Preoperative evaluation of periampullary tumors by endoscopic sonography, transabdominal sonography, and computed tomography

Abstract

EUS is superior to US and CT in the local assessment of periampullary tumors. The staging accuracy of EUS is minimally but not significantly affected by the presence of an endobiliary stent.

The Difference Between EUS & CT Scan in Diagnosing and Staging Peri Ampullary Tumours: An evidence-based approach

“…Twenty-two papers (10%) matched the selection criteria while the remainder (197, 90%) were excluded [2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] . Seventeen articles were prospective [2,[4][5][6][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]18,[20][21][22][23][24] and five retrospective [7,8,16,17,19] . In all studies radiological findings where compared with both intraoperative findings and final histopathological analysis that were considered gold-standards of comparison.…”

“…The sensitivity of EUS for diagnosing the primary tumour has been reported in thirteen studies (Table 2) [4,6,7,[9][10][11][12][13]15,16,18,19,22] and the range varied between 92% and 100% [9,10,15,16,22] . The overall sensitivity estimated by the sum of the total true positives / total number of patients was 97% (474/488) (Table 6) [4,6,7,[9][10][11][12][13]15,16,18,19,22] .…”

“…Rivadeneira DE [16] Midwinter MJ [13] Shoup M [19] Maluf-Filho F [11] Cannon ME [5] Mukai H [15] Mukai H [15] Schwarz M [18] Skordilis P [20] Mansfield SD [12] Chen CH [6] Tomazic A [21] Chen CH [7] Brugge WR [4] Ho JM [8] Howard TJ [9] Tio TL [2] Zhang QL [23] Zhang QL [23] Rosch T [17] Mitake M [14] Kubo H [10] Yasuda K [22] Tierney WM [24] Recruitment period 1996-2000 1996-1998 1996-1998 1997-1999 1994-1997 1984-1991 1984-1991 1996-1997 1993-2000 2002-2004 1996-1999 -1998-2006 1996-2007 1993-1996 1987-1988 1989-1992 1989-1992 1991-1995 1985-1988 1988-1997 1982-1987 1996-1999 Type of study [15] and Zhang [23] present results for ampullary cancers and common bile duct cancers separated, for this reason they are reported in two separated rows each. Table 2 Tumour detection rate.…”

“…Yasuda K [22] Mukai H (Ampullary) [15] Mukai H (CBD) [15] Tio TL [2] Kubo H [10] Zhang QL (Ampullary [23] Zhang QL (CBD) [23] Brugge WR [4] Howard TJ [9] Skordilis P [20] Cannon ME [5] Schwarz M [18] Midwinter MJ [13] Shoup M [19] Chen CH [6] Rivadeneira DE [16] Maluf-Filho F [11] Chen CH [7] Mansfield SD [12] Yasuda K [22] Mukai H (Ampullary) [15] Mukai H (CBD) [15] Brugge WR [4] Howard T [9] Schwarz M [18] Midwinter MJ [13] Shoup M [19] Chen CH (2001) [6] Rivadeneira DE [16] Maluf-Filho F [11] Chen CH [7] Mansfield SD [12] Imaging …”

“…The overall sensitivity estimated by the sum of the total true positives / total number of patients was 97% (474/488) (Table 6) [4,6,7,[9][10][11][12][13]15,16,18,19,22] . Specificity was reported by five studies with a range from 33 to 93% (Table 2) [11,12,16,18,19] .…”