Copyright
©2010 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 14, 2010; 16(34): 4253-4263
Published online Sep 14, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i34.4253
Published online Sep 14, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i34.4253
Table 1 Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasonography in chronic pancreatitis
Author | No. of pts | No. of EUS criteria | Threshold for CP diagnosis | Comparison | Sn | Sp | PPV | NPV | Acc |
Wiersema et al[4] | 69 | 11 | > 3 = dg | EUS vs ERCP | 100 | 79 | |||
EUS vs ERCP + secretin test | 70 | 33 | |||||||
EUS vs ERCP + history | 90 | 66 | |||||||
Catalano et al[2] | 80 | 11 | 1-2 mild | EUS vs secretin test | 84 | 78 | |||
3-5 moderate | EUS vs ERCP | 86.1 | 95.4 | ||||||
> 5 severe | EUS vs ERCP + secretin test | 84.2 | 97.6 | ||||||
Sahai et al[8] | 126 | 9 | > 2 for any CP | EUS vs ERCP | > 85 | < 85 | |||
< 3 = fibrosis | |||||||||
> 6 = severe | > 85 | ||||||||
Conwell et al[14] | 56 | 9 | 4-5 = equivocal | EUS vs ePFT | 36 | 94 | 93 | 41 | |
> 6 = definite | 26 | 100 | 100 | 39 | |||||
Stevens et al[13] | 83 | 9 | 3-5 = dg | EUS vs ERCP | 68 | 79 | 83 | 62 | |
6-9 = severe | |||||||||
Stevens et al[10] | 100 | 9 | > 4 | Radial EUS vs ePFT | 68 | 95 | 84 | ||
Linear EUS vs ePFT | 44 | 95 | 74 | ||||||
Stevens et al[12] | 50 | 9 | > 4 | EUS vs secretin ePFT | 71 | 92 | |||
EUS vs CCK ePFT | 63 | 85 | |||||||
Zimmermann et al[23] | 21 | 9 | > 4 | EUS vs histology (surgery) | 78 | 73 | |||
Varadarajulu et al[24] | 21 | 9 | > 4 | EUS vs histology1 (surgery) | 90 | 85.7 | 88.1 | ||
Chong et al[25] | 71 | 9 | > 3 = dg | EUS vs histology1 (surgery) | 83.3 | 80 | |||
> 4 = severe fibrosis | |||||||||
Bhutani et al[22] | 11 | 9 | > 3 | EUS vs histology (autopsy) |
Table 2 Correspondence between standard endoscopic ultrasonography criteria and pathologic features in chronic pancreatitis (adapted from Sahai AV 2002[21])
Standard EUS criteria | Pathologic features |
Parenchymal criteria | |
Hyperechoic foci | Small calcifications |
Hyperechoic strands | Fibrosis |
Lobularity | Edema or fibrosis |
Cysts | Pseudocysts |
Calcifications | Calcifications |
Ductal criteria | |
MPD dilatation | MPD dilatation |
MPD irregularity | MPD irregular |
Hyperechoic MPD walls | Ductal fibrosis or edema |
Visible side branches | Dilated secondary branches |
Table 3 Rosemont consensus definitions
Rank | Features | Definition | Location | |
Parenchymal features | ||||
1 | Major A | Hyperechoic foci with shadowing | Echogenic structures ≥ 2 mm in length and width that shadow | Body and tail only |
2 | Major B | Lobularity with honeycombing | Well-circumscribed, ≥ 5 mm structures with enhancing rims and relatively echo-poor centers, with ≥ 3 lobules | Body and tail only |
Minor | Lobularity with honeycombing | Well-circumscribed, ≥ 5 mm structures with enhancing rims and relatively echo-poor centers, with non-contiguous lobules | Body and tail only | |
3 | Minor | Hyperechoic foci without shadowing | Echogenic structures ≥ 2 mm in length and width with no shadowing | Body and tail only |
4 | Minor | Cysts | Anechoic, rounded/elliptical structures with or without septations | Head, body and tail only |
5 | Minor | Stranding | Hyperechoic lines ≥ 3 mm in length in at least two different directions with respect to the imaged plane | Body and tail only |
Ductal features | ||||
1 | Major A | MPD calculi | Echogenic structures within the MPD with acoustic shadowing | Head, body and tail only |
2 | Minor | Irregularity of MPD contour | Uneven or irregular outline and ectatic course | Body and tail only |
3 | Minor | Dilated side branches | 3 or more tubular anechoic structures each measuring ≥ 1 mm in width, budding from MPD | Body and tail only |
4 | Minor | MPD dilation | ≥ 3.5 mm in body or > 1.5 mm in tail | Body and tail only |
5 | Minor | Hyperechoic duct margin | Echogenic, distinct structure greater than 50%of the entire MPD | Body and tail only |
Table 4 Rosemont diagnostic stratification
Stratum | Criteria |
Consistent with CP | 1 major feature A + ≥ 3 minor features |
1 major feature A + major feature B | |
2 major feature | |
Suggestive of CP | 1 major feature A + < 3 minor features |
1 major feature B + ≥ 3 minor features | |
≥ 5 minor features (any) | |
Indeterminate for CP | 3 or 4 minor features major feature B alone or with < 3 minor features |
Normal | ≤ 2 minor features1 |
- Citation: Seicean A. Endoscopic ultrasound in chronic pancreatitis: Where are we now? World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16(34): 4253-4263
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v16/i34/4253.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i34.4253