Cited by 403Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

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

Crossref · 10.1055/s-2007-1010273

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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)
Venue
Endoscopy
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