Is endoscopic ultrasonography more sensitive than magnetic resonance imaging in detecting and localizing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors?
- 227 Downloads
To compare endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in terms of their sensitivities to localize pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) preoperatively. Systematic analysis of the literature; sensitivity of EUS and MRI in insulinomas and pancreaticoduodenal NETs in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) in series of at least 20 subjects referring to tumors confirmed by surgery and histopathology. Other imaging methods reported were also assessed. Eighteen publications on insulinomas (782 cases) could be analyzed, no study in MEN1 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and compared EUS to MRI. Data quality was moderate: all publications referred to case series. Mean correct detection / localization rates (sensitivity) were calculated: EUS 80%, MRI 66%, computed tomography 63%, angiography 52%, somatostatin receptor scintigraphy 42%, ultrasonography 23%; arterial calcium stimulation with hepatic venous sampling regionalized correctly in 80%. EUS seems to be more sensitive than MRI in localizing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. If a specialized endosonographist is available, EUS is the preferable imaging procedure. Otherwise, MRI is a suitable alternative.
KeywordsEndoscopic ultrasonography EUS Magnetic resonance imaging MRI Neuroendocrine tumor NET Insulinoma
arterial calcium stimulation with hepatic venous sampling
magnetic resonance imaging
pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor(s)
somatostatin receptor scintigraphy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest or whatever conflict there might be perceived.
- 12.Kann PH, Balakina E, Ivan D, Bartsch DK, Meyer S, Klose K-J, Behr T, Langer P. Natural course of small, asymptomatic neuroendocrine pancreatic tumours in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1): An endoscopic ultrasound imaging study. Endocr-relat Cancer. 2006;13:1195–202.Google Scholar