Interobserver agreement of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims: Previous reports assessing the reproducibility of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CH-EUS) in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) involved mainly experienced endosonographers. We aimed to assess the interobserver agreement (IOA) of CH-EUS in the evaluation of SPLs by endoscopists with different levels of experience in EUS and CH-EUS.

Participants and methods: A cross-sectional observational multicenter study was designed and included 11 endoscopists who were divided into four groups according to their experience in EUS and CH-EUS: group A (long experience in EUS and CH-EUS); group B (short experience in EUS and CH-EUS); group C (long experience in EUS and no experience in CH-EUS); and group D (no experience in EUS or CH-EUS). The observers independently classified the patterns of 60 CH-EUS video sequences of 60 SPLs after a 20-minute training session. For each group, we calculated the IOA (kappa statistic, κ) of CH-EUS and the accuracy of CH-EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by comparing the pattern of CH-EUS indicative of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (hypo-enhanced contrast pattern) with the final diagnosis.

Results: The overall IOA for CH-EUS was fair (κ = 0.32; 95 %CI 0.22 – 0.41). Group A (κ = 0.63; 95 %CI 0.45 – 0.85) had the highest IOA, followed by group C (κ = 0.54; 95 %CI 0.39 – 0.71), group B (κ = 0.38; 95 %CI 0.22 – 0.55), and group D (κ = 0.21; 95 %CI 0.07 – 0.36). The IOA of groups A and C was significantly higher than that of group D. No significant difference was seen between groups A, B, and C or between groups B and D in terms of IOA. Group A (area under the curve under summary receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] = 0.67; 95 %CI 0.58 – 0.75) had the highest accuracy for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, followed by group C (AUROC = 0.58; 95 %CI 0.50 – 0.65), group B (AUROC = 0.55; 95 %CI 0.48 – 0.63), and group D (AUROC = 0.51; 95 %CI 0.43 – 0.58). The diagnostic accuracy of group A was not significantly different from that of group C, but it was significantly higher than that of groups B and D. No significant difference was seen between groups B, C, and D in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions: CH-EUS is reproducible in the evaluation of SPLs, even between endoscopists with no or limited experience in EUS and/or CH-EUS. Long experience in EUS is a major contributor to the IOA and diagnostic accuracy of CH-EUS.

• References

• 1 Mertz HR, Sechopoulos P, Delbeke D et al. EUS, PET, and CT scanning for evaluation of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 367-371
• 2 Soriano A, Castells A, Ayuso C et al. Preoperative staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer: prospective study comparing endoscopic ultrasonography, helical computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 492-501
• 3 Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 728-736 ; quiz 751, 753
• 4 Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1386-1391
• 5 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz E, Lozano-Leon A et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 289-293
• 6 Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S et al. Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 622-629
• 7 Early DS, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V et al. Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 839-843
• 8 Iglesias Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for the evaluation of pancreatic tumors [in Spanish]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 30: 597-601
• 9 DeWitt J, McGreevy K, Sherman S et al. Utility of a repeated EUS at a tertiary-referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 610-619
• 10 Fusaroli P, Saftoiu A, Mancino MG et al. Techniques of image enhancement in EUS (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 645-655
• 11 Kitano M, Kudo M, Maekawa K et al. Dynamic imaging of pancreatic diseases by contrast enhanced coded phase inversion harmonic ultrasonography. Gut 2004; 53: 854-859
• 12 Kersting S, Konopke R, Kersting F et al. Quantitative perfusion analysis of transabdominal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of pancreatic masses and carcinomas. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 1903-1911
• 13 Kitano M, Sakamoto H, Matsui U et al. A novel perfusion imaging technique of the pancreas: contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 141-150
• 14 Napoleon B, Alvarez-Sanchez MV, Gincoul R et al. Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound in solid lesions of the pancreas: results of a pilot study. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 564-570
• 15 Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Caletti G et al. Pancreatico-biliary endoscopic ultrasound: a systematic review of the levels of evidence, performance and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 4243-4256
• 16 Gong TT, Hu DM, Zhu Q. Contrast-enhanced EUS for differential diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 301-309
• 17 Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39: 187-210
• 18 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 19 Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Mancino MG et al. Interobserver agreement in contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1063-1069
• 20 Gincul R, Palazzo M, Pujol B et al. Contrast-harmonic endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a prospective multicenter trial. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 373-379
• 21 Kitano M, Kudo M, Yamao K et al. Characterization of small solid tumors in the pancreas: the value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 303-310
• 22 Gheonea DI, Streba CT, Ciurea T et al. Quantitative low mechanical index contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of chronic pseudotumoral pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 2
• 23 Imazu H, Kanazawa K, Mori N et al. Novel quantitative perfusion analysis with contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic carcinoma. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 853-860
• 24 Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I et al. EUS elastography for the characterization of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1101-1108
• 25 Sanchez MV, Varadarajulu S, Napoleon B. EUS contrast agents: what is available, how do they work, and are they effective?. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 71-S77