Clinical impact of strain histogram EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS for the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses: A prospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in EUS techniques (real-time EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS) have allowed a better characterization of focal pancreatic masses. Mean strain histograms (SHs) are considered a good parameter for the semi-quantitative evaluation of focal pancreatic masses, alongside complementary contrast-enhanced EUS parameters which can be quantified during both the early arterial and late venous phase. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study design was prospective, blinded, and multicentric, assessing real-time EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS results for the characterization of focal pancreatic masses using parametric measurements, in comparison with pathology which is the gold standard. SHs were performed based on the embedded software of the ultrasound system, with the values being reversed as opposed to our initially published data on hue histograms. Consequently, a cutoff of 80 was derived from previous multicentric trials. Contrast-enhanced EUS also allowed the focal masses to be classified as hyper-, iso-, or hypoenhanced in comparison with the normal pancreatic parenchyma. EUS-FNA was then performed for all patients, with a positive cytological diagnosis taken as a final proof of malignancy for the pancreatic masses. The diagnoses obtained by EUS-FNA were verified further either by surgery or during a clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. RESULTS: A total number of 97 consecutive patients with focal pancreatic masses were included in the study. Based on previously defined cutoffs of 80, the values of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the mean SHs for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 100%, 29.63%, 78.65%, 100%, and 80.41%, respectively. Corresponding values for contrast-enhanced EUS (taking into consideration hypoenhencement as a predictive factor of malignancy) were 98.57%, 77.78%, 92%, 95.45%, and 92.78%, respectively. Combining contrast enhancement-EUS (hypoenhencement) and semi-quantitative EUS elastography (SH cutoffs <80), the resulting values corresponding for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 98.57%, 81.48%, and 93.81%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current study using objective parametric tools for both EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS confirmed the results of previous studies and meta-analyses that indicated a complementary role for the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses. Moreover, the best values for the receiver operating curves were obtained using a sequential clinical algorithm based on the initial use of elastography, followed by contrast enhancement.

Molecular Analysis of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Receptors in EUS-guided Samples Obtained from Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors (VEGF-R1 and VEGF-R2) are the most important angiogenesis stimulating factors in pancreatic cancer. This study aims to assess VEGF-R1 and VEGF-R2 gene expression in EUS-FNA samples and identify prognostic markers in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data of 88 consecutive patients, with clinical and imaging suspicion of pancreatic neoplasms, based on samples obtained through endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). RESULTS: EUS had an accuracy of 93.2% for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Based on real-time qPCR analysis, VEGF-R1 and VEGF-R2 expressions were present in 90% and 65% of the analysed malignant samples, respectively; 89% of the patients died during the study, with a median survival rate of only 9 months. The survival was correlated with the initial stage and with the presence of VEGF-R1 and VEGF-R2 gene expression. We found that there are significant correlations between death/survival and T stage, N stage, resectability status, VEGF-R1, VEGF-R2 and VEGF-R1/VEGF-R2 coexpression. Using a Cox model regression our study demonstrates that VEGF-R1/VEGF-R2 coexpression might be considered as a poor prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is a very effective technique for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients with clinical and imaging suspicion of pancreatic neoplasm, with an accuracy of 93.2%. Furthermore, the role of molecular analysis of EUS-guided FNA samples was established by the assessment of VEGF-R1, VEGF-R2 gene expression, which might be considered prognostic markers in pancreatic cancer.

Clinical impact of EUS elastography followed by contrast-enhanced EUS in patients with focal pancreatic masses and negative EUS-guided FNA.

AIMS: It is well known that endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has a high sensitivity (over 85%) and specificity (100%) for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The aim of the study was to establish a EUS based clinical diagnostic algorithm in patients with pancreatic masses and negative cytopathology after EUS-FNA, based on previously published results and cut-offs of real-time elastographic (RTE) EUS and contrast-enhanced harmonic (CEH) EUS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included in the study a subgroup of 50 consecutive patients with focal pancreatic masses which underwent EUS examinations with negative EUS-FNA. RTE-EUS and CEH-EUS were performed sequentially in all patients. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of these methods were calculated separately. A clinical decision algorithm based on elastography followed by CEH was established. RESULTS: For the diagnosis of possible malignancy, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of RTE-EUS were: 97.7%, 77.4%, and 84% respectively. CEH-EUS had similar results: 89.5%, 80.7%, and 84%, respectively. In 25 patients with soft/mixed appearance during elastography,sequential assessment using contrast-enhanced EUSwas performed. The specificity of CEH-EUS for detection of chronic pancreatitis in this sub-set of patients was excellent (100%). In other 25 patients with hard appearance in elastography (low strain) CEH-EUS had an excellent specificity (100%) and accuracy (93%) in the detection of pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm with sequential use of elastography followed by CEH could be a good clinical tool in the set of patients with negative EUS-FNA results for the differentiation between benign and malignant focal pancreatic masses.

Power Doppler endoscopic ultrasound for the assessment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) represent rare, heterogeneous tumors with clinical, imaging and treatment particularities. The aim of this study was to assess the role of power Doppler endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnosis and characterization of PNET. METHODS: All consecutive patients with PNET assessed by power Doppler EUS in the Research Centre of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, Romania, in the past 51 months were included in the study. All EUS examinations were performed initially in gray-scale mode, followed by power Doppler mode examinations, before and after contrast-enhancement. Each recorded EUS movie was further subjected to post-processing using a computer-enhanced dynamic analysis using a special plug-in which permitted assessment of vascularity index (EUS-VI). RESULTS: Based on the analysis of all consecutive malignant focal pancreatic masses diagnosed in the study period, a total number of 131 consecutive patients were included: 14 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and 117 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity of the pre-contrast EUS-VI for the diagnosis of PNET was 71.43%, similar to EUS-FNA. After contrast enhancement, the EUS-VI is also higher in PNET (27.07%) as compared to pancreatic adenocarcinoma where it was significantly lower 9.82% (P < 0.001). However, the sensitivity of EUS-VI after contrast enhancement for the diagnosis of PNET was 100%, higher than pre-contrast EUS-VI, with an acceptable specificity (79.49%) and better accuracy (81.68%). CONCLUSION: Power Doppler EUS represents a useful method in the initial assessment of PNET. Using evaluation of vascularity through EUS-VI, the differentiation between PNET and pancreatic cancer could be possible, especially in the subgroup of patients where EUS-guided fine needle aspiration is falsely negative.