Z Gastroenterol 2012; 50(02): 199-203
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281824
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Advanced Endosonographic Diagnostic Tools for Discrimination of Focal Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Carcinoma – Elastography, Contrast Enhanced High Mechanical Index (CEHMI) and Low Mechanical Index (CELMI) Endosonography in Direct Comparison

Kontrastverstärkte Endosonografie mit 3D-Rekonstruktion zur Diagnostik der autoimmunen Pankreatitis
M. Hocke
1   Department of Internal Medicine II, Hospital Meiningen, Bad Meiningen, Germany
,
A. Ignee
2   Department of Internal Medicine II, Caritas Hospital, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
,
C. F. Dietrich
2   Department of Internal Medicine II, Caritas Hospital, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

25 June 2011

09 October 2011

Publication Date:
01 February 2012 (online)

Abstract

New tools have recently emerged that further improve the diagnostic performance of high-end endosonography. Whilst elastography has been available for a while, contrast-enhancing techniques are still very young with little experience existing in this field. The latest development is contrast enhanced low mechanical index endosonography (CELMI-EUS) which became commercially available at the beginning of 2010. This technique requires contrast-specific software whereas the pre-existing technique of contrast-enhanced high mechanical index endosonography (CEHMI-EUS) does not. The aim of this study was to compare these techniques in discriminating between focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. Included in the study were 58 patients with a pancreatic lesion (19 pancreatic cancer and 39 chronic pancreatitis) with a mean age of 60 ± 15 years. All patients were examined by one investigator (MH). All methods were performed within one examination and the result of each technique was noted before using the next. The gold standard was pathology following surgery, endoscopic fine-needle puncture, or one-year follow-up when chronic pancreatitis was suspected. The consecutive results of specificity and sensitivity were 73.7 % and 61.5 % for B-mode endosonography; 94.7 % and 33.4 % for elastography; 84.2 % and 76.9 % for CELMI-EUS; and 89.5 % and 92.3 % for CEHMI-EUS. A combination of 3 of those methods could not improve on the result of CEHMI-EUS alone. This study shows that, despite the availability of new technologies, CEHMI-EUS is still the most reliable method for the differentiation of focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. However, understanding the advantages of the different methods might help to find the optimal indications for the use of the new techniques.

Zusammenfassung

Neue Möglichkeiten in der technischen Entwicklung haben die Endosonografie in der letzten Zeit vorangetrieben. Während mittlerweile Verfahren wie die Elastografie schon als etabliert gelten, sind die kontrastmittelvermittelten Verfahren jedoch weiterhin als neu zu betrachten, über deren Bedeutung auch bisher wenig bekannt ist. Die jüngste Entwicklung dabei entspricht der Endosonografie mit niedrig mechanischem Index (CELMI-EUS), welche kommerziell erst 2010 verfügbar wurde. Diese Technik erfordert eine spezielle Kontrastmittelsoftware, welches sie von der bisher ausgeübten kontrastverstärkten Endosonografie mit hohem mechanischen Index (CEHMI-EUS) unterscheidet. Der Sinn unserer Studie war, zu prüfen, welche Wertigkeit die einzelnen diagnostischen Tools bei der Unterscheidung von fokaler chronischer Pankreatitis vom Pankreaskarzinom besitzen. In unsere Studie wurde 58 Patienten im Alter von 60 ± 15 Jahren mit fokalen Pankreasläsionen eingeschlossen (19 × Pankreaskarzinom und 39 × chronische Pankreatitis). Alle Patienten wurden durch denselben Untersucher untersucht (MH). Alle Techniken kamen in einem Untersuchungsgang zur Anwendung und die Diagnosestellung erfolgte jeweils nach Abschluss eines Untersuchungsgangs. Als Goldstandard fungierte die postoperative Pathologie, das Resultat der Feinnadelpunktion und ein 1-jähriges Follow-up bei Patienten mit chronischer Pankreatitis. Die Spezifität und Sensitivität der einzelnen Verfahren betrugen für die B-mode Endosonografie 73,3 % und 61,5 %, für die Elastografie 94,7 % und 33,4 %, für die CELMI-EUS 84,2 % und 76,9 % und für die CEHMI-EUS 89,5 % und 92,3 %. Die Kombination von 3 dieser Methoden konnte das vom CEHMI-EUS erzielte Resultat nicht weiter verbessern. Die Studie konnte zeigen, dass der Wert der Gefäßanalyse mithilfe der kontrastverstärkten Endosonografie im Modus mit hohem mechanischen Index immer noch das zuverlässigste Verfahren zur Unterscheidung von fokaler chronischer Pankreatitis vom Pankreaskarzinom darstellt. Das Verständnis der Vorteile der neuen Verfahren eröffnet jedoch mit Sicherheit neue Indikationsstellungen für neue Verfahren wie die kontrastverstärkte Endosonografie im niedrig mechanischen Index-Modus.

 

    References
  • 1 Pickartz T, Mayerle J, Kraft M et al. Chronic pancreatitis as a risk factor for the development of pancreatic cancer – diagnostic challenges. Med Klin 2010; 105: 281-285 (in German)
  • 2 Wang J, Su T, Jia N et al. Computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging presentations of pancreatitis maldiagnosed as pancreatic carcinoma. Pancreas 2010; 39: 262-264
  • 3 Boll DT, Merkle EM. Differentiating a chronic hyperplastic mass from pancreatic cancer: a challenge remaining in multidetector CT of the pancreas. Eur Radiol 2003; 13 (Suppl. 05) M42-M49
  • 4 Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, Campos AD et al. Endoscopic ultrasound and fine needle aspiration in chronic pancreatitis: differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and pancreatic cancer. JOP 2007; 8: 413-421
  • 5 Töx U, Hackenberg R, Stelzer A et al. Endosonographic diagnosis of solid pancreatic tumors: a retrospective analysis from a tertiary referral center. Z Gastroenterol 2007; 45: 307-312
  • 6 Giovannini M, Thomas B, Erwan B et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of lymph nodes and pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 1587-1593
  • 7 Hocke M, Schulze E, Gottschalk P et al. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound in discrimination between focal pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 246-250
  • 8 Dietrich CF, Braden B, Hocke M et al. Improved characterisation of solitary solid pancreatic tumours using contrast enhanced transabdominal ultrasound. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2008; 134: 635-643 Erratum in: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2008; 134: 723
  • 9 Hocke M, Schmidt C, Zimmer B et al. Contrast enhanced endosonography for improving differential diagnosis between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2008; 133: 1888-1892 (in German)
  • 10 Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Kamata K et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic tumors by endoscopic ultrasonography. World J Radiol 2010; 2: 122-134
  • 11 Napoleon B, Alvarez-Sanchez MV, Gincoul R et al. Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound in solid lesions of the pancreas: results of a pilot study. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 564-570
  • 12 Kitano M, Kudo M, Sakamoto H et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography. Pancreatology 2011; 11 (Suppl. 02) 28-33
  • 13 Xu M, Xie XY, Liu GJ et al. The application value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid-cystic lesions. Eur J Radiol 2011; Apr 6
  • 14 Mason K, Higgs SM, Norton SA. Endoscopic ultrasound in the assessment of solid and cystic pancreatic lesions. Br J Hosp Med 2011; 72: 78-85
  • 15 Klöppel G, Adsay NV. Chronic pancreatitis and the differential diagnosis versus pancreatic cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 382-387
  • 16 Godfrey EM, Rushbrook SM, Carroll NR. Endoscopic ultrasound: a review of current diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Postgrad Med J 2010; 86 (1016): 346-353
  • 17 D'Onofrio M, Gallotti A, Principe F et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the pancreas. World J Radiol 2010; 2: 97-102
  • 18 Faccioli N, Crippa S, Bassi C et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the pancreas. Pancreatology 2009; 9: 560-566
  • 19 Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Braden B et al. Improved differentiation of pancreatic tumors using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 590-597
  • 20 Janssen J. (E)US elastography: current status and perspectives. Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46: 572-579 (in German)
  • 21 Hirche TO, Ignee A, Barreiros AP et al. Indications and limitations of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of focal pancreatic lesions. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 910-917
  • 22 Săftoiu A, Vilmann P, Gorunescu F et al. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound elastography used for differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. Endoscopy 24.03.2011
  • 23 Itokawa F, Itoi T, Sofuni A et al. EUS elastography combined with the strain ratio of tissue elasticity for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol 20.04.2011
  • 24 Bellini A, Mattoli S. The role of the fibrocyte, a bone marrow-derived mesenchymal progenitor, in reactive and reparative fibroses. Lab Invest 2007; 87: 858-870
  • 25 Kubota K, Kato S, Akiyama T et al. A proposal for differentiation between early- and advanced-stage autoimmune pancreatitis by endoscopic ultrasonography. Dig Endosc 2009; 21: 162-169