Hepato-gastroenterology · 2012
Diagnostic clues and subsequent examinations that detected small pancreatic cancer.
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.
Kawada Natsuko, Uehara Hiroyuki, Katayama Kazuhiro, Takakura Rena, Ioka Tatsuya, Tanaka Sachiko, Takenaka Akemi, Tomita Yasuhiko, Ishikawa Osamu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Our aim was to investigate how 2cm or smaller pancreatic cancers were detected successfully in recent years.
METHODOLOGY: Diagnostic clues and subsequent examinations that detected 15 histologically confirmed 2 cm or smaller pancreatic cancers were reviewed.
RESULTS: Diagnostic clues were imaging findings in 6 patients, symptoms in 5 and laboratory data in 4. Six of 8 patients who had risk factors of pancreatic cancer such as pancreatic cyst, dilated main pancreatic duct, pancreatitis, or diabetes had been followed-up by imaging and laboratory examinations. Five patients with extrapancreatic disease had been followed-up chiefly by laboratory examinations. The remaining 2 had neither of them. Detectabilities of pancreatic mass in US, CT and EUS were 89%, 67% and 100%, respectively; those of pancreatic mass and/or dilated main pancreatic duct were 100% in all three modalities. Cytological examination revealed adenocarcinoma preoperatively in 14 patients (93%).
CONCLUSIONS: Small pancreatic cancer of 2 cm or smaller were suggested by symptoms, laboratory data, or imaging examinations. They were confirmed by further examinations including cytology.
METHODOLOGY: Diagnostic clues and subsequent examinations that detected 15 histologically confirmed 2 cm or smaller pancreatic cancers were reviewed.
RESULTS: Diagnostic clues were imaging findings in 6 patients, symptoms in 5 and laboratory data in 4. Six of 8 patients who had risk factors of pancreatic cancer such as pancreatic cyst, dilated main pancreatic duct, pancreatitis, or diabetes had been followed-up by imaging and laboratory examinations. Five patients with extrapancreatic disease had been followed-up chiefly by laboratory examinations. The remaining 2 had neither of them. Detectabilities of pancreatic mass in US, CT and EUS were 89%, 67% and 100%, respectively; those of pancreatic mass and/or dilated main pancreatic duct were 100% in all three modalities. Cytological examination revealed adenocarcinoma preoperatively in 14 patients (93%).
CONCLUSIONS: Small pancreatic cancer of 2 cm or smaller were suggested by symptoms, laboratory data, or imaging examinations. They were confirmed by further examinations including cytology.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationEndosonographyFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTomography, Spiral ComputedTumor Burden