联合使用 EUS 和 ERCP 评估不明确胆道狭窄的额外价值。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Eszter Bényei, Antonio Molinaro, Per Hedenström, Riadh Sadik
{"title":"联合使用 EUS 和 ERCP 评估不明确胆道狭窄的额外价值。","authors":"Eszter Bényei, Antonio Molinaro, Per Hedenström, Riadh Sadik","doi":"10.1080/00365521.2024.2354403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Assessing unclear biliary strictures is challenging. We analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiology, EUS, and ERCP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients referred for EUS and ERCP to assess an unclear biliary stricture were prospectively included. The data from radiology, EUS, ERCP, and tissue sampling were recorded. The diagnostic modalities were analyzed separately and in combination, with a focus on PSC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2013 and 2020, 78 patients were included; 31% had PSC. A cholangioscopy was not performed in this study. The final diagnosis indicated that the biliary stricture was benign in 62% of the patients and malignant in 38%. The differences among the modalities were numerical, not significant. The modalities showed an accuracy between 78 and 83% in all the patients and between 75 and 83% in the patients with PSC. The combination of radiology and EUS showed the highest sensitivity of 94% in all the patients and a sensitivity of 100% in PSC. Tissue sampling showed the highest specificity of 93% in all patients and 89% in PSC. In 22 cases with combined EUS, ERCP, and tissue sampling, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 82%, 70%, and 92%, respectively. Minor differences were observed between the intention-to-diagnose analysis and the per-protocol analysis. Adverse events were recorded in 4% of cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The combination of EUS and ERCP with tissue sampling seems to be useful and safe for excluding malignancy in unclear biliary strictures. In cases with a reduced suspicion of malignancy, radiology with an EUS may be sufficient.</p>","PeriodicalId":21461,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"980-988"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The additional value of the combined use of EUS and ERCP for the evaluation of unclear biliary strictures.\",\"authors\":\"Eszter Bényei, Antonio Molinaro, Per Hedenström, Riadh Sadik\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00365521.2024.2354403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Assessing unclear biliary strictures is challenging. We analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiology, EUS, and ERCP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients referred for EUS and ERCP to assess an unclear biliary stricture were prospectively included. The data from radiology, EUS, ERCP, and tissue sampling were recorded. The diagnostic modalities were analyzed separately and in combination, with a focus on PSC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2013 and 2020, 78 patients were included; 31% had PSC. A cholangioscopy was not performed in this study. The final diagnosis indicated that the biliary stricture was benign in 62% of the patients and malignant in 38%. The differences among the modalities were numerical, not significant. The modalities showed an accuracy between 78 and 83% in all the patients and between 75 and 83% in the patients with PSC. The combination of radiology and EUS showed the highest sensitivity of 94% in all the patients and a sensitivity of 100% in PSC. Tissue sampling showed the highest specificity of 93% in all patients and 89% in PSC. In 22 cases with combined EUS, ERCP, and tissue sampling, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 82%, 70%, and 92%, respectively. Minor differences were observed between the intention-to-diagnose analysis and the per-protocol analysis. Adverse events were recorded in 4% of cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The combination of EUS and ERCP with tissue sampling seems to be useful and safe for excluding malignancy in unclear biliary strictures. In cases with a reduced suspicion of malignancy, radiology with an EUS may be sufficient.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"980-988\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2354403\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2354403","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估不明确的胆道狭窄具有挑战性。我们分析了放射学、EUS 和 ERCP 的诊断效果:方法:前瞻性地纳入所有转诊至 EUS 和 ERCP 以评估胆道狭窄不清的患者。记录放射学、EUS、ERCP 和组织取样的数据。对诊断方式进行了单独分析和组合分析,重点关注PSC:结果:2013 年至 2020 年间,共纳入 78 例患者,其中 31% 患有 PSC。本研究未进行胆道镜检查。最终诊断结果显示,62%的患者胆道狭窄为良性,38%为恶性。各种方法之间的差异仅为数字上的,并不显著。所有患者的诊断准确率在 78% 至 83% 之间,PSC 患者的准确率在 75% 至 83% 之间。在所有患者中,放射学和 EUS 联合检查的灵敏度最高,为 94%,而在 PSC 患者中灵敏度为 100%。组织取样在所有患者中显示出最高的特异性,为 93%,PSC 患者的特异性为 89%。在联合使用 EUS、ERCP 和组织取样的 22 例患者中,准确率、灵敏度和特异性分别为 82%、70% 和 92%。意向诊断分析与按方案分析之间存在微小差异。4%的病例发生了不良事件:结论:结合 EUS 和 ERCP 以及组织取样,对于排除不明确胆道狭窄的恶性肿瘤似乎非常有用且安全。对于恶性肿瘤可疑度较低的病例,采用 EUS 进行放射学检查可能就足够了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The additional value of the combined use of EUS and ERCP for the evaluation of unclear biliary strictures.

Objective: Assessing unclear biliary strictures is challenging. We analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiology, EUS, and ERCP.

Methods: All patients referred for EUS and ERCP to assess an unclear biliary stricture were prospectively included. The data from radiology, EUS, ERCP, and tissue sampling were recorded. The diagnostic modalities were analyzed separately and in combination, with a focus on PSC.

Results: Between 2013 and 2020, 78 patients were included; 31% had PSC. A cholangioscopy was not performed in this study. The final diagnosis indicated that the biliary stricture was benign in 62% of the patients and malignant in 38%. The differences among the modalities were numerical, not significant. The modalities showed an accuracy between 78 and 83% in all the patients and between 75 and 83% in the patients with PSC. The combination of radiology and EUS showed the highest sensitivity of 94% in all the patients and a sensitivity of 100% in PSC. Tissue sampling showed the highest specificity of 93% in all patients and 89% in PSC. In 22 cases with combined EUS, ERCP, and tissue sampling, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 82%, 70%, and 92%, respectively. Minor differences were observed between the intention-to-diagnose analysis and the per-protocol analysis. Adverse events were recorded in 4% of cases.

Conclusion: The combination of EUS and ERCP with tissue sampling seems to be useful and safe for excluding malignancy in unclear biliary strictures. In cases with a reduced suspicion of malignancy, radiology with an EUS may be sufficient.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
222
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology is one of the most important journals for international medical research in gastroenterology and hepatology with international contributors, Editorial Board, and distribution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信