Mustafa Zanyar AKKUZU, Engin ALTINTAŞ, Serkan YARAŞ, Osman ÖZDOĞAN, Enver ÜÇBİLEK, Fehmi ATEŞ, Orhan SEZGİN, Ferzan AYDIN, Hatice Rızaoğlu BALCI, Yaren DİRİK

EUS Accuracy Against MRCP for Detection of Pancreaticobiliary Lesions

Anatomic alterations due to the hepatobiliary system pathologies such as stenosis, dilatation, stone, and tumor can be suspected by clinical symptoms, laboratory tests and eventually confirmed by imaging methods. Both Magnetic Resonance Colangiopathy (MRCP) and Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) are diagnostic tools for etiologic assessment of extrahepatic cholestasis. We aimed to compare MRCP and EUS, about the superiority in diagnostic terms, in our patient group with hepatobiliary system disorders. The results of 135 patients who underwent both MRCP and EUS in the Hospital Gastroenterology Clinic of Mersin University Medical Faculty between 2010-2018 were included in the study. After reviewing the MRCP and EUS reports; stone, tumor and pancreatitis were evaluated and analyzed. Of the patients, 71 (52.6%) were male and 64 (47.4%) were female. The mean age of males was 60.5 ± 15.49 years and that of females was 61.2 ± 14.25. The age spectrum was 23-91 years. In 97 (71.9%) of patients, MRCP and EUS were reported in the same way and both imaging methods led to the correct diagnosis. There were 38 (28.14%) patients with different diagnoses and the total cases with stone, tumor and pancreatitis were evaluated and compared. The sensitivity of EUS for the stone was 88.9% and that of MRCP was 81.5%. The sensitivity of EUS was 92.5% and that of MRI was 66%, in the diagnosis of the tumor and IPMN. In pancreatitis, the sensitivity of EUS was 89.7% and MRCP was 72.4%. EUS is a better diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, tumor and pancreatitis than MRCP.

PDF

___

1. Bhat M, Romagnuolo J, da Silveira E et al. Randomised clinical trial: MRCP-first vs. ERCP-first approach in patients with suspected biliary obstruction due to bile duct stones Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013; 38: 1045-1053.

2. Moon JH, Cho YD, Cha SW et al. The detection of bile duct stones in suspected biliary pancreatitis: comparison of MRCP, ERCP, and intraductal US Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1051-7. 4.

3. Hekimoglu K, Ustundag Y, Dusak A et al. MRCP vs. ERCP in the evaluation of biliary pathologies: review of current literature J Dig Dis 2008; 9: 162-169.

4. Smith ZL, Meiselman MS. Calculous biliary disease, Conn’s current therapy Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders 2013; 500-503.

5. Freitas ML, Bell RL, Duffy AJ. Choledocholithiasis: evolving standards for diagnosis and management World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 3162-3167.

6. Vázquez-Sequeiros E, Tamargo F, BoixedaMiquel D, Milicua JM. Diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic impact of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with intermediate suspicion of choledocholithiasis and absence of findings in magnetic resonance cholangiography Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2011; 103: 464-471.

7. Makmun D, Fauzi A and Shatri H. Sensitivity and Specificity of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography versus Endoscopic Ultrasonography against Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Diagnosing Choledocholithiasis: The Indonesian Experience Clin Endosc 2017; 50: 486-490.

8. Alhayaf N, Lalor E, Bain V, McKaigney J, Sandha GS. The clinical impact and cost implication of endoscopic ultrasound on use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian university hospital. Can J Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 138-142.

9. Aubé C, Delorme B, Yzet T, et al. MR cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic sonography in suspected common bile duct lithiasis: a prospective, comparative study AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 55-62.

10. Giljaca V, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD011549.

11. Mesihović R, Mehmedović A. Better noninvasive endoscopic procedure: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography? Med Glas (Zenica) 2019; 16: 40-44.

12. De Castro VL, Moura EG, Chaves DM et al. Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis: A systematic review. Endosc Ultrasound 2016; 5: 118-128.

13. Garrow D, Miller S, Sinha D, Conway J et al. Endoscopic ultrasound: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 5: 616-623.

14. Ortega AR 1 , Gómez-Rodríguez R , Romero M , Fernández-Zapardiel S , Céspedes Mdel M , Carrobles JM . Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the etiological diagnosis of idiopathic acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 2011; 40: 289-294.

15. Wan J, Ouyang Y, Yu C, Yang X, Xia L, Lu, N. Comparison of EUS with MRCP in idiopathic acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1180-1188.

16. Vila JJ. Endoscopic ultrasonography and idiopathic acute pancreatitis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 2: 107-111.

17. Wilcox, C.M., Seay, T., Kim, H. et al. Prospective endoscopic ultrasound-based approach to the evaluation of idiopathic pancreatitis: causes, response to therapy, and long-term outcome. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1339-1348.

18. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2013; 13: 1-15.

19. Wilcox, C.M., Varadarajulu, S., and Eloubeidi M. Role of endoscopic evaluation in idiopathic pancreatitis: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 1037-1045.

20. Kondo S, Isayama, H, Akahane M et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computedtomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54: 271-275.

21. Quest, L. and Lombard, M. Pancreas divisum: opinio divisa. Gut 2000; 47: 317-319.

22. Manfredi R, Costamagna G, Brizi MG et al. Pancreas divisum and “santorinicele”: diagnosis with dynamic MR cholangiopancreatography with secretin stimulation. Radiology 2000; 217: 403-408.

23. Ohashi K, Murakami Y, Takekoshi T. Four cases of mucin producing cancer of the pancreas on specific findings of the papilla of Vater. Prof Dig Endosc 1982; 20: 348-351.

24. Baba T, Yamaguchi T, Ishihara T et al. benign from malignant intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas by imaging techniques. Pancreas 2004; 29: 212-217.

25. Fernández-Esparrach G, Pellisé M, Solé M et al. EUS FNA in intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas. Hepatogastroenterology 2007; 54: 260-264.

26. Palazzo L, Roseau G, Gayet B, Vilgrain V, Belghiti J, Fékéte F, Paolaggi JA. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Results of a prospective study with comparison to ultrasonography and CT scan. Endoscopy 1993; 25: 143-150.

27. Michl P, Pauls S, Gress TM. Evidence-based diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 20: 227-51.

28. Cannon ME, Carpenter SL, Elta GH et al. EUS compared with CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography and the influence of biliary stenting on staging accuracy of ampullary neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 27-33.

29. Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Caletti G, and Eloubeidi MA. Pancreatico-biliary endoscopic ultrasound: A systematic review of the levels of evidence, performance and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 4243-4256.