内镜超声检查对胆囊癌的诊断价值

目的探讨内镜超声检查(EUS)对胆囊癌的诊断价值。方法对18例胆囊癌患者行EUS 检查并与体表B超(B超),X线电子计算机断层扫描(CT)/磁共振成像(MRI)结果进行比较。结果18例中EUS诊断17例,CT/MRI诊断15例,B超诊断5例。EUS诊断胆囊癌的敏感性与准确性高于B超,与CT/MRI相当。13例行手术治疗,与手术病理组织检查比较,EUS诊断正确率为92％,CT/MRI为76.9％,差异无显著性(P＞0.05)。B超为41.6％,差异有非常显著性(P＜0.01)。EUS对小病灶的显示明显优于B超,并优于CT/MRI。结论EUS对胆囊癌有较高的诊断价值。     

内镜超声检查对胆囊癌的诊断价值

目的探讨内镜超声检查(EUS)对胆囊癌的诊断价值.方法对18例胆囊癌患者行EUS检查并与体表B超(B超),X线电子计算机断层扫描(CT)/磁共振成像(MR1)结果进行比较.结果18例中,EUS诊断17例,CT/MRI诊断15例,B超诊断5例.EUS诊断胆囊癌的敏感性与准确性高于B超,与CT/MRI相当.13例行手术治疗,与手术病理比较,EUS诊断正确率为92%,CT/MRI为76.9%(P＞0.05),B超为41.6%(P＜0.01).EUS对小病灶的显示明显优于B超,并优于CT/MRI.结论EUS对胆囊癌有较高的诊断价值.     

超声内镜对壶腹部周围病变的诊断价值研究

[目的]探讨超声内镜(endoscopic ultrasonography,EUS)对壶腹部周围病变的诊断价值。[方法]对行EUS检查诊断为壶腹周围病变的336例患者,同时接受腹部B超、腹部CT、MRI、MRCP其中一项或一项以上的检查,比较不同检查方法在壶腹周围病变中定位及定性诊断的准确率。[结果]336例中胆总管末端病变(炎症、结石、肿瘤)187例、胰头病变(炎症、肿瘤、胰腺导管内乳头状粘液瘤)86例、十二指肠乳头病变(炎症、肿瘤)33例、壶腹部病变(肿瘤)30例,分别占壶腹部周围病变的55.7%、25.6%、9.8%、8.9%。EUS的诊断准确率达92.0%,与B超、CT、MRI、MRCP比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05,χ~2=223.936、121.352、47.965、70.530)。[结论]EUS在壶腹部周围病变的定性、定位诊断中有重要价值。     

超声内镜引导下细针穿刺抽吸术的方法和价值

内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术(EUS-FNA)已被广泛应用于消化壁及其壁外病变的诊断和治疗。不同于CT和腹部超声监视下的穿刺,EUS-FNA可大大缩短穿刺针与病灶的距离,穿刺针通过的穿刺路径气体干扰少、创伤小,并发症亦显著减少。此外,由于采用了高频超声探头,可获得较高的分辨率,EUS-FNA可对微小病变进行穿刺和治疗。本文就EUS-FNA在操作过程中的要点以及在消化道及其壁外疾病中的应用价值做一简要阐述。     

内镜超声检查术对胰腺肿瘤早期诊断的价值

目的探讨内镜超声检查术（EUS）、管内超声检查术（IDUS）及超声内镜引导下细针穿刺术（EUS-FNA）对胰腺肿瘤早期诊断的价值。方法回顾性分析和比较188例胰腺小占位病灶的EUS、IDUS、EUS—FNA及其他影像学检查结果。结果（1）EUS诊断小胰腺癌的准确率是95．6％（44／46）,优于B超58．6％（27／46）、CT77．4％（24／31）、MRI76．2％（16／21）及内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）85．3％（29／34）。小胰腺癌EUS声像图主要表现为类圆形、边界清楚、边缘不规则的低回声肿块,内部回声多均匀。（2）25例胰腺小占位病灶行IDUS检查,其准确率是100．0％（25／25）,明显优于B超32．0％（8／25）、CT52．9％（9／17）及MRI57．9％（11／19）等检查。（3）18例胰腺小占位病灶行EUS—FNA,其准确率是66．7％（12／18）。（4）EUS诊断胰腺假性囊肿的准确率是100．0％（27／27）,明显优于13超52．0％（13／25）、CT66、7％（12／18）、MRI82．4％（14／17）及ERCP78．9％（15／19）;对胰腺囊性肿瘤分类鉴别诊断总的准确率是57．7％（15／26）,优于B超19．2％（5／26）、CT36．4％（8／22）、MRI37．5％（6／16）及ERCP50．0％（7／14）等检查。结论EUS、IDUS及EUS-FNA对胰腺肿瘤的早期诊断具有重要价值。     

超声内镜引导细针穿刺活检对胰腺占位性病变的诊断价值

目的探讨超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检(EUS-FNA)对胰腺占位性病变的诊断价值。方法回顾分析2009年1月至2010年1月间行EUS-FNA的35例胰腺占位病例,与CT、B超、临床表现等进行对比分析,依病理学和细胞学检查或随访结果确诊。结果在所有35例患者中,最后确诊胰腺癌23例、慢性胰腺炎9例、导管内黏液性乳头状瘤1例、胰腺假性囊肿1例、浆液性囊腺瘤1例。B超共检出胰腺病变22例,CT29例,EUS发现35例可疑胰腺病变。对所有患者均行EUS-FNA检查,获得满意标本34例,取材满意率97.14%。EUS-FNA诊断胰腺癌17例,敏感性为73.91%,EUS-FNA总准确率为82.86%。5例患者EUS-FNA后出现淀粉酶及脂肪酶轻度升高,治疗后很快恢复正常。结论 EUS-FNA是病理学诊断胰腺占位性病变安全而有效的方法,应作为首选。     

超声内镜在胰腺占位性疾病诊断中的价值

目的探讨超声内镜(EUS)检查在胰腺占位性疾病中的应用价值。方法纳入2015年1月-2017年1月嘉兴学院附属第二医院诊治的可疑胰腺占位性疾病患者85例,以手术病理或随访结果作为金标准,评价EUS及EUS引导下穿刺活组织检查(EUS-FNA)在胰腺占位的应用价值。计数资料组间比较采用配对样本χ~2检验。结果 EUS对胰腺占位的影像学检出率为96.7%(59/61),特异度为100%(24/24),准确率为97.6%(83/85);EUS在检出率和准确率上均明显优于腹部B超、CT和MRI(检出率:χ~2=4.344、3.873、15.445;准确率:χ~2=6.675、8.685、17.389,P值均0.05)。EUS-FNA对肿瘤性占位的检出率和准确率分别为81.8%(45/55)、81.0%(47/58)。在手术明确病理的患者中,术前EUS-FNA检查的总体符合率为84.2%(16/19)。结论EUS较常规影像学检查对于胰腺占位具有更高的影像学准确率,EUS-FNA可进一步明确占位性质、病理类型,EUS可为胰腺肿瘤的早期诊断、治疗提供帮助。     

超声内镜引导下细针穿刺诊治胰腺囊性病变

不同性质的胰腺囊性病变治疗手段截然不同,如何正确区分非瘤性和瘤性病变是临床医师的工作重点.腹部B超、CT及MRI是诊断胰腺囊性病变的传统有效的手段,但易受腹壁脂肪、肠腔气体等因素影响（尤其是体表超声）,往往不能准确判断病变性质,诊断价值有限.EUS能清楚地显示胰腺囊性病变,对胰腺囊肿周围组织的胰腺实质及胰管也有很好的分辨率,EUS引导下的细针穿刺活检术（EUS-FNA）还能抽吸囊液作相关分析明确病变性质,并且对胰腺囊性病变的治疗上也有重要价值.现将我院应用EUS-FNA诊治的胰腺囊性病变报道如下.     

超声内镜与B超诊断胰腺疾病的对比分析

目的探讨超声内镜(EUS)和B超对胰腺疾病的诊断价值.方法对1999年6月至2001年6月期间123例胰腺疾病患者行EUS检查并与体表B超检查结果进行比较.结果 63例胰腺癌、45例胰腺炎和11例其它胰腺疾病患者经EUS确诊.38例胰腺癌,28例胰腺炎和5例其它胰腺疾病经US确诊.EUS诊断胰腺疾病的敏感性与准确性均明显高于B超,EUS与B超诊断符合率分别为96.7%(119/123)与56.9%(70/123)(P < 0.01).结论 EUS在胰腺疾病诊断中有较高的特异性和准确性,与B超联合应用有助于胰腺疾病的诊断.     

内镜超声及其引导下的细针穿刺活检在胰腺疾病中的诊断价值

目的:探讨内镜超声(EUS)及其引导下的细针穿刺活检(EUS-FNA)在胰腺疾病诊断中的价值.方法:回顾性分析2008-03/2010-03经EUS检查的62例胰腺疾病,其中有32例行细针穿刺活检.结果:(1)62例胰腺疾病中胰腺癌26例、慢性胰腺炎20例、胰腺囊肿10例、胰岛细胞瘤2例;(2)B超、CT、EUS/EU...     

EUS for detection of the hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a prospective study

BACKGROUND: Early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and accurate determination of the number of lesions are critical in determining eligibility for liver transplantation or resection. Current diagnostic modalities (CT and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) often miss small lesions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of the EUS with CT for the detection of primary tumors of the liver. DESIGN: Prospective single-center study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Subjects at high risk of HCC (hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or alcoholic cirrhosis) were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: US, CT, MRI, and EUS examinations of the liver were performed. Liver lesions identified during EUS underwent EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled in the study. Nine of these patients had liver tumors (HCC, 8; cholangiocarcinoma, 1). EUS-FNA established a tissue diagnosis in 8 of the 9 cases. The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI, and EUS/EUS-FNA were 38%, 69%, 92%, and 94%, respectively. EUS detected a significantly higher number of nodular lesions than US (P = .03), CT (P = .002), and MRI (P = .04). For HCC lesions, a trend was observed in favor of EUS for the detection of more lesions than US (8 vs 2; P = .06) and CT (20 vs 8; P = .06). No complications were observed as a result of EUS-FNA. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate test for the diagnosis of HCC. EUS increases the accuracy of intrahepatic staging of the HCC by delineation of lesions, which are missed by CT and MRI. We recommend EUS for suspected HCC, particularly in cases that are being considered for liver transplantation.     

Sensitivity of CT,MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the preoperative workup of histologically proven left-sided pancreatic lesions

Background and objectivesLeft-sided pancreatic lesions are often treated surgically. Accurate diagnostic work-up is therefore essential to prevent futile major abdominal surgery. Large series focusing specifically on the preoperative work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions are lacking. This surgical cohort analysis describes the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the diagnostic work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions.MethodsWe performed a post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent surgery for a left-sided pancreatic lesion between April 2010 and August 2017 and participated in the randomized CPR trial. Primary outcome was the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B. Sensitivity was determined as the most likely diagnosis of each modality compared with the postoperative histopathological diagnosis. Additionally, the change in sensitivity of EUS versus EUS-FNA/B (i.e., cyst fluid analysis, and/or tissue acquisition) was measured.ResultsOverall, 181 patients were included (benign: 23%, premalignant: 27%, malignant: 50%). Most patients had solid lesions (65%). Preoperative imaging included CT (86%), MRI (41%), EUS (68%). Overall, CT and EUS-FNA/B reached a sensitivity of both 71%, compared with 66% for MRI. When EUS was combined with FNA/B, sensitivity rose from 64% to 71%. For solid lesions, CT reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with MRI (70%) and EUS-FNA/B (69%). For cystic lesions, EUS-FNA/B reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with CT and MRI (both 62%).ConclusionsCT is the most sensitive diagnostic modality for solid and EUS-FNA/B for cystic left-sided pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA/B was associated with an increased sensitivity when compared to EUS alone.     

Possibilities of interventional endoscopic ultrasound

Since endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was developed in the 1990s, EUS has become widely accepted as an imaging tool. EUS is categorized into radial and linear in design. Radial endoscopes provide cross-sectional imaging of the mediastinum, gastrointestinal tract, liver, spleen, kidney, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which has highly accuracy in the T and N staging of esophageal, lung, gastric, rectal, and pancreatic cancer. Tumor staging is common indication of radial-EUS, and EUSstaging is predictive of surgical resectability. In contrast, linear array endoscope uses a side-viewing probe and has advantages in the ability to perform EUSguides fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), which has been established for cytologic diagnosis. For example, EUS-FNA arrows accurate nodal staging of esophageal cancer before surgery, which provides more accurate assessment of nodes than radial-EUS imaging alone. EUS-FNA has been also commonly used for diagnose of pancreatic diseases because of the highly accuracy than US or computed tomography. EUS and EUS-FNA has been used not only for TNM staging and cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, but also for evaluation of chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cystic lesions, and other pancreatic masses. More recently, EUS-FNA has developed into EUS-guided fine needle injection including EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis, celiac plexus block, and other "interventional EUS" procedures. In this review, we have summarized the new possibilities offered by "interventional EUS".     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of solid liver lesions: a large single-center experience

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report the sensitivity, cytological diagnoses, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features, complications, clinical impact, and long term follow-up of a large single-center experience with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of benign and malignant solid liver lesions. METHODS: A database of cytologic specimens from EUS-FNA was reviewed to identify all hepatic lesions aspirated between January, 1997, and July, 2002. Procedural indications, prior radiographic data, patient demographics, EUS examination results, complications, and follow-up data were obtained and recorded. RESULTS: EUS-FNA of 77 liver lesions in 77 patients was performed without complications. Of these 77 lesions, 45 (58%) were diagnostic for malignancy, 25 (33%) were benign, and seven (9%) were nondiagnostic. A total of 22 lesions were confirmed as negative for malignancy by follow-up (mean 762 days, range 512-1556 days) or intraoperative examination; however, seven lesions could not be classified as benign or malignant. Depending on the status of the seven unclassified lesions, sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of malignancy ranged from 82 to 94%. When compared with benign lesions, EUS features predictive of malignant hepatic masses were the presence of regular outer margins (60% vs 27%; p = 0.02) and the detection of two or more lesions (38% vs 9%; p = 0.03). Of the 42 patients with malignancy identified by EUS-FNA and other available imaging records, EUS detected the malignancy in 41% of patients with previously negative examinations. For the 45 subjects with cytology positive for malignancy, EUS-FNA changed management in 86% of subjects. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA of the liver is a safe and sensitive procedure that can have a significant impact on patient management. Prospective studies comparing the accuracy and complication rate of EUS-FNA and percutaneous fine needle aspiration (P-FNA) for the diagnosis of liver tumors are needed.     

EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of the liver: indications,yield, and safety based on an international survey of 167 cases

BACKGROUND: The liver is a common site of metastases for various malignancies. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of liver masses has only been reported in small series from single centers. METHODS: A retrospective questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 130 EUS-FNA centers around the world regarding indications, complications, and findings of EUS-FNA of the liver. RESULTS: Twenty-one centers reported 167 cases of EUS-FNA of the liver. A complication was reported in 6 (4%) of 167 cases including the following: death in 1 patient with an occluding biliary stent and biliary sepsis, bleeding (1), fever (2), and pain (2). EUS-FNA diagnosed malignancy in 23 of 26 (89%) cases after nondiagnostic fine needle aspiration under transabdominal US guidance. EUS localized an unrecognized primary tumor in 17 of 33 (52%) cases in which CT had demonstrated only liver metastases. EUS image characteristics were not predictive of malignant versus benign lesions. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided FNA of the liver appears to be a safe procedure with a major complication rate of approximately 1%. EUS-FNA should be considered when a liver lesion is poorly accessible to US-, or CT-guided FNA should be considered when US- or CT-guided FNA fail to make a diagnosis, when a liver lesion(s) is detected (de novo) by EUS, and for investigation of possible upper GI primary tumors in the setting of liver metastases.     

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis and grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background and aim: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are histologically categorized according to the WHO 2010 classification by their mitotic index or Ki-67 index as G1, G2, or G3. The present study examined the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis and grading of pNET. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 61 pNETs in 51 patients who underwent EUS between January 2007 and June 2014. All lesions were pathologically diagnosed by surgical resection or EUS-FNA. We evaluated the detection rates of EUS for pNET and sensitivity of EUS-FNA, and compared the Ki-67 index between EUS-FNA samples and surgical specimens. EUS findings were compared between G1 and G2/G3 tumors. Results: EUS showed significantly higher sensitivity (96.7%) for identifying pNET than CT (85.2%), MRI (70.2%), and ultrasonography (75.5%). The sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pNET was 89.2%. The concordance rate of WHO classification between EUS-FNA and surgical specimens was 69.2% (9/13). The concordance rate was relatively high (87.5%, 5/6) in tumors?<20?mm but lower (57.1%; 4/7) in tumors?≥20?mm. Regarding EUS findings, G2/G3 tumors were more likely to be large (>20?mm), heterogeneous, and have main pancreatic duct (MPD) obstruction than G1 tumors. Multivariate analysis showed large diameter and MPD obstruction were significantly associated with G2/G3 tumors. Conclusions: EUS and EUS-FNA are highly sensitive and accurate diagnostic methods for pNET. Characteristic EUS findings such as large tumor size and MPD obstruction are suggestive of G2/G3 tumors and would be helpful for grading pNETs.     

对脂肪胰的研究

脂肪胰以胰腺脂肪浸润或胰腺脂肪变性为主要表现,其病理生理学机制目前尚未完全明确,国内外也尚未形成统一的诊断标准或共识.组织学检查是脂肪胰诊断的“金标准”,临床上MRI、CT和腹部超声均能发现替代胰腺实质的脂肪组织,超声内镜（EUS）对脂肪胰的诊断具有一定优势.已有多项研究表明,脂肪胰与肥胖、T2DM、MS等疾病有关,胰腺脂肪变性的胰腺癌患者更易发生淋巴结转移及胰腺手术后的胰瘘,提示脂肪胰在以上疾病的诊断、治疗和预后判断上都有潜在价值,可能成为,如糖尿病、MS等代谢性疾病早期干预的指征之一.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and multidetector spiral CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is now established as a valuable imaging test for diagnosing and staging pancreatic cancer. But, with significant recent improvements in spiral CT scanners, particularly higher resolution and ability to reconstruct 3D images, spiral CT is now increasingly accepted as being better for pancreatic cancer staging. The debate continues, however, about the best diagnostic test or combination of tests in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Spiral CT is more readily available than EUS-FNA and, therefore, more frequently used. In this study, we evaluated the use of EUS-FNA in conjunction with spiral CT for suspected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 81 consecutive patients who underwent EUS and EUS-FNA for clinical suspicion of a pancreatic cancer from November 2000 to November 2001. All patients had spiral CT with a multiphasic pancreatic protocol using multidetector spiral CT scanners. In all patients, EUS-FNA and spiral CT examinations were performed less than 3 wk apart. RESULTS: Overall, the accuracy of spiral CT, EUS, and EUS-FNA was 74% (n = 60/81, CI 63-83%), 94% (n = 76/81, CI 87-98%), and 88% (n = 73/81, CI 81-96%), respectively, for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. In patients without an identifiable mass on spiral CT, the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and EUS-FNA for pancreatic tumors was 92% (n = 23/25, CI 74-99%). Absence of a focal "mass" lesion on EUS reliably excluded pancreatic cancer irrespective of clinical presentation (NPV 100% n = 5/5, CI 48-100%). The negative predictive value of EUS-FNA was only 22% (n = 2/9, CI 3-60%) in patients with obstructive jaundice and biliary stricture. However, in patients without obstructive jaundice at initial presentation, EUS-FNA was highly accurate (accuracy 97%, n = 33/34, CI 85-100%) and was reliable for ruling out malignancy (NPV 89%, n = 8/9, CI 52-100%). Cytologic assessment of EUS-FNA specimens was 89% accurate for identifying malignancy in suspicious lesions visualized on EUS. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS with FNA can be a valuable adjunct to newer high-resolution multidetector spiral CT for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer.