Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of detailed structures of pancreatic cystic neoplasms

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the 68 enrolled patients

Characteristic		No. of patients (n = 68)
Sex	Male	52
	Female	16
Age, mean ± SD, yr		46.3 ± 14.6
Location	Head/uncinate	24
	Body/tail	43
	Others	1
Examination	CT	52
	MRI	64
	EUS	68
Pathological diagnosis	SCNs	27
	MCNs	23
	IPMNs	6
	SPNs	9
	NEN	1
	Cystadenocarcinomas	2

Table 2 Comparison of the number of daughter cysts visualized by endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

Number of daughter cysts	1	2-3	≥ 4	Total
CT	36	2	13	51
MRI	36	9	18	63
EUS	29	15	23	67

EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; CT: Computed tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.

Table 3 Comparison of detection rates of papilla/nodule, septum, and pancreatic cystic dilatation in pancreatic cystic neoplasms by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound

	CT	MRI	EUS	P value
				EUS vs CT	EUS vs MRI
Papilla/nodule detection rate	5.80% (3/52)	6.30% (4/64)	35.30% (24/68)	0.000a	0.000a
Septum detection rate	34.60% (18/52)	46.90% (30/64)	60.30% (41/68)	0.005a	0.122
Dilated pancreatic duct detection rate	21.20% (11/52)	21.90% (14/64)	11.70% (8/68)	0.163	0.119

^aP < 0.05, there is statistical significance between each other. EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; CT: Computed tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.

Table 4 Comparison of the characteristics of pancreatic cystic neoplasms between serous cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms by endoscopic ultrasound

EUS	SCNs	MCNs	P value
Papilla/nodule	14.80% (4/27)	47.80% (11/23)	0.011a
Septum	81.50% (22/27)	56.50% (13/23)	0.055
Duct dilatation	13.80% (4/27)	13.0% (3/23)	0.857

^aP < 0.05, there is statistical significance between each other. EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; SCNs: Serous cystic neoplasms; MCNs: Mucinous cystic neoplasms.