Maximizing the endosonography: The role of contrast harmonics, elastography and confocal endomicroscopy

Table 4 Quantitative assessment studies for differentiating pancreatic masses

Ref.	Type of study	Type of mass	Contrast agent	Type of echoendoscope	MI	Quantitative assessment	Features useful for differentiation	Diagnostic rate
Seicean et al[31], 2010	Prospective	PC-15	Sonovue	Radial	0.36	Hue histogram	Uptake index ratio	Sn = 80%
		CP-12						Sp = 91%
								PPV = 92.8%
								NPV = 78%
Matsubara et al[20], 2011	Retrospective	PC-48	Sonazoid	Linear	0.20	TIC	Echo intensity reduction rate relative to the peak at 1 min	Sn = 87.5%
		AIP-14						Sp = 88.9%
		CP-13						EUS + TIC
		NET-16						Sn = 95.8%
								Sp = 92.6%
Gheonea et al[25], 2012	Prospective	CP-19	Sonovue	Linear	0.20	Postprocessing TIC	Peak intensity intensity	Sn = 93.7%
		PC-32					TTP	Sp = 89.4%
							AUC
Imazu et al[32], 2014	Prospective	AIP-8	Sonazoid	Radial	0.25-0.3	TIC	Peak intensity	Sn = 100%
		PC-22					Maximum intensity gain	Sp = 100%
Săftoiu et al[33], 2015	Prospective	PC-112	Sonovue	Linear	0.1-0.3	TIC	Peak intensity	Sn = 87.5%
		CP-55		Radial			Wash-in AUC	Sp = 92.72%
							Wash-in rate
							Wash-in perfusion index

MI: Mechanical index; PC: Pancreatic cancer; CP: Chronic pancreatitis; NET: Neuroendocrine tumors; AIP: Autoimmune pancreatitis; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; Sn: Sensitivity; Sp: Specificity.