Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Dario Reggio
Based on 2 articles published since 2010
(Why 2 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, D. Reggio wrote the following 2 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article Interobserver agreement in contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound. 2012

Fusaroli, Pietro / Kypraios, Dimitrios / Mancino, Maria Grazia / Spada, Alessia / Benini, Maria Chiara / Bianchi, Marco / Bocus, Paolo / De Angelis, Claudio / De Luca, Leonardo / Fabbri, Carlo / Grillo, Antonino / Marzioni, Marco / Reggio, Dario / Togliani, Thomas / Zanarini, Stefano / Caletti, Giancarlo. ·Department of Clinical Medicine, GI Unit, University of Bologna/Imola Hospital, Italy Gastroenterology Unit, Bellaria Hospital, Bologna, Italy. pietro.fusaroli@unibo.it ·J Gastroenterol Hepatol · Pubmed #22414180.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIM: Contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) was recently introduced to clinical practice; its reproducibility among endosonographers is unknown. Our aim was to assess the interobserver agreement (IA) in CH-EUS. METHODS: Fifteen endosonographers (eight experienced and seven non-experienced) from 11 Italian EUS centers evaluated 80 video-cases (40 solid pancreatic lesions, 20 pancreatic cystic lesions and 20 submucosal lesions) of CH-EUS, according to the degree of enhancement, the pattern of distribution and the washout of the contrast agent. IA within each group and between the two groups of observers was assessed with the Fleiss kappa statistic. RESULTS: Overall IA was moderate for the uptake and fair for the pattern of distribution and the washout. In solid pancreatic lesions, IA was moderate for the uptake and fair for the pattern and the washout. In cystic pancreatic lesions, IA was uniformly moderate for the assessment of uptake, slight for the pattern and fair for the washout. In submucosal tumors, IA was substantial for the uptake, slight for the pattern and fair for the washout. Non-experienced endosonographers demonstrated, in most cases, comparable IA with the experienced ones. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement among endosonographers for CH EUS was satisfactory. In particular, overall IA varied from slight to substantial, being fair in the majority of cases. Inherent structural features of the lesions, as well as technical differences between the variables assessed, could have accounted for the fluctuation of the results. Outcomes of IA were reproducible between experienced and non-experienced endosonographers.

2 Article Negative predictive value of endoscopic ultrasound in patients referred for fine-needle aspiration. 2011

Bruno, M / Carucci, P / Repici, A / Pellicano, R / Mezzabotta, L / Goss, M / Fagoonee, S / Allegranza, P / Reggio, D / Rizzetto, M / De Angelis, C. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy. ·Panminerva Med · Pubmed #21775944.

ABSTRACT: AIM: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a valuable diagnostic tool in pancreatic diseases and its high negative predictive value (NPV) in excluding malignancies is universally recognized. Moreover, EUS with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can significantly impact on diagnosis and management of many clinical conditions. However, there are circumstances in which EUS-FNA cannot or should not be performed. We evaluated the factors that prevented us from performing or induced us not to perform FNA. METHODS: The study was conducted in a tertiary university hospital. A total of 211 patients suspected of having solid pancreatic malignancy on the basis of clinical presentation and computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging was included. When FNA was withheld because not deemed necessary by the operator, the NPV of EUS was calculated. RESULTS: In 9 patients (4.3% of the procedures), FNA was withheld because of contraindications that should have been foreseen by the referring physician. In 30 subjects, FNA was not accomplished as no lesions requiring biopsy were actually found at EUS exploration. In this group, EUS reached a NPV of 96.7% in excluding malignancy, but it reached 100% in patients without chronic pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of patients with high pre-test probability of malignancy, the high NPV of EUS was confirmed. False negative results should be expected in patients with chronic pancreatitis and they need a strict follow-up.