The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Abstract
Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was compared to ultrasonography (US) and CT scan (CT) in order to evaluate its role in the diagnosis and the locoregional spread assessment of pancreatic cancer. Sixty-four patients suspected of pancreatic cancer were studied prospectively, and the results of imaging techniques were compared to histology and surgical exploration. There were 49 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 11 of pancreatitis, 2 of common bile duct carcinoma, 1 lymphoma and 1 hepatocellular carcinoma with peripancreatic metastatic lymph nodes. EUS was significantly more accurate (91%) than CT (66%) and US (64%) for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. EUS was able to image all 7 cancers less than 25 mm in diameter, US and CT only one. There were 4 false positives with EUS which were all cases of pseudotumorous pancreatitis. For detecting lymph node involvement, EUS was significantly more sensitive (62%) and accurate (74%) than US (8% and 37%) and CT (19% and 42%), respectively. Invaded lymph nodes adjacent to large tumors and micrometastatic involvement were responsible for this lack of sensitivity. EUS was significantly more sensitive (100%) than CT (71%) and US (17%) for detecting venous involvement. The specificity of EUS was lower (67%) because of duodenal bulb stenosis and large tumors. In conclusion, this prospective and comparative study confirms that EUS is an accurate tool for diagnosis and locoregional spread assessment of pancreatic cancer when performed in a reference center. EUS is of particular interest for small tumours. However, EUS does not enable differentiation of pseudotumorous pancreatitis from adenocarcinoma.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The sensitivity and specificity of CT for pancreatic cancer diagnosis is 76-92% and 67%, respectively.
“The sensitivity and specificity of CT for pancreatic cancer diagnosis is 76–92% (23-25) and 67% (23), respectively.”
From Suspicious findings observed retrospectively on CT imaging performed before the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 403
Metadata
- Authors
- Palazzo, L., Roseau, G., Gayet, B., Vilgrain, V., Belghiti, J., Fékété, F., & Paolaggi, J.-A.
- Affiliations
- Hôpital Beaujon (FR)
- ORCID
- Vilgrain, V.
- Venue
- Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 1993-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 143-150
- ISSN
- 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1438-8812
- OpenAlex
- W2094693319
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 7.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
- Keywords
- endoscopic ultrasound, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, pancreatic cancer diagnosis, tumor staging, locoregional spread, lymph node metastasis, venous invasion, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Adenocarcinoma, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Pancreas, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Pancreatitis, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Ultrasonography, Endoscopy, Digestive System
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review