No abstract

No abstract

Despite its advantages in assessing the organs situated near the gastrointestinal tract, EUS is still an operator-dependent technique. The new EUS examination modalities incorporated in modern ultrasound systems allow a highly accurate diagnosis.

No abstract

Objective:Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) represent rare, heterogeneous tumors with clinical, imaging and treatment particularities. The aim of this study was to assess the role of power Doppler endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnosis and characterization of PNET.Methods:All consecutive patients with PNET assessed by power Doppler EUS in the Research Centre of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, Romania, in the past 51 months were included in the study. All EUS examinations were performed initially in gray-scale mode, followed by power Doppler mode examinations, before and after contrast-enhancement. Each recorded EUS movie was further subjected to post-processing using a computer-enhanced dynamic analysis using a special plug-in which permitted assessment of vascularity index (EUS-VI).Results:Based on the analysis of all consecutive malignant focal pancreatic masses diagnosed in the study period, a total number of 131 consecutive patients were included: 14 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and 117 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity of the pre-contrast EUS-VI for the diagnosis of PNET was 71.43%, similar to EUS-FNA. After contrast enhancement, the EUS-VI is also higher in PNET (27.07%) as compared to pancreatic adenocarcinoma where it was significantly lower 9.82% (P < 0.001). However, the sensitivity of EUS-VI after contrast enhancement for the diagnosis of PNET was 100%, higher than pre-contrast EUS-VI, with an acceptable specificity (79.49%) and better accuracy (81.68%).Conclusion:Power Doppler EUS represents a useful method in the initial assessment of PNET. Using evaluation of vascularity through EUS-VI, the differentiation between PNET and pancreatic cancer could be possible, especially in the subgroup of patients where EUS-guided fine needle aspiration is falsely negative.

Introduction: In some cases, there may be a discrepancy between the symptomatology alleged by Crohn’s disease (CD) patients and the results of laboratory tests or imaging investigations. Ileocolonoscopy with biopsy is the primary investigation for diagnosing and monitoring CD patients. Cross-sectional imaging techniques such as CT or MR enterography (MRE) and intestinal ultrasonography (IUS) have been proposed as complementary methods to colonoscopy for a complete evaluation of this category of patients. This study aims to identify the role of IUS, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and MRE in evaluating ileal CD activity, using clinical severity scores (Crohn’s disease activity index—CDAI, Harvey–Bradshaw index—HBI) and faecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein (CRP) levels as reference methods. Materials and Methods: A total of 44 adult patients with ileal CD confirmed using an ileocolonoscopy with biopsy and histopathological examination were assessed by IUS, CEUS and MRE. The evaluation of the disease activity based on the results obtained from the cross-sectional imaging tests was carried out by using some severity scores available in the literature. The sensitivity and specificity of IUS + CEUS and MRE for differentiating active from inactive forms of CD were determined using CDAI, HBI, faecal calprotectin and CRP as reference methods. The accuracy of the results was assessed by the receiver operating characteristics method. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the types of correlation. A p-value less than 0.05 suggested a statistically significant relationship. Results: Compared to CDAI, the best correlation was identified for Limberg score (r = 0.667, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.46, 0.8], p < 0.001), followed by MaRIAs score (r = 0.614, 95% CI [0.39, 0.77], p < 0.001). A sensitivity of 93.33% and a specificity of 71.43% (AUC = 0.98) were demonstrated in the case of Limberg score for differentiating patients with active disease from those in remission and for MaRIAs score a sensitivity of 100.00% and a specificity of 57.14% (AUC = 0.97). Regarding HBI, the best correlation was observed for MaRIAs score (r = 0.594, 95% CI [0.36, 0.76], p < 0.001). Also, faecal calprotectin showed the best correlation with MaRIAs score (r = 0.697, 95% CI [0.46, 0.84], p < 0.001), but in the case of CRP, there was only a weak correlation for all evaluated scores. Conclusions: Although magnetic resonance imaging does not appear to be superior to ultrasonography in terms of accuracy for differentiating active forms of CD from those in remission, the results of our study suggest that MRE associates a better correlation with clinical severity scores and faecal calprotectin levels compared to ultrasonography. More studies are needed to validate these results.

No abstract

The diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can sometimes be challenging. By corroborating clinical, imaging and histological data, the two main entities of IBD, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease (CD), can be differentiated in most cases. However, there remains 10–20% of patients where the diagnosis cannot be accurately established, in which case the term “IBD unclassified” is used. The imaging techniques most used to evaluate patients with IBD include colonoscopy, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Endoscopic ultrasonography is mainly recommended for the evaluation of perianal CD. Through this work, we aim to identify other uses of this method in the case of patients with IBD.