Department of Ultrasound, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Laboratory of Ultrasound Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Chin Med J (Engl). 2023 Sep 5;136(17):2028-2036. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002300.
Patients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC.
A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance.
Twenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%-88%; I2 = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%-97%; I2 = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61-30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94-201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75-85%; I2 = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90-96%; I2 = 74.87%); the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86-21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45-113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42-3.83], P > 0.05).
CEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions.
表现为肿块型胰腺炎(MFP)或胰腺导管腺癌(PDAC)的患者具有相似的临床症状,但需要不同的治疗方法,且生存结局不同。本荟萃分析旨在比较超声造影(CEUS)和增强 CT(CECT)在鉴别 MFP 与 PDAC 方面的诊断性能。
检索 PubMed、EMBASE(Ovid)、Cochrane 图书馆(CENTRAL)、中国知网(CNKI)、维普(VIP)和万方数据库,以识别截至 2021 年 8 月 20 日发表的原始研究。纳入报告 CEUS 和 CECT 鉴别 MFP 与 PDAC 的诊断性能的研究。采用 Stata 15.0 软件进行荟萃分析。结局包括 CEUS 和 CECT 鉴别 MFP 与 PDAC 的汇总敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比(+LR)、阴性似然比(-LR)、诊断比值比(DOR)和汇总受试者工作特征(SROC)曲线。采用 Meta 回归分析来评估异质性。采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析间接比较整体诊断性能。
纳入 26 项研究,共 2115 个胰腺肿块。CEUS 鉴别 MFP 的汇总敏感度和特异度分别为 82%(95%置信区间 [CI],73%-88%;I2=0.00%)和 95%(95%CI,90%-97%;I2=63.44%);总的+LR、-LR 和 DOR 值分别为 15.12(95%CI,7.61-30.01)、0.19(95%CI,0.13-0.29)和 78.91(95%CI,30.94-201.27);SROC 曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.90(95%CI,0.87-92)。然而,CECT 鉴别 MFP 的汇总敏感度和特异度分别为 81%(95%CI,75%-85%;I2=66.37%)和 94%(95%CI,90%-96%;I2=74.87%);总的+LR、-LR 和 DOR 值分别为 12.91(95%CI,7.86-21.20)、0.21(95%CI,0.16-0.27)和 62.53(95%CI,34.45-113.51);SROC AUC 为 0.92(95%CI,0.90-0.94)。CEUS 的整体诊断准确性与 CECT 相当,可用于鉴别 MFP 和 PDAC(相对 DOR 1.26,95%CI [0.42-3.83],P>0.05)。
CEUS 和 CECT 在鉴别 MFP 与 PDAC 方面具有相当的诊断性能,可作为疑似局灶性胰腺病变的互补性诊断工具。