Case Control Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Sep 16, 2022; 14(9): 524-535
Published online Sep 16, 2022. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i9.524
Table 1 Classification of pancreatic lesions

Malignant
Nonmalignant
SolidAdenocarcinomaAcute pancreatitis
LymphomaChronic pancreatitis
PNETsAdenoma
PancreatoblastomaInsulinoma
Metastatic cancer
Solid-CysticMucinous cystadenoma1Serous cystadenoma
Serous cystadenocarcinoma
Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma
IPMN1
Table 2 Baseline data and endoscopic ultrasound elastography diagnostic outcomes of pancreatic masses

Malignancy (n = 69)
Nonmalignancy (n = 52)
P value
Age (yr), median (range)67 (13–93)68 (20–99)0.8907a
Sex (female), n (%)36 (52.2) 19 (36.5)0.1271b
PM location, n (%)0.6891b
Head50 (72.5)35 (67.3)
Neck3 (4.3)4 (7.7)
Body13 (18.8)12 (23.1)
Tail3 (4.3)1 (1.9)
PM diameter (mm), median (range)37.0 (7.4–70.0)30 (10.0–60.0)0.0616a
Giovannini elastic score, n (%)< 0.001b
Green (score 1 to 2)-11 (21.2)
Cyan (score 3)5 (7.2)11 (21.2)
Dark blue (score 4 to 5)64 (92.8)30 (57.7)
Strain ratio, median (range)50.4 (7.8–225.0)33.0 (2.6–321.0)< 0.001a
Firmness/histopathology, n (%)< 0.001b
Solid-cystic masses (n = 36)26/6910/52< 0.001b
Serous cystadenoma-10 (19.2)
Mucinous cystadenoma5 (7.2)-
Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma3 (4.3)-
IPMN18 (26.1)-
Solid masses (n = 85)43/6942/52< 0.001b
Normal-4 (7.7)
Acute pancreatitis-10 (19.2)
Chronic pancreatitis-26 (50.0)
Adenoma-1 (1.9)
Insulinoma-1 (1.9)
Adenocarcinoma33 (47.8)-
Lymphoma3 (4.3)-
PNETs6 (8.7)-
Pancreatoblastoma1 (1.4)-
Table 3 Qualitative and quantitative diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for detecting malignant pancreatic masses: All lesions (n = 121) and only solid pancreatic masses (n = 85)

EUS-elastography qualitative analysis
EUS-elastography quantitative analysis
All massesOnly solid pancreatic massesAll PMs
Only solid PMs
SR ≥ 21.51
SR ≥ 121.02
SR ≥ 21.51
SR ≥ 121.02
Sensitivity (%)100.0100.094.214.590.714.0
Specificity (%)21.223.840.496.247.695.4
PPV (%)62.757.367.783.363.970.0
NPV (%)100.0100.084.045.983.352.0
Accuracy (%)66.162.471.149.669.454.1
Table 4 Baseline data, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic ultrasound elastography diagnostic outcomes of the associated lymph nodes

Malignancy (n = 22)
Nonmalignancy (n = 21)
P value
Age (yr), median (range)76 (57–95)65 (39–85)0.2037a
Sex (female), n (%)8 (36.4)6 (28.6)0.5860b
LN location, n (%)0.4250b
Esophagus13 (59.1)15 (71.4)
Stomach2 (9.1)1 (4.8)
Liver1 (4.5)-
Pancreas5 (22.7)5 (23.8)
Kidney1 (4.5)-
LN diameter, median (range)20.0 (4.0–50.0)15.5 (7.0–21.6)0.2662a
EUS-LN characteristics, n (%)
Irregular shape11 (50.0)10 (47.6)0.8760b
Undefined border13 (59.1)8 (38.1)0.2730b
Anechoic density7 (31.8)3 (14.3)0.1740b
Giovannini elastic score, n (%)0.7970b
Green (score 1 to 2)1 (4.5)2 (9.5)
Cyan (score 3)6 (27.3)6 (28.6)
Dark blue (score 4 to 5)15 (68.2)13 (61.9)
Strain ratio, median (range)30.0 (3.0–120.0)40.0 (5.0–269.0)0.7182a
Histopathology, n (%)< 0.001b
Acute lymphadenitis-10 (47.6)
Chronic lymphadenitis-11 (52.4)
Lymphoma2 (9.1)-
Metastasis20 (90.9)-
Table 5 Diagnostic accuracy of conventional B-mode endoscopic ultrasound and qualitative and quantitative endoscopic ultrasound elastography analysis for malignancy in the associated lymph nodes (n = 43)
Conventional B-mode EUS
EUS-elastography qualitative analysisEUS-elastography quantitative analysis
Size
Shape
Border
Density
SR ≥ 14.01
SR ≥ 155.02
Sensitivity (%)59.150.059.131.868.190.94.5
Specificity (%)42.952.461.985.738.128.695.2
PPV (%)52.052.461.970.053.651.450.0
NPV (%)50.050.059.154.653.375.048.8
Accuracy (%)51.251.260.558.153.560.448.8

  • Citation: Puga-Tejada M, Del Valle R, Oleas R, Egas-Izquierdo M, Arevalo-Mora M, Baquerizo-Burgos J, Ospina J, Soria-Alcivar M, Pitanga-Lukashok H, Robles-Medranda C. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for malignant pancreatic masses and associated lymph nodes: Critical evaluation of strain ratio cutoff value. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 14(9): 524-535
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v14/i9/524.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v14.i9.524