RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/a-2226-1464
Assessment of pancreatic ductal stone density on non-contrast computed tomography for predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
Clinical Trial: Registration number (trial ID): CTRI/2019/06/019750, Trial registry: Clinical Trials Registry India (http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials), Type of Study: Prospective observational study
Abstract
Background and study aims The utility of stone density at non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) for predicting the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in chronic calcific pancreatitis (CCP) is relatively unexplored.
Patients and methods This was a prospective observational study of patients with CCP. Hounsfield units (HU) were determined for the largest pancreatic ductal stone during pretreatment NCCT. All patients underwent ESWL until the largest stone was fragmented to <3mm, followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for stone extraction. The predictive factors following ESWL for successful stone extraction were studied and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve determined the HU optimal cut-point.
Results Eighty-two patients with a median (interquartile range) age of 36 years (range, 29–55); majority male 45 (54.9%), were included. Idiopathic CCP was noted in 78 patients (95.1%). The median stone density (SD) was 1095 HU (range, 860.7–1260.7) and the number of ESWL sessions was 2 (range, 2–3). Complete stone removal at index ERCP was achieved in 55 patients (67.1%). Those with partial clearance (n=27) needed a repeat ERCP, which was successful in 26 (96.3%); one patient (3.7%) underwent surgery. There was a significant, positive correlation between number of ESWL sessions and SD (r=0.797; P<0.001). On bivariate analysis, SD and the number of ESWL sessions revealed a significant association with complete ductal clearance. The optimal cut-point for complete stone removal by the ROC curve was 1106.5 HU (Youden index 0.726), with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 80%.
Conclusions The SD is a significant predictor of ESWL success followed by ductal clearance at ERCP, and <1106.5 HU is a predictor of good candidates for ESWL therapy.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 26. September 2023
Angenommen nach Revision: 05. Dezember 2023
Accepted Manuscript online:
11. Dezember 2023
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. Februar 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Gnecco J, Brown LK, Boregowda U. et al. Pancreatic stones and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: a review of the literature. Pancreas 2022; 51: 916-922 DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000002129. (PMID: 36607935)
- 2 Kamat N, Pai G, Mallayasamy SR. et al. Direct costs for nonsurgical management of Chronic Pancreatitis in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2018; 18: 315-320 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2018.1386560. (PMID: 29022830)
- 3 Sharzehi K. Management of pancreatic duct stones. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2019; 21: 63 DOI: 10.1007/s11894-019-0727-0. (PMID: 31797163)
- 4 Singh VK, Yadav D, Garg PK. Diagnosis and management of chronic pancreatitis: a review. JAMA 2019; 322: 2422-2434 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.19411. (PMID: 31860051)
- 5 Wang W, Chai L, Zhu N. et al. Clinical significance of pancreatic calcifications: a 15-year single-center observational study. Eur J Med Res 2022; 27: 99 DOI: 10.1186/s40001-022-00725-9. (PMID: 35752857)
- 6 Javadi S, Menias CO, Korivi BR. et al. Pancreatic calcifications and calcified pancreatic masses: pattern recognition approach on CT. Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209: 77-87 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.17862. (PMID: 28418702)
- 7 Bhullar FA, Faghih M, Akshintala VS. et al. P-QST Consortium. Prevalence of primary painless chronic pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2022; 22: 20-29
- 8 Hart PA, Conwell DL. Chronic pancreatitis: managing a difficult disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 49-55 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000421. (PMID: 31764092)
- 9 Anderson MA, Akshintala V, Albers KM. et al. Mechanism, assessment and management of pain in chronic pancreatitis: Recommendations of a multidisciplinary study group. Pancreatology 2016; 16: 83-94 DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2015.10.015. (PMID: 26620965)
- 10 Beyer G, Habtezion A, Werner J. et al. Chronic pancreatitis. Lancet 2020; 396: 499-512 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31318-0. (PMID: 32798493)
- 11 Vege SS, Chari ST. Chronic Pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2022; 386: 869-878 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp1809396. (PMID: 35235728)
- 12 Maydeo A, Dhir V. Focusing on the role of endoscopy in chronic pancreatitis management - taking nature's help. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 317-318 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-104856. (PMID: 28351101)
- 13 Kwek AB, Ang TL, Maydeo A. Current status of endotherapy for chronic pancreatitis. Singapore Med J 2014; 55: 613-620 DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2014173. (PMID: 25630314)
- 14 Gnecco J, Brown LK, Boregowda U. et al. Pancreatic stones and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: a review of the literature. Pancreas 2022; 51: 916-922 DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000002129. (PMID: 36607935)
- 15 Dumonceau JM, Delhaye M, Tringali A. et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Updated August 2018. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 179-193 DOI: 10.1055/a-0822-0832. (PMID: 30654394)
- 16 Gücük A, Uyetürk U. Usefulness of hounsfield unit and density in the assessment and treatment of urinary stones. World J Nephrol 2014; 3: 282-286 DOI: 10.5527/wjn.v3.i4.282. (PMID: 25374823)
- 17 Ohyama H, Mikata R, Ishihara T. et al. Efficacy of stone density on noncontrast computed tomography in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for patients with pancreatic stones. Pancreas 2015; 44: 422-428
- 18 Liu R, Su W, Gong J. et al. Noncontrast computed tomography factors predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcomes in patients with pancreatic duct stones. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43: 3367-3373
- 19 Liu R, Su W, Wang J. et al. Quantitative factors of unenhanced CT for predicting fragmenting efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on pancreatic duct stones. Clin Radiol 2019; 74: 408.e1-408.e7
- 20 Tirkes T, Shah ZK, Takahashi N. et al. Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer. Reporting Standards for Chronic Pancreatitis by Using CT, MRI, and MR Cholangiopancreatography: The Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer. Radiology 2019; 290: 207-215 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018181353. (PMID: 30325281)
- 21 Obuchowski NA. Computing sample size for receiver operating characteristic studies. Invest Radiol 1994; 29: 238-243 DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199402000-00020. (PMID: 8169102)
- 22 Sauerbruch T, Holl J, Sackmann M. et al. Extracorporeal lithotripsy of pancreatic stones in patients with chronic pancreatitis and pain: a prospective follow up study. Gut 1992; 33: 969-972
- 23 van der Hul R, Plaisier P, Jeekel J. et al. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of pancreatic duct stones: immediate and long-term results. Endoscopy 1994; 26: 573-578 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1009042. (PMID: 8001483)
- 24 Inui K, Tazuma S, Yamaguchi T. et al. Treatment of pancreatic stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: results of a multicenter survey. Pancreas 2005; 30: 26-30
- 25 Guda NM, Partington S, Freeman ML. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of chronic calcific pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. JOP 2005; 6: 6-12 (PMID: 15650279)
- 26 Maydeo A, Kamat N, Dalal A. et al. Advances in the management of pain in chronic pancreatitis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2023; 25: 260-266 DOI: 10.1007/s11894-023-00898-1. (PMID: 37713043)
- 27 Garg M, Johnson H, Lee SM. et al. Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi: Outcomes of a Systematic Review. Curr Urol Rep 2023; 24: 173-185 DOI: 10.1007/s11934-023-01145-w. (PMID: 36802317)
- 28 Li BR, Liao Z, Du TT. et al. Risk factors for complications of pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1092-1100 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377753. (PMID: 25251205)
- 29 Gonulalan U, Akand M, Coban G. et al. Skin-to-stone distance has no impact on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 2014; 92: 444-448 DOI: 10.1159/000356562. (PMID: 24481206)
- 30 Ahn SH, Oh TH, Seo IY. Can a dual-energy computed tomography predict unsuitable stone components for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?. Korean J Urol 2015; 56: 644-649 DOI: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.9.644. (PMID: 26366277)