Role of EUS in the preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer: a large single-center experience

BACKGROUND: Current methods for staging pancreatic cancer can be inaccurate, invasive, and expensive. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is reported to be highly accurate for local staging of gastrointestinal tumors including pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of EUS and CT for staging pancreatic cancer by comparing staging accuracies in surgical patients and evaluating the potential impact of EUS staging and training. METHODS: This was a preoperative comparison of the diagnostic operating characteristics of these procedures in a referral-based academic medical center. Data were collected on 151 consecutive patients referred with confirmed pancreatic cancer between April 1990 and November 1996. All patients had preoperative CT and EUS performed for staging. In patients undergoing surgery, the surgical staging and/or findings were used to confirm EUS and CT staging. RESULTS: Eighty-one (60%) of 151 patients underwent surgery and made up the study subset. In these 81 patients, surgical exploration provided a final T staging in 93% (75 of 81), N staging in 88% (71 of 81) and data on vascular invasion in 93% (75 of 81). In the surgical patient group, with surgical correlation, EUS accuracy for T staging was as follows: T1 92%, T2 85%, T3 93%, and for N staging was: N0 72%, and N1 72%. CT accuracy for T staging was as follows: T1 65%, T2 67%, T3 38%, and for N staging was as follows: N0 52% and N1 100%. CT failed to detect a mass in 26% of patients with a confirmed tumor at surgery. Overall accuracy for T and N staging was 85% and 72% for EUS and 30% and 55% for CT, respectively. The ability to accurately predict vascular invasion was 93% for EUS and 62% for CT (p < 0.001). EUS was 93% accurate for predicting local resectability versus 60% for CT (p < 0.001). Last, the data were divided into two groups for the senior endosonographer's experience: procedures performed between 1990 and 1992 (98 cases) and 1993 and 1994 (53 cases). This analysis revealed that 7 of 9 instances of mis-staging (78%) occurred in the earlier group, during the learning phase for EUS. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is more accurate than CT for staging pancreatic malignancies, including predicting vascular invasion and local resectability. EUS staging was significantly better than CT for T1, T2, and T3 tumors. EUS staging accuracy improved after 100 cases, thus suggesting a correlation between the accuracy of EUS staging and the number of procedures performed.     

Endoscopic ultrasonography in diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer

The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for diagnosis of pancreatic cancers was evaluated in consecutive 232 patients with possible pancreatic cancer, and that for assessment of their locoregional spread was evaluated in 28 patients with pancreatic cancer subjected to pancreatectomy, in comparison with the accuracies of transabdominal ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT). EUS was found to be significantly more accurate than US or CT and was especially useful for detecting small pancreatic cancers of less than 2 cm in diameter. With EUS, pancreatic cancers could be detected as a hypoechoic mass with a relatively unclear margin and irregular internal echoes. EUS was also more sensitive than CT and US for detecting venous and gastric invasions: it was more useful for detecting direct invasion of pancreatic cancers when the tumors were less than 3 cm in diameter. These findings indicate that EUS is an accurate method for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and assessment of their locoregional spread and is particularly useful for detecting small tumors.     

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND AND FINE‐NEEDLE ASPIRATION FOR PANCREATIC CANCER

Background: Accurate staging of pancreatic cancer is essential for surgical planning, and identification of locally advanced and metastatic disease that is incurable by surgery. Advances in EUS, CT, and PET have improved the accuracy of staging and reduced the number of incomplete surgical resections. Tissue acquisition is necessary in non‐surgical cases when chemo‐radiotherapy is considered. The complex regional anatomy of the pancreas makes cytologic diagnosis of malignancy at this region difficult without exploratory surgery. Although CT‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) is used for this purpose, reports of an increased risk of peritoneal dissemination of cancer cells and a false negative rate of nearly 20% makes this a less than ideal choice. The ability to position the EUS‐transducer in direct proximity to the pancreas by means of stomach and the duodenum, combined with the use of FNA, increases the specificity of EUS in detecting pancreatic malignancies. Methods: The current literature regarding the accuracy of EUS with FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic cancer is reviewed. Results: EUS accuracy for tumor (T) staging ranges from approximately 78–94% and nodal (N) stage accuracy between 64 and 82%. EUS also enables FNA of lesions that are too small to be identified by CT or MRI, or too close to vascular structures to safely allow percutaneous biopsy. The accuracy for detecting invasion into the superior mesenteric artery and vein is lower than that for detecting portal or splenic vein invasion, especially for large tumors. EUS permits delivery of localized therapy such as celiac plexus neurolysis for pain control and direct intralesional injection of antitumor therapy. Conclusions: EUS in combination with FNA is a highly accurate method of preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer especially those too small to characterize by CT or MRI, and has the ability to obtain cytological confirmation.     

Preoperative staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer: prospective study comparing endoscopic ultrasonography, helical computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of different strategies based on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), helical computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and angiography (A) in the staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: All consecutive patients with pancreatic carcinoma judged fit for laparotomy were studied by EUS, CT, MRI, and A. Results of each of the imaging techniques regarding primary tumor, locoregional extension, lymph-node involvement, vascular invasion, distant metastases, tumor TNM stage, and tumor resectability were compared with the surgical findings. Univariate, logistic regression, decision, and cost minimization analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with pancreatic cancer were included. Helical CT had the highest accuracy in assessing extent of primary tumor (73%), locoregional extension (74%), vascular invasion (83%), distant metastases (88%), tumor TNM stage (46%), and tumor resectability (83%), whereas EUS had the highest accuracy in assessing tumor size (r = 0.85) and lymph node involvement (65%). The decision analysis demonstrated that the best strategy to assess tumor resectability was based on CT or EUS as initial test, followed by the alternative technique in those potentially resectable cases. Cost minimization analysis favored the sequential strategy in which EUS was used as a confirmatory technique in those patients in whom helical CT suggested resectability of the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Helical CT and EUS are the most useful individual imaging techniques in the staging of pancreatic cancer. In those cases with potentially resectable tumors a sequential approach consisting of helical CT as an initial test and EUS as a confirmatory technique seems to be the most reliable and cost minimization strategy.     

The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, computed tomography, and transabdominal ultrasound in the detection and staging of primary ampullary tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the accuracy between EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography), CT (computed tomography), and transabdominal US (ultrasound) in the detection and staging of primary ampullary tumors. We will also try to discuss the influence of endobiliary stent on EUS in staging ampullary tumors. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-one patients with ampullary tumors were evaluated by EUS, ERCP, CT, and US before operation. The accuracy was assessed with TNM staging and compared with the surgical-pathological findings. RESULTS: EUS was superior to CT and US in detecting ampullary tumors, but EUS and ERCP are of similar sensitivity (EUS 95%, ERCP 95%, CT 19%, US 5%). EUS was superior to CT and US in T staging (EUS 75%, CT 5%, US 0%) and detecting lymph node metastasis (EUS 50%, CT 33%, US 0%) of ampullary tumors. The accuracy of EUS in T and N staging of ampullary tumors tended to be decreased in the presence of endobiliary stent (stenting: T 71%, N 75%; nonstenting T 83%, N 100%), but there was no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: EUS was superior to CT and US in assessing primary ampullary tumors, but it was not significantly superior to ERCP in detecting ampullary tumors. The presence of endobiliary stent may decrease the accuracy of EUS in staging ampullary tumors.     

超声内镜对胆胰疾病诊断价值的探讨

目的 探讨超声内镜（EUS）对胆胰疾病的诊断价值。方法 采用超声胃镜（频率为7．5MHz和20Mnz），应用水囊法结合水充盈法，对54例临床疑为胆胰病变的患者进行EUS检查，并与腹部B超、CT及ERCP比较。结果 EUS、US、CT、ERCP对胆胰疾病诊断的阳性率分别为92．6％（50/54）、57．4％（31／54）、64．8％（35／54）及76．2％（32／42）。EUS对胰腺癌诊断的阳性率达100％。高于腹部B超、CT及ERCP；EUS对胆总管结石及慢性胰腺炎的准确率分别为100％和88．9％。结论 EUS对胆胰疾病的诊断率高于腹部B超，CT及ERCP影像检查，尤其对胆管扩张病因的定位及定性诊断均有较大的诊断价值。     

A prospective,blinded assessment of the impact of preoperative staging on the management of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The influence of preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma on therapeutic decisions is uncertain. The use of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of perirectal nodes in this setting has not been evaluated. The aim of this prospective, blinded study of patients with rectal cancer was to assess the impact of preoperative staging on treatment decisions and compare the tumor (T), nodal (N) staging performance characteristics of pelvic computed tomography (CT), rectal endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and EUS FNA. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients with newly diagnosed rectal cancer were prospectively evaluated. Therapy decisions were recorded after sequential disclosure of staging information to the patient's surgeon. RESULTS: In 31% of patients (95% confidence interval, 21%-42%), EUS staging information changed the surgeon's original treatment plan based on CT alone. The further addition of FNA changed therapy in one patient. T staging accuracy was 71% (CT) and 91% (EUS) (P = 0.02); N staging accuracy was 76% (CT), 82% (EUS), and 76% (EUS FNA) (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative staging with EUS results in more frequent use of preoperative neoadjuvant therapy than if staging was performed with CT alone. The addition of FNA only changed the management of one patient, whereas FNA did not significantly improve N staging accuracy over EUS alone. FNA seems to offer the most potential for impacting management in those patients with early T stage disease, and its use should be confined to this subgroup of patients. EUS is more accurate than CT for determining T stage of rectal carcinoma.     

超声内镜及CT检查对食管癌术前TN分期的价值

目的 评价超声内镜、螺旋CT检查对食管癌术前TN分期的价值.方法 回顾性总结术前EUS、CT判断87例食管癌的分期资料,并与术后病理分期对照.患者均未行化、放疗.环扫超声内镜进行操作,5例轻度狭窄病例扩张后再予EUS分期.结果 EUS T分期总准确率为85.1%,CT无法区分T1、T2.对于N分期,EUS判断探及范围内淋巴结转移的灵敏度为85.0%,高于CT扫描的60.8%;CT探查纵隔淋巴结较EUS全面.EUS与cT联合判断T分期的准确率为85.1%,N分期的准确率为90.8%.结论 EUS判断肿瘤浸润深度准确性高,EUS联合CT可进行更为全面准确的TNM分期.     

Comparison of preoperative TN staging of gastric carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography with CT examination

ＣｏｍｐａｒｉｓｏｎｏｆｐｒｅｏｐｅｒａｔｉｖｅＴＮｓｔａｇｉｎｇｏｆｇａｓｔｒｉｃｃａｒｃｉｎｏｍａｂｙｅｎｄｏｓｃｏｐｉｃｕｌｔｒａｓｏｎｏｇｒａｐｈｙｗｉｔｈＣＴｅｘａｍｉｎａｔｉｏｎＧＵＯＷｅｎ１,ＺＨＡＮＧＹａＬｉ１,ＬＩＧｕｏＸｉｎ...     

Endoscopic ultrasonography of neuroendocrine tumours

Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) of the upper gastrointestinal tract are mainly located in the pancreas, stomach or duodenum. The aims of preoperative work-up are the localization of primary tumour(s), determination of local tumour invasion, of lymph node metastases and of the hormones secreted by the tumour. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) offers ideal conditions to localize and stage NETs of the foregut. We report our results in localizing and staging NETs of the foregut in 40 patients examined between 1990 and 1997 by EUS, somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transabdominal ultrasound (US). EUS shows the highest sensitivity in localizing insulinomas compared with SRS, US, CT and MRI. US and EUS should be the first-line diagnostics if insulinoma has been proven by a fasting test. Further diagnostic procedures are unnecessary in most cases. Further diagnostics such as CT or MRI to search for distant metastases are necessary in large tumours or local invasive tumours. EUS shows the highest accuracy to detect or exclude pancreatic gastrinomas, but fails to detect extrapancreatic gastrinomas in about 50%. The combination of EUS and SRS gives additional information. First-line diagnostics in gastrinoma patients should be SRS and CT or MRI. If no metastases are detected, EUS should be the next preoperative imaging procedure. In nonfunctional NETs, EUS provides the best information on local tumor invasion and regional lymph node involvement.     

Experimental pain in gastroenterology: a reappraisal of human studies

Background: Even though endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has improved the pretherapeutic staging and assessment of resectability in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract malignancies, a considerable number of patients still have to undergo unnecessary explorative laparotomy to obtain the final assessment of resectability. The aim of the present study was to evaluate laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) and the combination of EUS and LUS in the pretherapeutic study of these patients with special reference to resectability. Methods: Each of 44 patients with esophageal, gastric, or pancreatic cancer was assigned to a treatment-related resectability group based on five different imaging modalities: computer tomography (CT) + ultrasonography (US), EUS, laparoscopy, LUS, and EUS + LUS. The findings with these imaging modalities were compared with intraoperative findings. Results: Overall group assignment accuracy showed significantly better results for EUS, LUS, and EUS + LUS than for CT + US and laparoscopy. EUS + LUS identified all non-resectable patients, whereas the sensitivity of CT + US, laparoscopy, and EUS were 14%, 36%, and 79%, respectively. Median time consumption for each EUS, laparoscopy, or LUS procedure was less than 25 min, and no complications were seen during or after the EUS, laparoscopy, or LUS procedures. Conclusion: Preliminary experience with the combination of EUS and LUS for pretherapeutic assessment of upper GI tract malignancies showed that this combination was superior to CT + US, laparoscopy, and EUS. EUS + LUS correctly identified all non-resectable patients, but two overstaged patients also indicated the need for larger prospective studies to identify the indications and the limitations of this new approach.     

EUS and K-ras analysis of pure pancreatic juice collected via a duodenoscope after secretin stimulation for diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesion: a prospective study

BACKGROUND: The early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer remains problematic. This prospective study assessed the utility of a combination of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and genetic analysis of pure pancreatic juice in the diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions. METHODS: One hundred seventy-six patients with suspected pancreatic disease were enrolled and underwent ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), endoscopic retrograde choleangiopancreatography (ERCP), and EUS. Pure pancreatic juice was collected endoscopically after secretin stimulation. K-ras point mutations at codon 12 in the juice were assayed by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism. RESULTS: Thirty-six (20%) patients were found to have solid pancreatic masses including 19 with cancer (7 patients, 相似文献   

Comparative study between endoscopic ultrasonography and positron emission tomography‐computed tomography in staging patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Treatment strategy of esophageal cancer mainly depends on accurate staging. At present, no single ideal staging modality is superior to another in preoperative tumor‐node‐metastasis (TNM) staging of patients with esophageal cancer. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and positron emission tomography‐computed tomography (PET‐CT) for staging of esophageal cancer. We retrospectively studied 118 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) over a near 3‐year period between January 2005 and November 2008 at a tertiary hospital in Taiwan. Patients were separated into two groups: without neoadjuvant CRT (group 1, n= 28) and with CRT (group 2, n= 90). Medical records of demographic data and reports of EUS and PET‐CT of patients before surgery were reviewed. A database of clinical staging by EUS and PET‐CT was compared with one of pathological staging. The accuracies of T staging by EUS in groups 1 and 2 were 85.2% and 34.9%. The accuracies of N staging by EUS in groups 1 and 2 were 55.6% and 39.8%. The accuracies of T and N staging by means of PET‐CT scan were 100% and 54.5% in group 1, and were 69.4% and 86.1% in group 2, respectively. In group 2, 38 of 90 patients (42.2%) achieved pathologic complete remission. Among them, two of 34 (5.9%) and 12 of 17 (70.6%) patients were identified as tumor‐free by post‐CRT EUS and PET‐CT, respectively. EUS is useful for initial staging of esophageal cancer. PET‐CT is a more reliable modality for monitoring treatment response and restaging. Furthermore, the accuracy of PET‐CT with regard to N staging is higher in patients who have undergone CRT than those who have not.     

超声内镜联合CT检查对结直肠癌术前TNM分期诊断价值探讨

目的探讨超声内镜(EUS)联合多层螺旋CT扫描(MSCT)检查对结直肠癌(CRC)术前TNM分期判断的准确性。方法连续选取在我院外科手术治疗并符合入组条件的CRC患者共39例,以术后病理TNM分期作为金标准,评价EUS、MSCT及两者联合对CRC患者术前TNM分期的准确性。结果本组患者EUS对CRC的T分期判断准确率分别为75.0%~83.3%,N分期为50.0%~80.0%;MSCT对CRCR的N分期判断准确率为60.0%~83.3%,EUS、MSCT对于N0、N1的判断的准确率接近,而对于N2的判断,两者联合较EUS优势明显(91.7%vs 50.0%,P0.05)。结论 EUS对CRC术前T分期及N0、N1分期具有较高的临床应用价值;而MSCT对N2、M分期的准确性较高,两者联合检查,可获得更精准的术前TNM分期。     

内镜超声检查在胃癌诊断和分期中的临床应用

目的评价内镜超声检查(EUS)对胃癌患者术前诊断和分期的准确性,以指导临床治疗方案的选择。方法22例经胃镜加活检病理检查确诊(17例)和疑诊为胃癌但常规活检阴性的患者(5例),同时行EUS、腹部螺旋CT检查,疑诊者在EUS检查的同时行EUS引导下细针穿刺活检(FNAB)以明确诊断。确定肿瘤侵犯深度(T)、局部淋巴结转移(N)、周围及远处器官转移(M)等分期情况,并与手术及病理对照,以评价EUS对胃癌诊断及TNM临床分期的准确性。结果5例疑诊者行EUS引导下FNAB全部成功取得肿瘤组织,病理诊断腺癌4例,印戒细胞癌1例。1例术前EUS诊断为T1N0M0期的患者行内镜下黏膜切除术,其余患者全部行外科胃癌根治术。与手术和病理结果比较,EUS对于TNM分期诊断总的敏感性和特异性分别为T:84.9%,74.2%;N:92.1%,77.1%;M:63.4%,87.5%。螺旋CT对于胃壁是否增厚及N、M分期的敏感性和特异性分别为T:27.3%,75%;N:31.5%,100%;M:50%,100%。其中EUS对于T和N分期的敏感性较CT高(P<0.05)。结论EUS术前评价胃癌临床分期具有显著的优越性,尤其是对于肿瘤侵犯深度和局部淋巴结转移的诊断,对指导临床治疗方案的选择及术后随访具有重要的参考价值。     

Diagnostic accuracy of tumor staging and treatment outcomes in patients with superficial esophageal cancer

Background We examined the current status and diagnostic accuracy of currently available techniques for tumor staging and assessed treatment outcomes in patients with superficial esophageal cancer who received esophaguspreserving therapy, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) alone or combined with chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Methods In 274 patients with superficial esophageal cancer, we examined the depth of tumor invasion and the degree of lymph node metastasis by means of endoscopy, magnifying endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), and cervical and abdominal ultrasonography (US). We compared treatment outcomes among treatment groups according to the depth of tumor invasion. Results The rates of correctly diagnosing the depth of tumor invasion were 89.6% on conventional endoscopy, 90.1% on magnifying endoscopy, and 85% on scanning with a high-frequency miniature ultrasonic probe (miniature US probe). Diagnostic accuracy for the m3 or sm1 cancers was poor. Magnifying endoscopy allowed invasion to be more precisely estimated, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy. However, lesions that maintained their surface structure despite deep invasion were misdiagnosed on magnifying endoscopy. A miniature US probe was useful for the assessment of such lesions. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS for lymph node metastasis was 83%, with a sensitivity of 76%. The sensitivity of CT was 29%, and that of cervical and abdominal US was 17%. Patients with m1 or m2 cancer had good outcomes after esophagus-preserving therapy. Although there were no significant differences in survival rates, many patients with sm2 or sm3 cancer who received CRT died of their disease. Nodal recurrence was diagnosed by EUS. In patients who received CRT, the time to the detection of recurrence was slightly prolonged. Conclusions Long-term follow-up at regular intervals is essential in patients with m3 or sm esophageal cancers who receive esophagus-preserving treatment. At present, EUS is the most reliable technique for the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis and is therefore essential for pretreatment evaluation as well as for follow-up. Earlier detection of recurrence at a level that would potentially salvage treatment remains a topic for future research. Review articles on this topic also appeared in the previous issue (Volume 4 Number 3). An editorial related to this article is available at .     

Preoperative staging of gastric cancer by endoscopic ultrasonography and multidetector‐row computed tomography

Background and Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and multidetector‐row computed tomography (MDCT) for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer. EUS and computed tomography (CT) are valuable tools for the preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer. With the introduction of new therapeutic options and the recent improvements in CT technology, further evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MDCT is needed. Methods: In total, 277 patients who underwent EUS and MDCT, followed by gastrectomy or endoscopic resection at Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University, from July 2006 to April 2008, were analyzed. The results from the preoperative EUS and MDCT were compared to the postoperative pathological findings. Results: Among the 277 patients, the overall accuracy of EUS and MDCT for T staging was 74.7% and 76.9%, respectively. Among the 141 patients with visualized primary lesions on MDCT, the overall accuracy of EUS and MDCT for T staging was 61.7% and 63.8%, respectively. The overall accuracy for N staging was 66% and 62.8%, respectively. The performance of EUS and MDCT for large lesions and lesions at the cardia and angle had significantly lower accuracy than that of other groups. For EUS, the early gastric cancer lesions with ulcerative changes had significantly lower accuracy than those without ulcerative changes. Conclusions: For the preoperative assessment of individual T and N staging in patients with gastric cancer, the accuracy of MDCT was close to that of EUS. Both EUS and MDCT are useful complementary modalities for the locoregional staging of gastric cancer.     

Endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic tumor diagnosis

In a prospective study from 1988 to 1990, 132 patients with suspected pancreatic tumor were examined with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), transabdominal ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and ERCP. The final diagnosis of 102 pancreatic tumors of different origin (76 malignant and 26 inflammatory tumors) and the exclusion of a pancreatic tumor in 30 patients was made by operation (N = 47), puncture (N = 36), autopsy (N = 3), or follow-up of a mean of 51 weeks (N = 46). Sensitivity and specificity in pancreatic tumor diagnosis were significantly higher for EUS (99% and 100%) than for US (67%/40%) and CT (77%/53%) and equal to ERCP (sensitivity 90%). This was even more obvious in small pancreatic tumors of 3 cm and less. However, as with the other imaging procedures, EUS was not able to differentiate reliably malignant from inflammatory pancreatic masses (accuracy 76% for malignancy and 46% for focal inflammation). From analysis of the endosonographic pattern of pancreatic tumors, no consistent morphologic features were identified which could have been specifically attributed to malignant or inflammatory masses. Our results show that EUS is superior to US and CT and equal to ERCP in pancreatic tumor diagnosis. In contrast to the indirect evidence obtained by ERCP, EUS provides direct visualization of tumor size and shape in almost all patients examined. Thus, EUS should be considered early in the evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic tumors.     

超声内镜对胰腺癌诊断及评估价值

目的：探讨EUS诊断胰腺癌的敏感性，准确性及其评估肿瘤特征的价值。方法：以126例经病理确诊并在确诊前半月内先后接受EUS、US、CT检查的胰腺癌患者为研究对象，回顾性分析三种成像方法及EUS对于不同类型胰腺癌的检查结果，应用t检验或u检验评估这些检查结果的差异有无显著性，结果：EUS诊断胰腺癌准确性较US高，尤其对于小胰腺癌准确性更高，二者差异有显著性（P＜0．05）；EUS诊断敏感性，准确性与CT比较差异无显著性，联合应用EUS及CT检查，则诊断敏感性及准确性大为提高，与单独应用US、EUS或CT相比，差异均有显著性（P＜0．05）；EUS与CT显示肿瘤间接征象的准确性无显著性差异，结论：EUS对于胰腺癌是一种较好的检查方法，尤其对于怀疑为小胰腺癌者应作为常规检查，联合应用EUS和CT检查胰腺癌值得推广。     

内镜超声检查术对胰腺肿瘤早期诊断的价值

目的探讨内镜超声检查术（EUS）、管内超声检查术（IDUS）及超声内镜引导下细针穿刺术（EUS-FNA）对胰腺肿瘤早期诊断的价值。方法回顾性分析和比较188例胰腺小占位病灶的EUS、IDUS、EUS—FNA及其他影像学检查结果。结果（1）EUS诊断小胰腺癌的准确率是95．6％（44／46）,优于B超58．6％（27／46）、CT77．4％（24／31）、MRI76．2％（16／21）及内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）85．3％（29／34）。小胰腺癌EUS声像图主要表现为类圆形、边界清楚、边缘不规则的低回声肿块,内部回声多均匀。（2）25例胰腺小占位病灶行IDUS检查,其准确率是100．0％（25／25）,明显优于B超32．0％（8／25）、CT52．9％（9／17）及MRI57．9％（11／19）等检查。（3）18例胰腺小占位病灶行EUS—FNA,其准确率是66．7％（12／18）。（4）EUS诊断胰腺假性囊肿的准确率是100．0％（27／27）,明显优于13超52．0％（13／25）、CT66、7％（12／18）、MRI82．4％（14／17）及ERCP78．9％（15／19）;对胰腺囊性肿瘤分类鉴别诊断总的准确率是57．7％（15／26）,优于B超19．2％（5／26）、CT36．4％（8／22）、MRI37．5％（6／16）及ERCP50．0％（7／14）等检查。结论EUS、IDUS及EUS-FNA对胰腺肿瘤的早期诊断具有重要价值。