Ultrasound and Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Tumors
Due to the increasing number of new imaging techniques and tumor markers, it is difficult to establish which method or combination of methods may provide the greatest amount of information for diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. The accuracy of different imaging methods in the detection of pancreatic tumors depends mainly on the size of the tumor and the involvement of the main pancreatic duct and common bile duct. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has a very high sensitivity in the diagnosis of tumors because of the frequent involvement of the main pancreatic duct; the specificity in cases of chronic pancreatitis is, however, limited. Small tumors of less than 2 cm in diameter are hardly demonstrated by ultrasound (US) or even computed tomography (CT); in these cases, the sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is clearly superior (higher than 90%).
KeywordsFatigue Adenocarcinoma Adenoma Respiration Pancreatitis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Classen M (1987) Erkrankungen des Pankreas. In: Siegenthaler W. Lehrbuch der inneren Medizin. Thieme Stuttgart, S 1061–1072Google Scholar
- 4.Smith KJ (1989) Is US equivalent to CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer? Gastroenterology 96: A480Google Scholar
- 5.Tao (1990) The pancreas. In: Transabdominal fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Igaku-Shoin, New York, pp 133–178Google Scholar
- 6.Hal-Craggs (1986) FNAB: pancreatic and biliary tumors. AJR 1986: 399–403Google Scholar
- 10.Schwerk (1986) US guided FNB in the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. Diagnostic procedures in pancreatic disease. P. Malfertheiner (ed) Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 12.Parson (1989) How accurate is FNAB of the pancreas? Arch Surg 124: 681–686Google Scholar
- 13.Dancygier (1988) Pancreatic cancer. In: Kawai (ed) Endoscopic ultrasonography in Gastroenterology. Igaku-Shoin, Tokyo, pp 72–78Google Scholar
- 14.Roesch (1992) Staging of pancreatic and ampullary carcinoma by EUS. Gastroenterology 102: 188–199Google Scholar