Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Ductal adenocarcinoma is the most frequent pancreatic solid lesion and the most common tumor of the pancreas. Given its poor prognosis and the major therapeutic consequences, the discrimination between PA and other pancreatic solid lesions is mandatory. EUS is admitted as the most sensitive imaging procedure for the detection and characterization of pancreatic tumors [1-3]. Nevertheless it remains difficult to differentiate, on morphological features, PA from other solid masses. For 15 years, endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has demonstrated its efficiency for tissue sampling and cyto-histologic diagnosis of PA. However, the negative predictive value (NPV) for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) remains low (30-70%) in the published prospective series [4]. So, in case of negative result, the choice between surgery and follow-up remains difficult. Additional criteria to get the decision are then warranted.
The assessment of pancreatic tumor enhancement using ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) in real time with imaging specific methods seems useful to improve their characterization [4-8] either by contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) or, more recently, by contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS).
The aims of this prospective multicenter study is:
100 patients with a solid pancreatic mass of indeterminate origin must be prospectively included in 3 French centers Exclusion criteria: presence of a cystic component greater than 25 % of the total volume of the lesion, pregnancy, lactation, age <18 years, and usual contraindications to SonoVue® injection.
All EUS procedure will be performed by 5 experienced endosonographers as follows:
Statistical analysis. The McNemar test will be use to compare the CH-EUS performance for the diagnosis of PA to EUS-FNA and final diagnosis. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Spe), predictive positive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) will be calculate. A p value of 0.05 considered statistically significant. Intra- and interobserver agreements of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA will assess using kappa statistics and associated 95% CI. Depending on Kappa values, agreement will considered as minor (0.01-0.20), fair (0.21-0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), high (0.61-0.80), or almost perfect (0.81-1.00), beyond chance.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| SonoVue® | Experimental | Non randomised study Sonovue 4,8 ml intravenous administration, in 1 bolus, during the EUS examination |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SonoVue® | Drug | An intravenous 4.8 ml SonoVue® bolus injection was administered to each patient during the procedure |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| negative predictive value (NPV) of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) | To evaluate the NPV of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA to EUS-FNA and final diagnosis | one year |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| to asses intra-observer concordances of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA | an anonymous digital video recording of each procedure including B mode, power Doppler mode and CHE mode was created. A 2-days joint work session was organized with 7 endosonographers: the 5 senior endoscopists who had performed the examinations and 2 juniors. To harmonizing the interpretation a short teaching session was done with some cases not included in the series. The different types of enhancement of solid pancreatic masses histologically proven (PA, benign and malignant NET, pancreatic metastases, and focal mass of CP) were shown. During day 1 the 7 operators reviewed independently and in a random order all 100 anonymous videotapes. One senior and 1 junior reviewed all videotapes a second time in a different random order. Each observer had to independently classify the lesion as PA or not. During day 2 a joint review was done with the cases where a discrepancy of interpretation has been observed. A final consensus for the diagnosis was proposed if possible. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Rodica Gincul, MD | Société Française d'Endoscopie Digestive | Principal Investigator |
| Bertrand Napoleon, MD | Société Française d'Endoscopie Digestive | Study Chair |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Société Française d'Endoscopie Digrestive | Paris | 75006 | France |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| C420843 | contrast agent BR1 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| two days |
| to asses inter-observer concordances of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA | an anonymous digital video recording of each procedure including B mode, power Doppler mode and CHE mode was created. A 2-days joint work session was organized with 7 endosonographers: the 5 senior endoscopists who had performed the examinations and 2 juniors. To harmonizing the interpretation a short teaching session was done with some cases not included in the series. The different types of enhancement of solid pancreatic masses histologically proven (PA, benign and malignant NET, pancreatic metastases, and focal mass of CP) were shown. During day 1 the 7 operators reviewed independently and in a random order all 100 anonymous videotapes. One senior and 1 junior reviewed all videotapes a second time in a different random order. Each observer had to independently classify the lesion as PA or not. During day 2 a joint review was done with the cases where a discrepancy of interpretation has been observed. A final consensus for the diagnosis was proposed if possible. | two days |
| sensibility (Se) of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) | To evaluate the Se of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) to EUS-FNA and final diagnosis | one year |
| Specificity (Spe) of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) | To evaluate the specificity (Spe) of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA to EUS-FNA and final diagnosis | one year |
| Positive predictive value (PPV) of CH-EUS for diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) | To evaluate the PPV of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA to EUS-FNA and final diagnosis | one year |
| Accuracy of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA | To evaluate the accuracy of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of PA to EUS-FNA and final diagnosis value (PPV) | one year |
| Accuracy of CH-EUS compared to EUS-FNA | To compare the accuracy of CH-EUS and EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PA with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) | one year |