Annals of gastroenterology · 2021
Comparing accuracy of high-risk features for detecting advanced neoplasia in pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Duvvuri Abhiram, Bandla Harikrishna, Thoguluva Vivek Chandrasekar, Dasari Chandra, Desai Madhav, Nutalapati Venkat, Moole Vishnu, Anvesh Narimiti, Harsh Patel, Gress Frank, Sharma Prateek, Kohli Divyanshoo Rai
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The American Gastroenterological Association recommends endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for evaluating pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) with ≥2 high-risk features (HRF), whereas the American College of Gastroenterology recommends EUS for ≥1 HRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF for assessing the risk of advanced neoplasia (AN) and performing EUS in PCL.
METHODS: An electronic database search was performed for eligible studies. AN was defined as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or mucinous cystadenoma with high-grade dysplasia, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. HRF included cyst size ≥3 cm, solid component, and dilated pancreatic duct ≥5 mm. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF as an indication for EUS to detect AN in PCL.
RESULTS: Of 38 studies initially screened, 8 were included in the final analysis. Seven studies assessed the accuracy of ≥2 HRF and 4 studies assessed ≥1 HRF. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for detecting AN were 41.7% (95% confidence interval 19.5-67.8%), 90.8% (81.9-95.5%), 30.4% (19.4-44.2%) and 94.3% (89.6-97.0%) with ≥2HRFs, and 77.1% (66.1-85.3%), 72.7% (50.4-87.5%), 17.95% (10.3-29.4%), 98.1% (90.8-99.6%), respectively, with ≥1 HRF.
CONCLUSION: Performing EUS for PCL with ≥1 HRF could offer greater sensitivity in detecting AN compared to ≥2 HRF, with a similar negative predictive value.
METHODS: An electronic database search was performed for eligible studies. AN was defined as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or mucinous cystadenoma with high-grade dysplasia, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. HRF included cyst size ≥3 cm, solid component, and dilated pancreatic duct ≥5 mm. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF as an indication for EUS to detect AN in PCL.
RESULTS: Of 38 studies initially screened, 8 were included in the final analysis. Seven studies assessed the accuracy of ≥2 HRF and 4 studies assessed ≥1 HRF. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for detecting AN were 41.7% (95% confidence interval 19.5-67.8%), 90.8% (81.9-95.5%), 30.4% (19.4-44.2%) and 94.3% (89.6-97.0%) with ≥2HRFs, and 77.1% (66.1-85.3%), 72.7% (50.4-87.5%), 17.95% (10.3-29.4%), 98.1% (90.8-99.6%), respectively, with ≥1 HRF.
CONCLUSION: Performing EUS for PCL with ≥1 HRF could offer greater sensitivity in detecting AN compared to ≥2 HRF, with a similar negative predictive value.