Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis
Abstract. Background:. Patients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of cont...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer
2023-09-01
|
| Series: | Chinese Medical Journal |
| Online Access: | http://journals.lww.com/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002300 |
| _version_ | 1797729152597491712 |
|---|---|
| author | Jie Yang Jiayan Huang Yonggang Zhang Keyu Zeng Min Liao Zhenpeng Jiang Wuyongga Bao Qiang Lu Lishao Guo |
| author_facet | Jie Yang Jiayan Huang Yonggang Zhang Keyu Zeng Min Liao Zhenpeng Jiang Wuyongga Bao Qiang Lu Lishao Guo |
| author_sort | Jie Yang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract. Background:. Patients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC.
Methods:. A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (−LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance.
Results:. Twenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%–88%; I2 = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%–97%; I2 = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, −LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61–30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13–0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94–201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87–92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75–85%; I2 = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90–96%; I2 = 74.87%); the overall +LR, −LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86–21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16–0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45–113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90–0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42–3.83], P > 0.05).
Conclusions:. CEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T11:24:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-29c03474668f422588cb589b0ec47735 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0366-6999 2542-5641 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T11:24:54Z |
| publishDate | 2023-09-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Chinese Medical Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-29c03474668f422588cb589b0ec477352023-09-01T09:41:51ZengWolters KluwerChinese Medical Journal0366-69992542-56412023-09-01136172028203610.1097/CM9.0000000000002300202309050-00002Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysisJie YangJiayan HuangYonggang ZhangKeyu ZengMin LiaoZhenpeng JiangWuyongga BaoQiang LuLishao GuoAbstract. Background:. Patients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC. Methods:. A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (−LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance. Results:. Twenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%–88%; I2 = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%–97%; I2 = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, −LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61–30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13–0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94–201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87–92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75–85%; I2 = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90–96%; I2 = 74.87%); the overall +LR, −LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86–21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16–0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45–113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90–0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42–3.83], P > 0.05). Conclusions:. CEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions.http://journals.lww.com/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002300 |
| spellingShingle | Jie Yang Jiayan Huang Yonggang Zhang Keyu Zeng Min Liao Zhenpeng Jiang Wuyongga Bao Qiang Lu Lishao Guo Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis Chinese Medical Journal |
| title | Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis |
| title_full | Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis |
| title_short | Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis |
| title_sort | contrast enhanced ultrasound and contrast enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma a meta analysis |
| url | http://journals.lww.com/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002300 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jieyang contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT jiayanhuang contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT yonggangzhang contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT keyuzeng contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT minliao contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT zhenpengjiang contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT wuyonggabao contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT qianglu contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis AT lishaoguo contrastenhancedultrasoundandcontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyfordifferentiatingmassformingpancreatitisfrompancreaticductaladenocarcinomaametaanalysis |