PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Desai, Dev
AU  - Patel, Shimolee
AU  - Shah, Hetvi
AU  - Shah, Abhijay
AU  - Verma, Anushka
AU  - Malafi, Maria Eleni
TI  - Diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in identifying Solid Pancreatic Lesions:- A meta analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2023.08.12.23294023
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.08.12.23294023
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/16/2023.08.12.23294023.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/16/2023.08.12.23294023.full
AB  - Background Solid pancreatic lesions are crucial to identify because of their high incidence rate and their poor survival rate. Surgical biopsy, ultrasonography, computed tomography, MRI, and PET-CT are examples of diagnostic tools. Although common, endoscopic ultrasonography guided biopsy carries a risk of needle track seeding. A more effective and affordable method for determining the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions is contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). CEUS is a less nephrotoxic method that uses a contrast chemical to distinguish between teratomas, benign tumors, and neuroendocrine tumors. The goal of this meta-analysis is to evaluate how well CEUS can identify solid pancreatic lesions for use in clinical diagnostic procedures.Methodology Medical literature comprehensively searched and reviewed without restrictions to particular study designs, or publication dates using PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases for all relevant literature. The extraction of necessary data proceeded after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Meta Analysis included 27 RCTs and 3061 patients, and analyzed using the QualSyst yool. The risk of bias was evaluated by using QUADAS-2 analysis.The statistical software packages MetaDiSc 1.4, RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20) and Excel in Stata 14 were used to perform the statistical analyses.Result According to the findings of four studies, CEUS demonstrates high sensitivity, with values equal to or above 95%, and one study indicates specificity above 95%. True Positive (TP) and True Negative (TN) values are reported as 2080 and 621, respectively, while False Positive (FP) and False Negative (FN) values are noted as 124 and 236. With a 95% confidence interval, CEUS sensitivity is calculated as 0.90 (range: 0.89 to 0.91) and specificity as 0.83 (range: 0.80 to 0.86). The positive predictive value (PPV) of CEUS is estimated at approximately 94.3%. These results highlight CEUS as a promising tool for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.Conclusion The study concluded that CEUS (Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound) is an important diagnostic test for pancreatic lesions. This is due to their high sensitivity and specificity, along with other aspects like enhanced visualization, real-time imaging, and safety benefits. Additionally, CEUS is cost-effective, making it a practical choice in healthcare settings with budget constraints.Thus, CEUS remains a valuable asset for healthcare professionals in their efforts to accurately diagnose pancreatic lesions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:the study being a meta analysis has all the papers used for data listed in the manuscript itself and cited properlyI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript