Endoscopic ultrasound elastography in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis
Endoscopic ultrasound elastography in the diagnosis of pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis
复制标题
内镜超声弹性成像诊断胰腺肿块：荟萃分析
DOI：
10.1016/j.pan.2018.07.008
复制
发表时间：
2018-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Li, Minmin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhang, Binglan;Zhu, Fuping;Li, Minmin
背景和目标：内镜超声弹性成像是一种新型的无创性技术，可用于鉴别胰腺肿块的良恶性。然而，这些研究报告的敏感性和特异性差异很大。进行荟萃分析，以评估性能EUS弹性成像的良性和恶性pancreatic masset.Methods的分化：所有符合条件的研究检索PubMed，Medline，Embase，和科克伦图书馆。计算敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比（LR）、阴性LR和曲线下面积（AUC）以检验准确性。对胰腺恶性肿瘤诊断的敏感性和特异性为0.98（95%置信区间[CI] 0.96-0.99）和0.63（95% CI 0.58-0.69），定量EUS弹性成像分别为0.95（95% CI 0.93-0.97）和0.61（95% CI 0.56-0.66）。定性EUS弹性成像的阳性和阴性LR分别为2.60（95%CI 1.84-3.66）和0.05（95%CI 0.02-0.10），定量EUS弹性成像的阳性和阴性LR分别为2.64（95%CI 1.82-3.82）和0.10（95%CI 0.06-0.16）。总诊断比值比（DOR）和AUC为60.59（95% CI 28.12-130.56）和0.91（Q* = 0.842）对于定性EUS弹性成像，30.09（95% CI 15.40-58.76）和0.93（Q* = 0.860）。结论：我们的荟萃分析表明，定性和定量EUS弹性成像在检测恶性胰腺肿块方面具有较高的准确性，该方法可作为EUS-FNA鉴别胰腺肿块的一种有价值的补充方法。(C)2018年IAP和EPC。Elsevier B. V.出版，保留所有权利。
Background and aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a novel non-invasive technique that can be used for distinguishing benign from malignant pancreatic masses. However, the studies have reported widely varied sensitivities and specificities. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the performance of EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic masses.Methods: All the eligible studies were searched by PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to examine the accuracy.Results: A total of nineteen studies which included 1687 patients were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant pancreatic masses were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.99) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.58-0.69) for qualitative EUS elastography, 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The positive and negative LR were 2.60 (95% CI 1.84-3.66) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.10) for qualitative EUS elastography, 2.64 (95% CI 1.82-3.82) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.06-0.16) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the AUC were 60.59 (95% CI 28.12-130.56) and 0.91 (Q* = 0.842) for qualitative EUS elastography, 30.09 (95% CI 15.40-58.76) and 0.93 (Q* = 0.860) for quantitative EUS elastography.Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows that both qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography have high accuracy in the detection of malignant pancreatic masses, which could be used as a valuable complementary method to EUS-FNA for the differentiation of pancreatic masses in the future. (C) 2018 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.