Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling includes the techniques of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB), and both procedures have revolutionized specimen collection from the gastrointestinal tract, especially from remote/inaccessible organs. EUS-FNB has replaced FNA as the procedure of choice for tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) across various society guidelines. FNB specimens provide a larger histological tissue core (preserving tissue architecture) with fewer needle passes, and this is extremely relevant in today's era of precision and personalized molecular medicine. Innovations in needle tip design are constantly under development to maximize diagnostic accuracy by enhancing histological sampling capabilities. But, apart from the basic framework of the needle, various other factors play a role that influence diagnostic outcomes, namely, sampling techniques (fanning, aspiration or suction, and number of passes), collection methods, on-site evaluation (rapid, macroscopic, or visual), and specimen processing. The choice taken depends strongly on the endoscopist's preference, available resources at the disposal, and procedure objectives. Hence, in this review, we explicate in detail the concepts and available literature at our disposal on the topic of EUS-guided pancreatic tissue sampling to best guide any practicing gastroenterologist/endoscopist in a not-to-ideal set-up, which EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique is the "best" for their case to augment their diagnostic outcomes.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an essential technique for the management of several diseases. Over the years, new technologies have been developed to improve and overcome certain limitations related to EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Among these new methods, EUS-guided elastography, which is a real-time method for the evaluation of tissue stiffness, has arisen as one of the most widely recognized and available. At present, there are available two different systems to perform an elastographic evaluation: strain elastography and shear wave elastography. Strain elastography is based on the knowledge that certain diseases lead to a change in tissue hardness while shear wave elastography monitored shear-wave propagation and measures its velocity. EUS-guided elastography has shown in several studies high accuracy in differentiating benign from malignant lesions from many different locations, mostly in the pancreas and lymph nodes. Therefore, nowadays, there are well-established indications for this technology, mainly for supporting the management of pancreatic diseases (diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic tumors) and characterization of different diseases. However, there are more data on new potential indications for the near future. In this review, we will present the theoretical bases of this technology and we will discuss the scientific evidence to support its use.

/Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a non-invasive diagnostic method for evaluating tissue elasticity. The aims of this study were to compare shear-wave elastography (SWE) and conventional strain elastography (SE) in determination of the diagnosis and degree of chronic pancreatitis (CP).

Forty-nine patients who underwent computed tomography (CT), EUS-SWE, EUS-SE, and pancreatic exocrine function testing between January 2019 and January 2022 were prospectively evaluated. CP was diagnosed according to Japan Pancreatic Society criteria (JPSC) 2019, Rosemont criteria (RC), CT findings, and pancreatic exocrine dysfunction. The cut-off values, sensitivity, and specificity for CP diagnosed according to the four criteria were calculated for EUS-SWE and EUS-SE. Relationships between values measured by either of the EUS elastography methods and the number of EUS features were also assessed.

EUS-SWE values were positively correlated with the severity grades of RC and JPSC, but EUS-SE values were not. EUS-SWE was significantly better than EUS-SE for diagnosing CP defined according to CT findings (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC]: 0.77 vs. 0.61, P < 0.001), RC (AUROC: 0.85 vs. 0.56, P < 0.001), JPSC 2019 (AUROC: 0.83 vs. 0.53, P < 0.001), and exocrine dysfunction (AUROC: 0.78 vs. 0.61, P < 0.001). EUS-SWE values were positively correlated with the number of EUS features, but EUS-SE values were not.

EUS-SWE provides objective assessment for diagnosing and assessing the degree of CP defined according to the criteria of CT findings, RC, JPSC, or exocrine dysfunction, and it can be considered a non-invasive diagnostic tool for CP and exocrine dysfunction.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an essential technique for the management of several diseases. Over the years, new technologies have been developed because to improve and overcome certain limitations related to EUS guided tissue acquisition. Among these new methods, EUS guided elastography and contrast enhanced EUS has arisen as the most widely recognized and available. We will review in this manuscript the different techniques of elastography and contrast enhancement. Nowadays, there are well establish indications for advance imaging, mainly for supporting the management of pancreatic diseases (diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and differential diagnosis of solid and cystic pancreatic tumors) and characterization of lymph nodes. However, there are more data on new potential indications for the near future.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an invaluable tool for assessing various GI diseases. However, using just the conventional B-mode EUS imaging may not be sufficient to accurately delineate the lesion's character. Using the principle of stress-induced tissue strain, EUS elastography (EUS-E) can help in the real-time sonographic assessment of the level of tissue stiffness or hardness of any organ of interest during a routine EUS procedure. Thus, EUS-E can better characterize the lesion's nature and highlight the more suspicious areas within an individual lesion. The most commonly studied lesions with EUS-E are the pancreatic lesions, namely, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and lymph nodes. However, EUS-E is gradually expanding its use for lesion characterization of the liver, bile duct, adrenals, gastrointestinal tract, and even therapy response. Moreover, the use of EUS-E along with other image enhancement techniques such as harmonic EUS and contrast-enhanced EUS can improve the accuracy of the diagnosis. However, several technical aspects need to be standardized before EUS-E can be truly used as a tool for "virtual biopsy". This review focuses on the various technical aspects of the use of EUS-E, it is established and expanding indications and an extensive outline of the various studies on EUS-E. We also discuss the current pitfalls and future trends in EUS-E.

Elastography endoscopic ultrasound (E-EUS) has been proved to be a valuable supplement to endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in differentiating solid pancreatic lesions, but the improvement of EUS-FNA guided during E-EUS has not been proven. Our study aimed to evaluate whether E-EUS fine-needle aspiration (E-EUS-FNA) was superior to B-mode EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses and whether the diagnostic rate was affected by specific factors. Our prospective study was conducted between 2019-2020 by recruiting patients with solid pancreatic masses. E-EUS examination was followed by one pass of E-EUS-FNA towards the blue part of the lesion and a second pass of EUS-FNA. The final diagnosis was based on surgery, E-EUS-FNA or EUS-FNA results, or a 12-month follow-up. Sixty patients with solid pancreatic lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosing malignancy using E-EUS-FNA and EUS-FNA were 89.5%, 100%, 90%, 93%, 100%, and 93.3%, respectively, but the differences were not significant. Neither mass location nor the lesion size influenced the results. The lengths of the core obtained during E-EUS-FNA and EUS-FNA were similar. E-EUS-FNA in solid pancreatic lesions was not superior to B-mode EUS-FNA.

Ultrasonographic elastography is a modality used to visualize the elastic properties of tissues. Technological advances in ultrasound equipment have supported the evaluation of elastography (EG) in endosonography (EUS). Currently, the usefulness of not only EUS-strain elastography (EUS-SE) but also EUS-shear wave elastography (EUS-SWE) has been reported. We reviewed the literature on the usefulness of EUS-EG for various diseases such as chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic solid lesion, autoimmune pancreatitis, lymph node, and gastrointestinal and subepithelial lesions. The importance of this new diagnostic parameter, "tissue elasticity" in clinical practice might be applied not only to the diagnosis of liver fibrosis but also to the elucidation of the pathogeneses of various gastrointestinal diseases, including pancreatic diseases, and to the evaluation of therapeutic effects. The most important feature of EUS-EG is that it is a non-invasive modality. This is an advantage not found in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), which has made remarkable progress in the field of diagnostics in recent years. Further development of artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-EG. Future research on EUS-EG is anticipated.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) accounts for about 90% of pancreatic cancer, which is one of the most aggressive malignant neoplasms with a 9.3% five-year survival rate. The pathological biopsy is the current golden standard for confirming suspicious lesions of PDAC, but it is not entirely reliable because of the insufficient sampling amount and inaccurate sampling location. Therefore, developing a robust signature to aid the accurate diagnosis of PDAC is critical.

Based on the within-sample relative expression orderings of gene pairs, we identified a qualitative signature to discriminate both PDAC and adjacent samples from both chronic pancreatitis and normal samples in the training datasets and validated it in other independent datasets produced by different laboratories with different measuring platforms.

A six-gene-pair signature was identified in the training data and validated in eight independent datasets. For surgical samples, 96.63% of 356 PDAC tissues, 100% of 11 pancreatitis tissues of non-cancer patients, and 23 of 24 normal pancreatic tissues were correctly classified. Especially, 59 of 60 cancer-adjacent normal tissues of PDAC patients were correctly identified as PDAC. For biopsy samples, all of 11 PDAC biopsy tissues were correctly classified as PDAC.

The signature can distinguish both PDAC and PDAC-adjacent normal tissues from both chronic pancreatitis and normal tissues of non-cancer patients even when the sampling locations are inaccurate, which can aid the diagnosis of PDAC.

/Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound elastography (EUS-EG) is useful for diagnosis of small solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), particularly in excluding pancreatic cancer (PC), but its dependence on main pancreatic duct dilatation (MPDD) has not been examined. We aimed to investigate EUS-EG for diagnosis of small SPLs with and without MPDD.

Patients with pathologically diagnosed SPLs of ≤20 mm were included and retrospectively analyzed. Using the blue:green ratio, an EUS-EG image was classified as blue-dominant, equivalent, or green-dominant. Using multiple EUS-EG images per patient, a lesion with a greater number of blue-dominant than green-dominant images was classified as stiff, and the others as soft. EUS-EG images in random order were judged by three raters. Considering stiff SPLs as PC, diagnostic performance of EUS-EG was examined for SPLs with and without MPDD.

Of 126 cases analyzed, 65 (52%) were diagnosed as PC, and 63 (50%) had MPDD. A total of 1077 EUS-EG images were examined (kappa coefficient = 0.783). Lesions were classified as stiff in 91 cases and soft in 35 (kappa coefficient = 0.932). The ratio of stiff to soft lesions was significantly higher in PC than in non-PC (62:3 vs. 29:32, P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of a stiff lesion with vs. without MPDD for diagnosis of PC were 94%, 23%, and 50% vs. 100%, 60%, and 100%, respectively.

Using the EUS-EG stiffness classification for small SPLs, PC can be excluded with high confidence and concordance for a soft lesion without MPDD.

Intrapancreatic accessory spleen (IPAS) mimics a pancreatic neoplasm on imaging studies, and due to the lack of radiological diagnostic criteria, patients undergo unnecessary distal pancreatectomies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a reliable and efficient diagnostic modality for pancreatic diseases. However, no EUS criteria have been established for IPAS. We present the EUS-elastography image of IPAS, which may minimize the chance of misdiagnosis in the future.

A 50-year-old man was referred for an EUS evaluation after computed tomography showed a hypervascular enhanced mass in the tail of the pancreas, which indicated a neuroendocrine neoplasm. EUS elastography demonstrated that the lesion of interest covered no more than 25% of the region of interest. The patient underwent distal pancreatectomy. However, the resected tissue was evaluated, and the patient was finally diagnosed with IPAS.

IPAS should be considered in patients with suspected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreatic tail before surgery is performed. The differentiation between IPAS and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors can be demonstrated using EUS-elastography.

Over the last decade, impressive technological advances have occurred in ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy. Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasonography is an essential diagnostic tool and a therapeutic weapon for pancreatobiliary disorders. Capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have quickly become the reference standard for the diagnosis of small-bowel luminal diseases, thereby leading to radical changes in diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. We herein provide an up-to-date overview of the latest advances in endoscopic ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy, focusing on the emerging paradigms and technological innovations that might improve clinical practice in the near future.

Pancreatic solid masses (PSM) are difficult to assess; endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) enables tissue acquisition, but has high false-negative rates. Quantitative elastography (QE) predicts diagnosis on the basis of the strain ratio (SR). We aimed to compare both methods to evaluate PSM.

This prospective study, carried out between January and December 2016, included suspected PSM cases; those with advanced disease and cystic components were excluded. Both procedures were performed; histologic information was obtained for the final diagnoses. Diagnostic tests and receiver-operating characteristic curve were calculated. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

We included 134 patients (53% women; mean, 53±16.2 y). The median tumor size was 30 (10 to 78) mm, with 69.4% and 30.6% malignant and benign tumors (median SR: 19.5 vs. 7.5; P=0.000), respectively, and 87% were pancreatic adenocarcinoma. QE with SR cutoff ≥10 showed similar parameters to FNA in both PSM types: sensitivity, 94% in both; specificity, 85% versus 87%; positive predictive value, 93% versus 94%; negative predictive value, 87% in both; and accuracy, 92% for malignant and sensitivity, 85% versus 87%; specificity, 94% in both; positive predictive value, 87% in both; negative predictive value, 93% versus 94%; and accuracy, 92% for benign. The area under the curve was 0.96 (P<0.000; 95% confidence interval, 0.940-0.995). New classifications on the basis of positive likelihood ratio were grouped as follows: A ≤8.7 (benign tumor); B >8.7 to <15.5 (indeterminate); and C ≥15.5 (malignant).

QE has similar capacity to FNA in PSM evaluation. However, the former can be used potentially as a substitute of the latter in certain cases on the basis of these new SR cutoff-based classifications.

Accumulated evidence has revealed that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has had a great impact on the clinical evaluation of pancreatic cancers. EUS can provide high-resolution images of the pancreas with a quality regarded as far surpassing that achieved on transabdominal ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). EUS is particularly useful for the detection of small pancreatic lesions, while EUS and its related techniques such as contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are also useful in the differential diagnosis of solid or cystic pancreatic lesions and the staging (T-staging, N-staging, and M-staging) of pancreatic cancers. In the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, CE-EUS and EUS elastography play a complementary role to conventional EUS. When sampling is performed using EUS-FNA, CE-EUS and EUS elastography provide information on the target lesions. Thus, conventional EUS, CE-EUS, EUS elastography, and EUS-FNA are essential in the clinical investigation of pancreatic cancer.

The prevalence of malignancy in patients with small solid pancreatic lesions is low; however, early diagnosis is crucial for successful treatment of these cases. Therefore, a method to reliably distinguish between benign and malignant small solid pancreatic lesions would be highly desirable. We investigated the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography in this setting.

Patients with solid pancreatic lesions ≤ 15 mm in size and a definite diagnosis were included. Lesion stiffness relative to the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma, as qualitatively assessed and documented at the time of EUS elastography, was retrospectively compared with the final diagnosis obtained by fine-needle aspiration/biopsy or surgical resection.

218 patients were analyzed. The average size of the lesions was 11 ± 3 mm; 23 % were ductal adenocarcinoma, 52 % neuroendocrine tumors, 8 % metastases, and 17 % other entities; 66 % of the lesions were benign. On elastography, 50 % of lesions were stiffer than the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma (stiff lesions) and 50 % were less stiff or of similar stiffness (soft lesions). High stiffness of the lesion had a sensitivity of 84 % (95 % confidence interval 73 % - 91 %), specificity of 67 % (58 % - 74 %), positive predictive value (PPV) of 56 % (50 % - 62 %), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89 % (83 % - 93 %) for the diagnosis of malignancy. For the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 96 % (87 % - 100 %), 64 % (56 % - 71 %), 45 % (40 % - 50 %), and 98 % (93 % - 100 %), respectively.

In patients with small solid pancreatic lesions, EUS elastography can rule out malignancy with a high level of certainty if the lesion appears soft. A stiff lesion can be either benign or malignant.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a novel non-invasive technique that can be used for distinguishing benign from malignant pancreatic masses. However, the studies have reported widely varied sensitivities and specificities. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the performance of EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic masses.

All the eligible studies were searched by PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to examine the accuracy.

A total of nineteen studies which included 1687 patients were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant pancreatic masses were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.99) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.58-0.69) for qualitative EUS elastography, 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The positive and negative LR were 2.60 (95% CI 1.84-3.66) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.10) for qualitative EUS elastography, 2.64 (95% CI 1.82-3.82) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.06-0.16) for quantitative EUS elastography, respectively. The summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the AUC were 60.59 (95% CI 28.12-130.56) and 0.91 (Q* = 0.842) for qualitative EUS elastography, 30.09 (95% CI 15.40-58.76) and 0.93 (Q* = 0.860) for quantitative EUS elastography.

Our meta-analysis shows that both qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography have high accuracy in the detection of malignant pancreatic masses, which could be used as a valuable complementary method to EUS-FNA for the differentiation of pancreatic masses in the future.

Evaluating the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography and strain ratio in differentiation between malignant and benign pancreatic lesions.Three hundred twenty-five patients with solid pancreatic lesions were enrolled in this prospective study from 2014 to 2017. EUS real-time elastography scoring and strain ratio were done to all patients and compared to the final diagnosis to assess its sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) in differentiating malignant from benign lesions.A cut-off value of 4.2 we had sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 63%, PPV of 89%, NPV of 81%, and accuracy of 87%. Another cut-off value of 10.9 showed a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 88%, PPV of 95%, NPV of 54%, and accuracy of 79%. Adding the elastography to the better cut-off value gave a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 63%, PPV of 89%, NPV of 88%, and accuracy of 89%.Real-time elastography and strain ration are valuable in differentiating malignant from pancreatic lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays an important role as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in gastroenterology. New developments have emerged, especially in the last decade, and are being introduced to endoscopists. The ability to readily visualize and access organs in the gastrointestinal tract has allowed endoscopists to perform new interventional procedures. EUS procedures have taken the place of conventional approaches for the treatment of various gastrointestinal diseases, including pancreatic cystic lesions. This article focuses on the advances and future of diagnostic and therapeutic EUS.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a major imaging method in the management of several diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding structures. Elastography is a novel technique providing additional information to standard B-mode imaging on the tissue stiffness. Elastography can be performed under EUS guidance. This method has proven to be an accurate and additional tool in the evaluation of pancreatic diseases and lymph nodes analysis. Possible uses include the study of liver lesions, subepithelial masses, and many more. This article reviews current knowledge and future perspectives.

Intra-abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenopathy are often difficult to diagnose, particularly in the absence of a primary lesion. Endosonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration and cytology (FNAC) has provided an easy and safe access to these lymph nodes, sparing the use of invasive and costly interventions. The main aim of this study is to assess the specificity, sensitivity, and predictive value of EUS-guided FNAC in the diagnosis of benign and malignant lymph nodes. In addition, the study aims to determine significant EUS features that could help in predicting lymph node malignancy.

This prospective study included 142 patients with intra-abdominal or intrathoracic lymphadenopathy who were referred for EUS-guided FNAC because of inaccessibility by other imaging modalities. Ninety (63.3%) patients were found to have malignant lymph nodes, and 52 (36.6%) had lymphadenopathy of benign nature.

EUS-guided FNAC had a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 100% respectively. It had positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 88% for malignancy, respectively. By logistic regression analysis, EUS features and shortest diameter were found to be potential predictors of malignancy with p-value of <0.0001.

EUS-guided FNAC is a powerful modality in the diagnosis of benign and malignant lymph nodes. Additional complementary EUS features could be added to this technique for definitive diagnosis.

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

New technologies in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluation have been developed because of the need to improve the EUS and EUS-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnostic rate. This paper reviews the principle, indications, main literature results, limitations and future expectations for each of the methods presented. Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS uses a low mechanical index and highlights slow-flow vascularization. This technique is useful for differentiating solid and cystic pancreatic lesions and assessing biliary neoplasms, submucosal neoplasms and lymph nodes. It is also useful for the discrimination of pancreatic masses based on their qualitative patterns; however, the quantitative assessment needs to be improved. The detection of small solid lesions is better, and the EUS-FNA guidance needs further research. The differentiation of cystic lesions of the pancreas and the identification of the associated malignancy features represent the main indications. Elastography is used to assess tissue hardness based on the measurement of elasticity. Despite its low negative predictive value, elastography might rule out the diagnosis of malignancy for pancreatic masses. Needle confocal laser endomicroscopy offers useful information about cystic lesions of the pancreas and is still under evaluation for use with solid pancreatic lesions of lymph nodes.