Background/Aims: High-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm are targets for early detection of pancreatic cancer. However, their imaging ...characteristics are unknown. We aimed to identify endoscopic ultrasound findings for the detection of these lesions.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (n=29), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm (n=11) (who underwent surgical resection), or benign main pancreatic duct stenosis (n=20) between January 2014 and January 2021 were retrospectively included. Six features differentiating these lesions were examined by endoscopic ultrasonography: main pancreatic duct stenosis, upstream main pancreatic duct dilation, hypoechoic areas surrounding the main pancreatic duct irregularities (mottled areas without demarcation or round areas with demarcation), branch duct dilation, prominent lobular segmentation, and atrophy. Interobserver agreement was assessed by two independent observers.
Results: Hypoechoic areas surrounding the main pancreatic duct irregularities were observed more frequently in high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (82.8%) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm (90.9%) than in benign stenosis (15.0%) (p<0.001). High-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia exhibited mottled hypoechoic areas more frequently (79.3% vs 18.9%, p<0.001), and round hypoechoic areas less frequently (3.4% vs 72.7%, p<0.001), than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of hypoechoic areas for differentiating high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm, and benign stenosis were both 85.0%, with moderate interobserver agreement.
Conclusions: The hypoechoic areas surrounding main pancreatic duct irregularities on endoscopic ultrasound may differentiate between high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm, and benign stenosis (Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044789). (Gut Liver 2024;18:338-347)
Background/Aims: High-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm are targets for early detection of pancreatic cancer. However, their imaging ...characteristics are unknown. We aimed to identify endoscopic ultrasound findings for the detection of these lesions.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (n=29), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm (n=11) (who underwent surgical resection), or benign main pancreatic duct stenosis (n=20) between January 2014 and January 2021 were retrospectively included. Six features differentiating these lesions were examined by endoscopic ultrasonography: main pancreatic duct stenosis, upstream main pancreatic duct dilation, hypoechoic areas surrounding the main pancreatic duct irregularities (mottled areas without demarcation or round areas with demarcation), branch duct dilation, prominent lobular segmentation, and atrophy. Interobserver agreement was assessed by two independent observers.
Results: Hypoechoic areas surrounding the main pancreatic duct irregularities were observed more frequently in high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (82.8%) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm (90.9%) than in benign stenosis (15.0%) (p<0.001). High-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia exhibited mottled hypoechoic areas more frequently (79.3% vs 18.9%, p<0.001), and round hypoechoic areas less frequently (3.4% vs 72.7%, p<0.001), than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of hypoechoic areas for differentiating high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm, and benign stenosis were both 85.0%, with moderate interobserver agreement.
Conclusions: The hypoechoic areas surrounding main pancreatic duct irregularities on endoscopic ultrasound may differentiate between high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm, and benign stenosis (Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044789). (Gut Liver 2024;18:338-347)
Background/Aims: High-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm are targets for early detection of pancreatic cancer. However, their imaging ...characteristics are unknown. We aimed to identify endoscopic ultrasound findings for the detection of these lesions.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (n=29), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm (n=11) (who underwent surgical resection), or benign main pancreatic duct stenosis (n=20) between January 2014 and January 2021 were retrospectively included. Six features differentiating these lesions were examined by endoscopic ultrasonography: main pancreatic duct stenosis, upstream main pancreatic duct dilation, hypoechoic areas surrounding the main pancreatic duct irregularities (mottled areas without demarcation or round areas with demarcation), branch duct dilation, prominent lobular segmentation, and atrophy. Interobserver agreement was assessed by two independent observers.
Results: Hypoechoic areas surrounding the main pancreatic duct irregularities were observed more frequently in high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (82.8%) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm (90.9%) than in benign stenosis (15.0%) (p<0.001). High-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia exhibited mottled hypoechoic areas more frequently (79.3% vs 18.9%, p<0.001), and round hypoechoic areas less frequently (3.4% vs 72.7%, p<0.001), than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of hypoechoic areas for differentiating high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm, and benign stenosis were both 85.0%, with moderate interobserver agreement.
Conclusions: The hypoechoic areas surrounding main pancreatic duct irregularities on endoscopic ultrasound may differentiate between high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ≤10 mm, and benign stenosis (Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044789). (Gut Liver 2024;18:338-347)
Echoendoscopes Murad, Faris M., MD; Komanduri, Sri, MD; Abu Dayyeh, Barham K., MD, MPH ...
Gastrointestinal endoscopy,
08/2015, Volume:
82, Issue:
2
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Advances in echoendoscopes and their processors have significantly expanded the role of EUS and its clinical applications.The diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities of EUS continue to evolve and ...improve. EUS has made a large impact on patient care but comes with significant startup and maintenance costs. As improved technology continues to enhance image resolution while decreasing the size of EUS processors, use of endosonography will become more widespread. EUS will continue to be a vital part of patient care and complement currently available cross-sectional imaging.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from a purely diagnostic procedure to one with therapeutic capabilities. One of the most challenging therapeutic intervention for endosonographers is ...EUS‐guided pancreatic drainage. The development of this technique has allowed access and drainage of the main pancreatic duct after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and can avoid invasive procedures such as surgical and percutaneous interventions. This review discusses the indications, technique, challenges, and an algorithmic approach to EUS‐guided pancreatic drainage.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Background/Aims: Asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia (aEE) is considered to be a potential precursor of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, there are few clinical parameters that can be used to ...evaluate the disease. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the factors involved in the symptoms of EoE by examining the clinicopathological differences between aEE and EoE.
Methods: We reviewed 41 patients with esophageal eosinophilia who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography and high-resolution manometry. They were divided into the aEE group (n=16) and the EoE group (n=25) using the Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score. The patients’ clinicopathological findings were collected and examined.
Results: The median Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score was 3.0 in the aEE group and 10.0 in the EoE group. There was no significant difference in patient characteristics, endoscopic findings and pathological findings. The cutoff value for wall thickening was 3.13 mm for the total esophageal wall thickness and 2.30 mm for the thickness from the surface to the muscular layer (total esophageal wall thickness: 84.0% sensitivity, 75.0% specificity; thickness from the surface to the muscular layer: 84.0% sensitivity, 68.7% specificity). The high-resolution manometry study was abnormal in seven patients (43.8%) in the aEE group and in 12 (48.0%) in the EoE group. The contractile front velocity was slower in the EoE group (p=0.026).
Conclusions: The esophageal wall thickening in the lower portion of the esophagus is an important clinical factors related to the symptoms in patients with EoE. (Gut Liver 2024;18:50-59)
Background/Aims: Asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia (aEE) is considered to be a potential precursor of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, there are few clinical parameters that can be used to ...evaluate the disease. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the factors involved in the symptoms of EoE by examining the clinicopathological differences between aEE and EoE.
Methods: We reviewed 41 patients with esophageal eosinophilia who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography and high-resolution manometry. They were divided into the aEE group (n=16) and the EoE group (n=25) using the Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score. The patients’ clinicopathological findings were collected and examined.
Results: The median Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score was 3.0 in the aEE group and 10.0 in the EoE group. There was no significant difference in patient characteristics, endoscopic findings and pathological findings. The cutoff value for wall thickening was 3.13 mm for the total esophageal wall thickness and 2.30 mm for the thickness from the surface to the muscular layer (total esophageal wall thickness: 84.0% sensitivity, 75.0% specificity; thickness from the surface to the muscular layer: 84.0% sensitivity, 68.7% specificity). The high-resolution manometry study was abnormal in seven patients (43.8%) in the aEE group and in 12 (48.0%) in the EoE group. The contractile front velocity was slower in the EoE group (p=0.026).
Conclusions: The esophageal wall thickening in the lower portion of the esophagus is an important clinical factors related to the symptoms in patients with EoE. (Gut Liver 2024;18:50-59)
Background/Aims: Asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia (aEE) is considered to be a potential precursor of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, there are few clinical parameters that can be used to ...evaluate the disease. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the factors involved in the symptoms of EoE by examining the clinicopathological differences between aEE and EoE.
Methods: We reviewed 41 patients with esophageal eosinophilia who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography and high-resolution manometry. They were divided into the aEE group (n=16) and the EoE group (n=25) using the Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score. The patients’ clinicopathological findings were collected and examined.
Results: The median Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score was 3.0 in the aEE group and 10.0 in the EoE group. There was no significant difference in patient characteristics, endoscopic findings and pathological findings. The cutoff value for wall thickening was 3.13 mm for the total esophageal wall thickness and 2.30 mm for the thickness from the surface to the muscular layer (total esophageal wall thickness: 84.0% sensitivity, 75.0% specificity; thickness from the surface to the muscular layer: 84.0% sensitivity, 68.7% specificity). The high-resolution manometry study was abnormal in seven patients (43.8%) in the aEE group and in 12 (48.0%) in the EoE group. The contractile front velocity was slower in the EoE group (p=0.026).
Conclusions: The esophageal wall thickening in the lower portion of the esophagus is an important clinical factors related to the symptoms in patients with EoE. (Gut Liver 2024;18:50-59)
Background/Aims: Asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia (aEE) is considered to be a potential precursor of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, there are few clinical parameters that can be used to ...evaluate the disease. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the factors involved in the symptoms of EoE by examining the clinicopathological differences between aEE and EoE.
Methods: We reviewed 41 patients with esophageal eosinophilia who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography and high-resolution manometry. They were divided into the aEE group (n=16) and the EoE group (n=25) using the Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score. The patients’ clinicopathological findings were collected and examined.
Results: The median Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score was 3.0 in the aEE group and 10.0 in the EoE group. There was no significant difference in patient characteristics, endoscopic findings and pathological findings. The cutoff value for wall thickening was 3.13 mm for the total esophageal wall thickness and 2.30 mm for the thickness from the surface to the muscular layer (total esophageal wall thickness: 84.0% sensitivity, 75.0% specificity; thickness from the surface to the muscular layer: 84.0% sensitivity, 68.7% specificity). The high-resolution manometry study was abnormal in seven patients (43.8%) in the aEE group and in 12 (48.0%) in the EoE group. The contractile front velocity was slower in the EoE group (p=0.026).
Conclusions: The esophageal wall thickening in the lower portion of the esophagus is an important clinical factors related to the symptoms in patients with EoE. (Gut Liver 2024;18:50-59)
Background/Purpose
The application of artificial intelligence to clinical diagnostics using deep learning has been developed in recent years. In this study, we developed an original computer‐assisted ...diagnosis (CAD) system using deep learning analysis of EUS images (EUS‐CAD), and assessed its ability to detect pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC), using control images from patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) and those with a normal pancreas (NP).
Methods
A total of 920 endosonographic images were used for the training and 10‐fold cross‐validation, and another 470 images were independently tested. The detection abilities in both the validation and test setting were assessed, and independent factors associated with misdetection were identified among participants' characteristics and endosonographic image features.
Results
Regarding the detection ability of EUS‐CAD, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were found to be 0.924 and 0.940 in the validation and test setting, respectively. In the analysis of misdetection, no factors were identified on univariate analysis in PDAC cases. On multivariate analysis of non‐PDAC cases, only mass formation was associated with overdiagnosis of tumors.
Conclusions
Our pilot study demonstrated the efficacy of EUS‐CAD for the detection of PDAC.
Highlight
Tonozuka and colleagues developed an original computer‐assisted diagnosis system using a convolutional neural network for the detection of tumors on endoscopic ultrasound images of the pancreas and demonstrated its efficacy in detecting pancreatic ductal carcinoma. On multivariate analysis, only chronic pancreatitis with mass formation was associated with false tumor detection.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF