Lee Yoon Suk, Paik Kyu-Hyun, Kim Hyung Woo, Lee Jong-Chan, Kim Jaihwan, Hwang Jin-Hyeok
From the Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Gyeonggi-do (YSL, K-HP, HWK, J-CL, JK, J-HH); and Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea (YSL).
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Oct;94(41):e1666. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001666.
Consensus regarding which modality is optimal for the measurement of pancreas cystic lesions (PCLs) was not achieved although cyst size is important for clinical decisions. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) compared with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in measuring the size of PCL.A total of 34 patients who underwent all 3 imaging modalities within 3 months before surgery were evaluated retrospectively. The size measured by each modality was compared with the pathologic size as a reference standard using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).The mean size difference was 1.76 mm (ICC 0.86), 7.35 mm (ICC 0.95), and 8.65 mm (ICC 0.93) in EUS, CT, and MRI. EUS had the widest range of 95% limits of agreement (LOA) (-17.54 to +21.07), compared with CT (-6.21 to +20.91), and MRI (-6.82 to +24.12). The size by EUS tended to be read smaller in tail portion, while those by CT and MRI did not. When the size was more than 4 cm, the size on EUS was estimated to be smaller than on pathology (r = 0.492; P = 0.003).Although 3 modalities showed very good reliability for the size measurement on PCL compared with corresponding pathologic size, EUS had the lowest level of agreement, while CT showed the highest level among the 3 modalities. Therefore, the size estimated by EUS has to be interpreted with caution, especially when it is located in tail and relevantly large.
尽管囊肿大小对临床决策很重要,但对于哪种方式最适合测量胰腺囊性病变(PCL)尚未达成共识。本研究旨在评估内镜超声(EUS)与计算机断层扫描(CT)和磁共振成像(MRI)在测量PCL大小方面的特性。回顾性评估了34例在手术前3个月内接受了所有3种成像检查的患者。使用Bland-Altman分析和组内相关系数(ICC)将每种检查方式测量的大小与病理大小作为参考标准进行比较。EUS、CT和MRI的平均大小差异分别为1.76毫米(ICC 0.86)、7.35毫米(ICC 0.95)和8.65毫米(ICC 0.93)。与CT(-6.21至+20.91)和MRI(-6.82至+24.12)相比,EUS的95%一致性界限(LOA)范围最宽(-17.54至+21.07)。EUS测量的大小在尾部往往被读得较小,而CT和MRI测量的则不然。当大小超过4厘米时,EUS测量的大小估计比病理大小小(r = 0.492;P = 0.003)。尽管与相应的病理大小相比,3种检查方式在测量PCL大小方面都显示出非常好的可靠性,但EUS的一致性水平最低,而CT在3种检查方式中显示出最高水平。因此,EUS估计的大小必须谨慎解释,尤其是当它位于尾部且相对较大时。