Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 7, 2013; 19(37): 6284-6291
Published online Oct 7, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i37.6284
Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differentiating between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and inflammatory masses: A meta-analysis
Xiang Li, Wei Xu, Jian Shi, Yong Lin, Xin Zeng
Xiang Li, Jian Shi, Yong Lin, Xin Zeng, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China
Wei Xu, Spine Tumor Center, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China
Author contributions: Li X and Xu W acquired, analyzed and interpreted data, and drafted and revised the article; Shi J and Lin Y analyzed and interpreted data; Zeng X designed the study; and all the authors have read and approved the final version to be published.
Supported by The National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 81070347, 30971346 and 81000167
Correspondence to: Xin Zeng, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China. zenxing1978@yahoo.com.cn
Telephone: +86-21-81885342 Fax: +86-21-81886924
Received: January 17, 2013
Revised: April 24, 2013
Accepted: May 16, 2013
Published online: October 7, 2013
Processing time: 274 Days and 6.3 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography for differentiating between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and pancreatic inflammatory masses (PIM).

METHODS: Electronic databases (updated to December 2012) and manual bibliographical searches were carried out. A meta-analysis of all diagnostic clinical trials evaluating the accuracy of EUS elastography in differentiating PDAC from PIM was conducted. Heterogeneity was assessed among the studies. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy of EUS elastography in differentiating PDAC from PIM in homogeneous studies.

RESULTS: Ten studies involving 781 patients were included in the analysis. Significant heterogeneity in sensitivity was observed among the studies (Cochran Q test = 24.16, df = 9, P = 0.0041, I2 = 62.8%), while heterogeneity in specificity was not observed (Cochran Q test = 5.93, df = 9, P = 0.7473, I2 = 0.0%). The area under the curve under the Sports Rights Owners Coalition was 0.8227. Evaluation of heterogeneity suggested that the different diagnostic standards used in the included studies were the source of heterogeneity. In studies using the color pattern as the diagnostic standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR and diagnostic OR were 0.99 (0.97-1.00), 0.76 (0.67-0.83), 3.36 (2.39-4.72), 0.03 (0.01-0.07) and 129.96 (47.02-359.16), respectively. In studies using the hue histogram as the diagnostic standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR and diagnostic OR were 0.92 (0.89-0.95), 0.68 (0.57-0.78), 2.84 (2.05-3.93), 0.12 (0.08-0.19) and 24.69 (12.81-47.59), respectively.

CONCLUSION: EUS elastography is a valuable method for the differential diagnosis between PDAC and PIM. And a preferable diagnostic standard should be explored and improvements in specificity are required.

Keywords: Endoscopic ultrasound; Elastography; Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; Meta-analysis

Core tip: Pancreatic inflammatory masses (PIM) are easily confused with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a promising noninvasive method for differentiating between PDAC and PIM and may prove to be a valuable supplemental method to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.