Scopul nostru este sprijinirea şi promovarea cercetării ştiinţifice şi facilitarea comunicării între cercetătorii români din întreaga lume.
Autori: Vasile TA, Feier D, Socaciu M, Anton OM, Seicean A, Iancu C, Zaharie T, Badea R.
Editorial: J Gastrointestin Liver Dis, 21(3), p.285-292, 2012.
Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the leading causes of discrepancies between imaging studies [contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast enhanced computer tomography (CECT)] diagnosis and histology in patients presenting to a tertiary referral center with previously detected pancreatic masses by standard abdominal ultrasound. Methods: We performed a prospective longitudinal observational study on 76 patients with pancreatic masses: 57 (75%) patients with solid pancreatic tumors and 19 (25%) patients with cystic and mixed pancreatic masses. For each tumor the CEUS and CECT features were analyzed and compared with the final histological diagnosis. Results: Testing the performance of CEUS and CECT in evaluating the benign or malignant etiology of pancreatic masses, we obtained a probability of 82% for CEUS and of 83% for CECT, for a randomly selected individual from the pancreatic tumor group to have an imaging result indicating suspicion for malignancy. We obtained discordances with the histopathological diagnosis in 25 (32.89%) patients for CEUS and in 23 (30.26%) patients for CECT. In multiple regression analysis, two variables independently influenced the discordance between the two imaging methods and histological conclusion: enhancement pattern and tumor nature (solid vs. cystic). Conclusions: CEUS and CECT showed a good diagnostic performance in differentiating benign from malignant pancreatic tumors. Enhancement pattern and tumor nature (solid vs. cystic) are independent confounders between imaging and histological diagnosis.
Cuvinte cheie: Pancreatic tumor – contrast enhanced – ultrasound – computer tomography – diagnostic confounders.