Endosonography for differentiating benign from malignant intraductal mucinous tumors of the pancreas: is the jury out?

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Usefulness of contrast-enhanced transabdominal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

The differentiation of benign from malignant intraductal papillary mucinous tumors (IPMT) is often difficult even by various examination methods. We evaluated the qualitative and quantitative diagnostic ability of contrast-enhanced transabdominal ultrasonography (CE-US), mainly in differentiating benign from malignant tumors in patients with IPMT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

There were 21 patients with IPMT who underwent CE-US and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Surgery was performed in all 21 patients. Pathological findings were 4 with carcinoma and 17 with adenoma. CE-US was performed using a contrast agent (Levovist; Tanabe, Osaka, Japan) consisting of galactose microbubbles and a small (0.1%) admixture of palmitic acid, and the following items were evaluated by the following procedure. (1) Two reviewers with experienced sonographic and endosonographic ability evaluated CE-US images before and after contrast enhancement and classified the enhancement effects into three grades. In addition, the presence or absence of enhancement effects by CE-US was compared with that of mural nodules visualized by EUS. (2) In all 21 patients, changes in intensity after contrast enhancement were quantitatively measured using an HDI Lab. HDI Lab was provided by ATL (Philips; Bothell, WA) and these software tools rapidly quantify image characteristics within multiple ROI (regions of interest) and make comparisons between several areas or images. In both the early and late phases, the post-enhancement intensity, difference between pre- and post-enhancement intensity, and the percentage change ((post-enhancement value-pre-enhancement value)/pre-enhancement value) were compared between malignant and benign lesions, and the ability of CE-US to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions was evaluated in comparison with the ability of EUS to diagnose the degree of malignancy.

RESULTS

(1) In both the early and the late phases, both reviewers observed enhancement effects in all 21 patients. And both reviewers observed mural nodules by EUS in all 21 patients. (2) In all 21 patients who underwent resection of IPMT, the intensity increased in both the early and late phases. When the patients with carcinoma were compared with those with adenoma, the post-enhancement intensity was significantly higher, and the difference between pre- and post-enhancement intensity and the percentage change in the early phase and the late phase was significantly more marked in the carcinoma group (p= 0.019, p= 0.002, p= 0.015, p= 0.012, and p= 0.039, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CE-US was useful for qualitatively diagnosing tumor lesions in patients with IPMT. Moreover, quantitative changes in intensity can be a parameter for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant tumors.

Endoscopically inserted endoluminal receiver coil for high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas: Initial results in an animal model

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the feasibility of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas by means of an endoscopically inserted endoluminal magnetic resonance receiver coil.

METHOD

A 0.032-inch diameter internal magnetic resonance imaging receiver coil was endoscopically inserted into the pancreatic duct in 4 pigs through the accessory channel of a standard duodenoscope to obtain high-resolution magnetic resonance images by using T1- and T2-weighted sequences.

RESULTS

The pig anatomy precluded the usual transoral approach; however, transgastric access allowed endoscopic transpapillary insertion of a receiver coil into the pancreatic duct in all animals without the need for sphincterotomy. The small swine pancreas could then be visualized by magnetic resonance imaging with a 0.3 x 0.3-mm in-plane resolution.

CONCLUSION

High-resolution pancreas magnetic resonance imaging is feasible by using an endoscopically inserted endoluminal receiver coil. The smaller stomach and larger pancreatic duct diameter in humans will facilitate clinical application of the imaging procedure.