ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Discriminating chronic pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer: Contrast-enhanced EUS and multidetector computed tomography in direct comparison.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Management of Pancreaticobiliary Cancers: Recent Trends and Advances.Cancers · 2026Review
- Chronic and Idiopathic Pancreatitis-A Personalized Treatment Approach.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Review
- Combining multimodal medical imaging and artificial intelligence for the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Differentiation between Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Protocol for a Multi-Center Confirmatory Trial to Evaluate the Differential Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography Using Perflubutane in Patients with a Pancreatic Mass: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Review
- Recent Developments in the Field of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Pancreatic Lesions.Cancers · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Cancer: Where Are We Now and What Does the Future Entail?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Usefulness of Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Malignancy in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography with and without contrast enhancement for characterization of pancreatic tumors: a meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies by endoscopic ultrasound: a systemic review.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Atypical enhanced computed tomography signs of pancreatic cancer and its differential diagnosis from autoimmune pancreatitis.Gland surgery · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Management of Chronic Pancreatitis.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Endoscopic ultrasonography elastography in the diagnosis of intrapancreatic ectopic spleen: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- Differentiation of chronic mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using contrast-enhanced computed tomography.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Article
- Do we need contrast agents for EUS?Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTo compare the ability of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and contrast-enhanced EUS to discriminate chronic pancreatitis (CP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). SUBJECTS AND
methodsA total of 215 patients (age: 62 ± 15 years, sex: f/m 80/135) were included in this retrospective study. All patients were examined by conventional endoscopic B-mode and contrast-enhanced high mechanical index EUS (CEHMI-EUS). CELMI-EUS was performed in 159 patients and endoscopic sonoelastography (ESE) in 210 patients. MDCT was carried out in 131 patients as part of their clinical work-up. Radiological reports were retrospectively analyzed. Final diagnosis was achieved by biopsy and evaluation of cytological specimens collected was performed by EUS-FNA, surgery, or follow-up of 12 months or more in patients with benign findings. In a subgroup of 100 patients, all diagnostic five methods were performed, and head-to-head analysis was performed.
resultsSensitivity and specificity for MDCT were 89% and 70% and for CEHMI-EUS were 96% and 91%, respectively. Sensitivities and specificities for EUS were 92% and 63% for B-Mode EUS, 96% and 38% for ESE, and 82% and 76% for CELMI-EUS, respectively. In the head-to-head analysis, each modality had shown lower numbers for specificity than shown in the overall group analysis because of high drop-out rate. EUS-FNA for PDAC had a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 100%.
conclusionsContrast-enhanced EUS is a reliable tool in discriminating PDAC from CP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.