Journal of digestive diseases · 2019
The impact of endoscopic ultrasound in preoperative evaluation for ampullary adenomas.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peng Chun Yan, Lv Ying, Shen Shan Shan, Wang Lei, Ding Xi Wei, Zou Xiao Ping
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in assessing locoregionally and determining therapeutic options for ampullary adenomas and the related factors.
METHODS: Patients undergoing EUS and surgical or endoscopic resection for biopsy-proven ampullary adenomas between 2009 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The depth of tumor invasion, intraductal extension, and regional lymph node staging evaluated by EUS were compared with post-treatment pathological findings.
RESULTS: Altogether 120 patients were enrolled in this study. The overall accuracy for EUS in T staging was 81.7%. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for T staging were 93.9%, 45.5% for adenoma and T1, 50.0% and 96.5% for T2, 66.7% and 97.4% for T3, 50.0% and 97.5% for T4 lesions, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS for the diagnosis of any intraductal extension were 89.5%, 86.1%, and 86.7%, respectively. The overall accuracy of EUS for regional lymph node staging was 75.0%. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for diagnosing N1 were 62.5% and 87.5%. By multivariate analysis no factors were found to be independently associated with EUS accuracy for tumor invasive depth. However, small lesion size (≤15 mm) and dilated duct were associated with an overestimation in intraductal extension.
CONCLUSION: EUS may be a useful diagnostic tool for selecting endoscopic or surgical treatment for ampullary adenomas.
METHODS: Patients undergoing EUS and surgical or endoscopic resection for biopsy-proven ampullary adenomas between 2009 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The depth of tumor invasion, intraductal extension, and regional lymph node staging evaluated by EUS were compared with post-treatment pathological findings.
RESULTS: Altogether 120 patients were enrolled in this study. The overall accuracy for EUS in T staging was 81.7%. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for T staging were 93.9%, 45.5% for adenoma and T1, 50.0% and 96.5% for T2, 66.7% and 97.4% for T3, 50.0% and 97.5% for T4 lesions, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS for the diagnosis of any intraductal extension were 89.5%, 86.1%, and 86.7%, respectively. The overall accuracy of EUS for regional lymph node staging was 75.0%. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for diagnosing N1 were 62.5% and 87.5%. By multivariate analysis no factors were found to be independently associated with EUS accuracy for tumor invasive depth. However, small lesion size (≤15 mm) and dilated duct were associated with an overestimation in intraductal extension.
CONCLUSION: EUS may be a useful diagnostic tool for selecting endoscopic or surgical treatment for ampullary adenomas.