Advances in diagnosis, treatment and palliation of pancreatic carcinoma: 1990-2010

Table 7 Summary of the performance characteristics of imaging tests for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

Diagnostic modality	Author	Yr	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)	Accuracy (%)
US	Giovannini et al[176]	1994	48-95	40-91	92	100	46-64
	Böttger et al[177]	1998
	Rösch et al[178]	1991
	Niederau et al[179]	1992
	Palazzo et al[180]	1993
	Tanaka et al[231]	1996
Doppler US	Candiani et al[232]	1998	50-94	80-100	79	88	81-95
	Casadei et al[184]	1998
	Calculli et al[233]	2002
EUS	Akahoshi et al[234]	1998	98	97	94	100	90
	Legmann et al[235]	1998
Contrast enhanced US	Dietrich et al[185]	2008	90	100	100	86	93
CT	Bronstein et al[196]	2004	77	100	NA	NA	73
	Megibow et al[197]	1995
MDCT	Park et al[214]	2009	83-91	63-75	80	87	85-95
	Vargas et al[202]	2004
	Diehl et al[203]	1998
	Schima et al[208]	2002
MRI-MRCP	Andersson et al[212]	2005	83-92	63-85	95	79	89
PET	Maemura et al[217]	2006	87-100	67-77	94	100	85-95
	Delbeke et al[221]	1999

PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; US: Ultrasound; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; CT: Computed tomography; MDCT: Multi detector computed tomography; PET: Positron emission tomography; NA: Not applicable; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.