
   Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed861    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded168    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]