AIM： To assess the utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography （CEUS） with a second-generation contrast medium in the differential diagnosis between mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS： Fr...AIM： To assess the utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography （CEUS） with a second-generation contrast medium in the differential diagnosis between mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS： From our radio-pathology database, we retrieved all the patients affected by mass-forming pancreatitis or pancreatic carcinoma who underwent CEUS. We evaluated the results of CEUS in the study of the 173 pancreatic masses considering the possibilities of a differential diagnosis between mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic tumor by identifying the ＂parenchymographic＂ enhancement during the dynamic phase of CEUS, which was considered diagnostic for mass-forming pancreatitis. RESULTS： At CEUS, 94% of the mass-forming pancreatitis showed intralesional parenchymography. CEUS allowed diagnosis of mass-forming pancreatitis with sensitivity of 88.6%, specificity of 97.8%, positive predictive value of 91.2%, negative predictive value of 97.1%, and overall accuracy of 96%. CEUS significantly increased the diagnostic confidence in the differential diagnosis between mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma, with receiver operating characteristic curve areas from 0.557 （P = 0.1608） for baseline US to 0.956 （P 〈 0.0001） for CEUS. CONCLUSION： CEUS allowed diagnosis of massforming pancreatitis with diagnostic accuracy of 96%. CEUS significantly increases the diagnostic confidence with respect to basal US in discerning mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic neoplasm.展开更多
文摘AIM： To assess the utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography （CEUS） with a second-generation contrast medium in the differential diagnosis between mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS： From our radio-pathology database, we retrieved all the patients affected by mass-forming pancreatitis or pancreatic carcinoma who underwent CEUS. We evaluated the results of CEUS in the study of the 173 pancreatic masses considering the possibilities of a differential diagnosis between mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic tumor by identifying the ＂parenchymographic＂ enhancement during the dynamic phase of CEUS, which was considered diagnostic for mass-forming pancreatitis. RESULTS： At CEUS, 94% of the mass-forming pancreatitis showed intralesional parenchymography. CEUS allowed diagnosis of mass-forming pancreatitis with sensitivity of 88.6%, specificity of 97.8%, positive predictive value of 91.2%, negative predictive value of 97.1%, and overall accuracy of 96%. CEUS significantly increased the diagnostic confidence in the differential diagnosis between mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma, with receiver operating characteristic curve areas from 0.557 （P = 0.1608） for baseline US to 0.956 （P 〈 0.0001） for CEUS. CONCLUSION： CEUS allowed diagnosis of massforming pancreatitis with diagnostic accuracy of 96%. CEUS significantly increases the diagnostic confidence with respect to basal US in discerning mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic neoplasm.
