Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography: New Advancement in Pancreatic Diseases

Written By

Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu and Adrian Saftoiu

Submitted: February 9th, 2022 Reviewed: February 23rd, 2022 Published: May 3rd, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.103890

Elastography - Applications in Clinical Medicine Edited by Dana Stoian

From the Edited Volume

Elastography - Applications in Clinical Medicine [Working Title]

Dr. Dana I Stoian and Dr. Alina Popescu

Chapter metrics overview

14 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Elastography opened up new frontiers for pancreatic disease, as it may aid in tumor mass differentiation. Ultrasound strain elastography and ultrasound shear-wave elastography have been used so far by transabdominal transducers. New technological advancements have embedded elastography techniques in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), thus enabling a better evaluation of patients with pancreatic tumors, chronic pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions, and lymph node involvement. Moreover, EUS-E might help in guiding EUS-Fine Needle Aspiration or EUS-Fine Needle Biopsy when addressing solid pancreatic tumors, for proper tissue harvesting. Furthermore, artificial intelligence methods may bypass the human factor and lead to better diagnostic results.


  • endoscopic ultrasound
  • elastography
  • pancreatic disease

1. Introduction

Elastography has surfaced in the early 1990s as a new noninvasive technique capable of offering new diagnostic opportunities for malignant diseases [1]. Initially, considered for superficial organs such as the breast [2, 3] or thyroid [4], elastography became to have an upward trend by covering most of the parenchymatous organs from the digestive system [5]. Over the years, new elastography techniques were integrated into ultrasound devices trying to create a foundational stage and to develop new standards by enhancing the spectrum of the available techniques [6]. However, the pancreas still stands as a challenge as it is hard to reach by elastography measurements.

When compared with other organs, the pancreas has by far a more limited number of studies. Due to its’ retroperitoneal position, transabdominal ultrasound elastography may be rather difficult to be properly executed, and it may lead to an inaccurate or imprecise examination. The evolving field of evidence-based medicine has then focused on more precise imaging techniques used for the pancreas examination such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) [7]. This enhanced the spectrum of available techniques that might enable pancreatic disease diagnosis and lead to a path-breaking development along with the endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) implementation as a standard and necessary method [8]. While EUS-FNA has laid the grounds for the current therapeutic techniques for pancreatic disease complications, it has also contributed to the elastography imaging, mainly by providing a pathological result, which is helped as the standard method for the elastography evaluation.

In the evolutionary steps of elastography, the first introduced method was strain elastography [9]. This technique measures the strain developed during external pressure, and its’ results are considered inversely related, meaning that the tissue stiffness will be softer if the strain will be greater. The manual compression is acknowledged as a limitation in a pancreatic setting thus, it requires strain to be obtained from nearby structures. However, several limitations are encountered, as measurements may be obtained usually at the level of the pancreatic body, provided that no vascular elements are in the elastography region of interest.

Further on, other elastography techniques have tried to enlarge the current spectrum and to extend elastography to a more precise tool. Shear-wave elastography [10], which is based on a different principle, was then proposed to outcome the flaws of strain elastography. By generating shear waves from the transducer, pancreatic tissue is measured and its stiffness becomes more evident as the shear wave velocity is faster. This technique was recently introduced to a EUS setting and might strengthen the available data [11].

As part of ongoing technical developments, artificial intelligence methods have also been introduced in pancreatic elastography assessment [12]. Their potential is nonetheless beneficial, as they may avoid the human factor in some situations, thus covering new grounds in pancreatic elastography.

With this chapter, we try to explore the potential of elastography in different pancreatic diseases and try to answer some of the available questions about the future of elastography.


2. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography (EUS-E) techniques

Probably the major outcome of EUS-E is that it may reach structures that are rather hard to examine, such as the pancreas or adjacent lymph nodes. As mentioned above, there are two elastography techniques available on EUS systems that have been tested on pancreatic diseases: strain elastography and the recently introduced shear wave method [11].

2.1 Strain elastography

This technique was first considered a qualitative technique, with the elastography region of interest (ROI), which covered the ultrasound image showing a pattern of green and blue colors in correspondence to the tissue stiffness [12, 13]. Green areas were considered benign, whereas blue areas were related to a possible malignant tissue. Since this method requires the transducer to be placed near the examination tissue, it is recommended to cover up at least 50% of the targeted tissue. Also, since the compression will be performed with the echoendoscope, it is important not to produce too strong compressions, so that reproducible types of elastograms may be achieved. The targeted lesion should be in the center of the transducer so that the elastography image should cover it and avoid adjacent tissue as much as possible [14, 15].

Semiquantitative analysis was introduced by determining strain ratio [16, 17]. This concept allows the practitioner to select an ROI by highlighting a round-shaped area in the targeted tissue and a smaller ROI within the nearby normal tissue, which might be either the normal parenchyma or the gastrointestinal tract wall. Then, the strain ratio has resulted from the two selected areas, with a value displayed by the ultrasound software.

Another method is represented by the strain histogram, which is based on the hue histograms averaged over several compression cycles [18, 19]. The results are usually described by mean values and standard deviation, as well as other parameters characteristic to histograms (Kurtosis, skewness, etc.). This strain histogram will cover a scale of 256 colors, being now embedded in the software of most ultrasound systems.

2.2 Shear-wave elastography

Shear-wave elastography (SWE) also became recently available in the EUS setting [11]. While the concept of SWE is similar to strain elastography, it does not use a transducer to create pressure, but it creates an elasticity map by measuring shear wave parameters. Directed by the ultrasound beam, the tissue is targeted by a perpendicular “push-pulse,” which generates shear waves. SWE is capable of providing direct stiffness measurements, which are translated either in kilopascal (kPa) or meter/second (m/s). This technique might be easier to use, as it may be performed much easier, and most of all since will directly provide quantitative values. However, it will require establishing cutoff values for every organ, which will be examined.


3. Clinical applications

Both strain and shear-wave elastography are available in the EUS setting for pancreatic disease [20, 21]. One of the major differences between these techniques is that when strain elastography is used only relative values are obtained as this is only a semiquantitative method, whereas shear-wave elastography produces absolute values, which may be more relevant. Thus, color pattern assessment with strain ratio and strain histogram analysis, as well as definite values for shear wave elastography may aid for pancreatic disease assessment and may represent an adjuvant method to confirm the diagnosis.

3.1 Pancreatic masses

There is always room for techniques improvement when discussing pancreatic tumors. Even though EUS-FNB is now considered the main method to confirm the diagnosis of a pancreatic tumor [22], elastography might aid in providing a larger panel when imaging examinations are performed.

Solid pancreatic lesions were classified by qualitative elastography into four different patterns presumably with their correspondent, normal tissue—green pattern, malignant tumor—mostly blue with small green areas and red lines, inflammatory mass—green with yellow and red lines or neuroendocrine tumor—homogeneous blue pattern [23]. When performing this procedure, it is important to avoid a smaller ROI, as the measurements will show a relative elasticity difference. Thus, the ROI should be large enough to include the tumor as well as normal adjacent tissue, and this is easily achievable in a clinical setting with a ratio of 50% for lesions and 50% for nearby tissues [24].

Along with the first study in 2006 [25], EUS was introduced as an optimistic technique that might be at least as useful as it was introduced in breast cancer. Moreover, due to the pancreatic adenocarcinoma characteristics as a tumor with high desmoplastic reaction, when performing EUS-E, the tumors should be much stiffer than the surrounding tissue [26]. However, no reliable correlation was successful so far with tumor grading.

Further on, the use of quantitative EUS-E suggested more reliable results, even though there were no differences in accuracy between these two techniques [27]. Iglesias-Garcia et al [28] mentioned that the strain ratio method had a higher accuracy (97.7%) and specificity (92.2%) than the qualitative analysis and that a cutoff value of the strain ratio higher than 6.04 with a lower elasticity index than 0.05% might be sensitive enough the difference between malignant and benign pancreatic tumors. He also concluded that this technique might properly differentiate from inflammatory masses with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 96% and neuroendocrine tumors (sensitivity 100% and specificity 88%).

Histogram analysis also showed some promising results (Figures 1 and 2). In our own study published in 2008 [29], we reported a 91.4% sensitivity, 87.9% specificity, 88.9% positive predictive value (PPV), and 90.6% negative predictive value (NPV) for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies, based on a cutoff of 175. Even more, better results were obtained by Schrader et al [30], who obtained 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) detection; however, they did mention the controls were patients with a normal pancreas. This might not be relevant, since chronic pancreatic or other masses would be the main objective to be compared with.

Figure 1.

Multimodal EUS imaging of a solid pancreatic tumor, pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A EUS – Doppler imaging. B Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. C. EUS-E imaging with strain histogram.

Figure 2.

Multimodal imaging of a solid pancreatic tumor, neuroendocrine tumor. A. EUS – Doppler imaging. B Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. C. EUS-E imaging with strain histogram.

Currently, there are seven meta-analyses (Table 1) [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37] that include strain EUS-E for pancreatic cancer and showed a specificity of 92–98% and a specificity of 67–76%. However, two studies assessed small pancreatic tumors of less than 15 and 20 mm, respectively, and pointed out that EUS-E might be confident in suggesting that PDAC is a stiff tumor [38, 39]. Kataoka et al [38] analyzed 126 cases of small pancreatic lesions associated or not with main pancreatic duct dilation. They concluded that a stiffness ratio was definitely higher for pancreatic cancer 62:3 vs. 29:32, P < 0.001. Also, when comparing lesions with PC vs. without main pancreatic duct dilation, the sensitivity (94 vs 100%), specificity (23 vs 60%), and predictive value (60 vs 100%) were different suggesting that a small lesion might be excluded from being pancreatic cancer without main pancreatic duct dilation with high confidence and concordance.

YearAuthorNumber of patientsSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)
2012Pei et al. [31]10429569
2013Mei et al. [32]10449567
2013Ying et al. [33]8939869
2013Li et al. [34]7819976
2013Hu et al. [35]7529776
2013Xu et al. [36]7529974
2017Lu et al. [37]15379767

Table 1.

Available meta-analyses that focus in EUS-E strain assessment on pancreatic cancer.

As this technique may be used as an adjuvant tool for pancreatic masses diagnosis, it may be included in a panel of procedures to enhance the diagnosis process. Combining EUS-E with contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CEUS), it could help patients with a negative FNA, if a PDAC is strongly suspected. For EUS-FNA negative cases, we compared PDAC patients with chronic pancreatitis and suggested that a hypovascular, hard tumor might suggest a PDAC with 75.8% sensitivity, 85.2% specificity, 83.3% PPV, and 96.2% NPV [40].

A different approach was tested by Yamada et al [41], which tried to assess vascular invasion of PDAC using EUS-E. They defined vascular invasions as seen in EUS by their exerting pressure characteristics. They considered that if two tissues with different stiffness are in close contact, but not fixed, their border will move when compression is made, which will translate in EUS-E as a softer tissue with adjacent artifacts with red, yellow, and green. On the other hand, if their border moves at a time, they will not have any artifacts there, thus they might have a vascular invasion. EUS-E showed a high diagnostic ability with a sensitivity of 0.917 a specificity of 0.900, and an accuracy of 0.906, and after the interobserver agreement, they obtained higher k-coefficients than the B mode k −0.542 vs. k = 0.625, suggesting a possible method to assess vascular invasion. However, they used six different ultrasound settings, and this may hamper their results.

In a research setting, Mazzawi et al [42] published two cases where they tested EUS-E after radiofrequency ablation. Based on the fact that after ablation is difficult to distinguish residual from a recurrent tumor or fibrotic tissue, while the mass is only visible at CT/MR as decreased or unchanged by RFA, they USED EUS-E to figure out if there is any tumor tissue left. First, EUS-E was performed before the RFA procedure showing blue colored mass suggesting a hard tissue. Second, after RFA, the CT scan showed an increase in tumor diameter without any other characterization. While performing EUS-E, a mixture of blue and green areas was seen, suggesting central anechoic areas indicating necrosis and another hypoechoic region of the tumor mass. Thus, they suggest that since RFA could be performed sequentially, EUS-E might help in determining which region should be reassessed on future procedures.

The second technique available for EUS-E in a pancreatic setting, the shear-wave measurement, has only one study published so far on pancreatic masses with inconclusive results [43]. Shear wave velocity is measured, and faster propagation will be related to greater tissue elasticity. Ohno et al [43] compared EUS-SWM and EUS-E for 64 consecutive cases with solid pancreatic lesions and pointed out that the velocity of the shear wave when comparing pancreatic cancer to mass-forming pancreatitis was not statistically significant (p 0.5687), while the mean strain value was lower for pancreatic cancer 45.4 vs. 74.5; p 0.0007. They used an Arietta 850 (Hitachi Medical Systems Europe, Zug, Switzerland) device, which unfortunately may not visualize the propagation status of shear waves in the ROI. Moreover, as they mention, many artifacts may be encountered due to various reasons, such as tissue motion, nearby blood vessels, distortion, or precompression artifacts, as well as breathing, because the procedures are usually performed under conscious sedation. Thus, their conclusion was that this set of EUS-SWM is not feasible for pancreatic solid masses assessment and that EUS-E with strain ratios and histogram still remain the main adjuvant method to be considered.

3.2 Chronic pancreatitis

Currently, EUS-E is considered for pancreatic fibrosis assessment (as well as stiffness) by both strain and shear-wave elastography [44]. Even though transabdominal US-E has been reported at first [45, 46], EUS-E is the preferred method, due to its capability to better visualize the pancreas, regardless of the patient’s body size. However, the technique still requires a highly experienced endoscopist (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Multimodal imaging of chronic pancreatitis A. EUS – Doppler imaging. B. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. C. EUS-E imaging with strain histogram.

Itoh et al [47] used quantitative analysis to diagnose pancreatic fibrosis using EUS-E of surgically resected specimens. They included 58 patients who underwent EUS-EG of the distal pancreas before performing a pancreatectomy of pancreatic tumor based on the concept that if a tumor is present in the pancreatic head, fibrosis might be present in the tail due to obstructive pancreatitis. When compared with histology, they maintained the same image as the EUS-E pattern by providing a median of 2.0 sections. They quantified four parameters of tissue elasticity (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) and obtained a significant correlation between all of them and the grade of pancreatic fibrosis. They concluded that with fibrosis progression, the skewness and kurtosis increased, whereas the standard deviation and mean decreased.

While this concept might be the ideal one, it is difficult to be introduced without comparing it to surgical specimens. On the other hand, EUS by itself is not standardized and has a low reproducibility in diagnosing chronic pancreatitis. Thus, by performing a histogram analysis, these drawbacks might be overcome. Kuwahara et al [48] published in 2017 their experience on using EUS on 96 patients. They performed EUS-E on the head of the pancreas and compared the mean values with no substantial difference (68.8 vs. 71.3); however, the interobserver reliability of chronic pancreatitis was substantial with a k value of 0.648 and a consistency ratio of 73%. They also mention that EUS characteristics with hyperechoic foci with shadowing and lobularity and honeycomb appearance, as well as the Rosemont Criteria, were correlated with EUS-E. In conclusion, they suggest that EUS-E is an objective method for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and should be considered when performing EUS.

The elastography spectrum was enhanced with the shear wave devices implemented on EUS systems. Nonetheless, chronic pancreatitis benefited from this breakthrough, and recent studies have already been published. The first reports of EUS shear wave elastography [43, 49] compared the resulting values with the Rosemont classification and EUS criteria with positive results and suggested that shear wave values may assess the fibrotic changes, which occur in chronic pancreatitis. They obtained a high sensitivity of 100%, specificity 94%, and an AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics) of 0.97, which highlights the EUS-SWM diagnostic capability and that also may surpass other imaging techniques. The exocrine and endocrine functions were also discussed if they might be correlated with EUS-SWM since in chronic pancreatitis, they are both altered [50]. The EUS-SWM sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC obtained for diagnosing chronic pancreatitis were 83%, 100%, and 0.92. When discussing exocrine dysfunction with pancreatic function diagnostic tests, the AUROC was 0.78 with a cutoff value of 1.96, whereas for the endocrine dysfunction associated with diabetes mellitus, it was 0.63 with a cutoff value of 2.34.

EUS-E is a promising asset for chronic pancreatitis; however, there is a need for more studies since some limitations are still encountered. While the proper way to validate its use is represented by histology as a reference, in chronic pancreatitis this might be rather difficult, thus another setting should be proposed. Also, the use of shear waves seems to provide better data, as they estimate the stiffness of the tissue.

3.3 Autoimmune pancreatitis

Exploring new diagnostic paths, EUS-E might be a valid tool for AP assessment. The first cases were reported by Dietrich et al [51] after suspicion of chronic pancreatitis but had a final diagnosis of AIP after EUS. The stiffness that covers the entire pancreas is characteristic for AIP, which enables to easily distinguish AIP and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Only one study tested EUS-E with strain ratio on AIP. The authors tried to show a positive relationship after steroid treatment in AIP by examining the patient before and 2 weeks after therapy. The patients showed a decrease in the strain ratio from (8.04 ± 2.29 to 3.44 ± 1.97 (P < 0.0001). This might promote EUS-E as a response to the therapy, which might be useful for clinicians.

Additionally, there is also a study published on SWE that compared patients with AIP with controls, yielding different values of share wave velocity (2.57 m/s vs. 1.89 m/s) (P = 0.0185). The study also tested the response to steroid therapy, and Vs significantly decreased from 3.32 to 2.46 m/s (n = 6) (P 0.0234), which highlights the technique’s capability in AIP [49, 51, 52].

3.4 Pancreatic fistulas

EUS-E has also been tested in the particular setting of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy [53]. This is a possible complication that may occur and can have dramatic consequences. Mean elasticity was measured and proved to be significantly higher in patients with pancreatic fistula as compared with the ones without (p < 0.001). The AUROC for EUS-E to determine pancreatic fistula was higher than the operator who appreciated the tissue by hand; however, no statistical significance was present (p = 0.132).


4. Conclusions

EUS-E is a complementary tool for pancreatic disease assessment with a continuous endeavor to aid as a proper diagnosis method. While this method may not replace EUS tissue acquisition, it may be used as an additional method to help the decision-making process.

While strain EUS-E was the first technique used, with various results, the recent EUS-SWM in a pancreatic setting still requires more investigations. With only a few studies, and perhaps more to come in the next years, perhaps SWM will overcome the flaws of strain EUS-E and will be used more for pancreatic disease assessment. Moreover, new software developments, such as artificial intelligence tools could also be an alternative, by enabling a more rapid diagnostic based on image analysis.

In conclusion, EUS-E might require more attention, because of its potential, and in combination with other methods, such as CEUS, may maximize the efforts for pancreatic disease management.



This chapter was supported by the Executive Unit for the Financing of Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation (UEFISCDI) of the Ministry of National Education (project “PREdictive Machine Learning Algorithm for the Dynamic Evaluation of Pancreatic Cancer during Therapy Multimodal Therapy”—PREDYCT, code PN-III-P4-ID-PCE2020-0884 within PNCDI III).


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. Ophir J, Céspedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X. Elastography: A quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrasonic Imaging. 1991;13(2):111-134. DOI: 10.1177/016173469101300201
  2. 2. Gheonea IA, Stoica Z, Bondari S. Differential diagnosis of breast lesions using ultrasound elastography. Indian Journal of Radiology Imaging. 2011;21(4):301-305. DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.90697
  3. 3. Garra BS, Cespedes EI, Ophir J, Spratt SR, Zuurbier RA, Magnant CM, et al. Elastography of breast lesions: Initial clinical results. Radiology. 1997;202(1):79-86. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.1.8988195
  4. 4. Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, Yon S, Fournier C, Mal F, et al. Transient elastography: A new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 2003;29(12):1705-1713. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.07.001
  5. 5. Moon HJ, Sung JM, Kim EK, Yoon JH, Youk JH, Kwak JY. Diagnostic performance of gray-scale US and elastography in solid thyroid nodules. Radiology. 2012;262(3):1002-1013. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110839
  6. 6. Sigrist RMS, Liau J, Kaffas AE, Chammas MC, Willmann JK. Ultrasound elastography: Review of techniques and clinical applications. Theranostics. 2017;7(5):1303-1329. DOI: 10.7150/thno.18650
  7. 7. Xu MM, Sethi A. Imaging of the pancreas. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America. 2016;45(1):101-116. DOI: 10.1016/j.gtc.2015.10.010
  8. 8. Cazacu IM, Luzuriaga Chavez AA, Saftoiu A, Vilmann P, Bhutani MS. A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions. Endoscopic Ultrasound. 2018;7(3):141-160. DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_19_18
  9. 9. Lee TH, Cha SW, Cho YD. EUS elastography: Advances in diagnostic EUS of the pancreas. Korean Journal of Radiology. 2012;13(Suppl. 1):S12-S16. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2012.13.S1.S12
  10. 10. Kawada N, Tanaka S. Elastography for the pancreas: Current status and future perspective. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2016;22(14):3712-3724. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i14.3712
  11. 11. Yamamiya A, Irisawa A, Hoshi K, Yamabe A, Izawa N, Nagashima K, et al. Recent advances in endosonography-elastography: Literature review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021;10(16)
  12. 12. Săftoiu A, Vilmann P, Gorunescu F, Janssen J, Hocke M, Larsen M, et al. Efficacy of an artificial neural network-based approach to endoscopic ultrasound elastography in diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2012;10(1):84-90.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.09.014
  13. 13. Itokawa F, Itoi T, Sofuni A, Kurihara T, Tsuchiya T, Ishii K, et al. EUS elastography combined with the strain ratio of tissue elasticity for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Journal of Gastroenterology. 2011;46(6):843-853. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-011-0399-5
  14. 14. Kim SY, Cho JH, Kim YJ, Kim EJ, Park JY, Jeon TJ, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of quantitative endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differentiating pancreatic disease. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2017;32(5):1115-1122. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13649
  15. 15. Havre RF, Ødegaard S, Gilja OH, Nesje LB. Characterization of solid focal pancreatic lesions using endoscopic ultrasonography with real-time elastography. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2014;49(6):742-751. DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2014.905627
  16. 16. Carrara S, Di Leo M, Grizzi F, Correale L, Rahal D, Anderloni A, et al. EUS elastography (strain ratio) and fractal-based quantitative analysis for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2018;87(6):1464-1473. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.031
  17. 17. Okasha H, Elkholy S, El-Sayed R, Wifi MN, El-Nady M, El-Nabawi W, et al. Real time endoscopic ultrasound elastography and strain ratio in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2017;23(32):5962-5968. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i32.5962
  18. 18. Opačić D, Rustemović N, Kalauz M, Markoš P, Ostojić Z, Majerović M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography strain histograms in the evaluation of patients with pancreatic masses. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2015;21(13):4014-4019. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i13.4014
  19. 19. Costache MI, Cazacu IM, Dietrich CF, Petrone MC, Arcidiacono PG, Giovannini M, et al. Clinical impact of strain histogram EUS elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS for the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses: A prospective multicentric study. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020;9(2):116-121. DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_69_19
  20. 20. Kuwahara T, Hara K, Mizuno N, Haba S, Okuno N. Present status of ultrasound elastography for the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors: Review of the literature. Journal of Medical Ultrasonics (2001). 2020;47(3):413-420. DOI: 10.1007/s10396-020-01026-6
  21. 21. Cui XW, Chang JM, Kan QC, Chiorean L, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: Current status and future perspectives. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2015;21(47):13212-13224. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i47.13212
  22. 22. Marques S, Bispo M, Rio-Tinto R, Fidalgo P, Devière J. The impact of recent advances in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition on the management of pancreatic cancer. GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology. 2021;28(3):185-192. DOI: 10.1159/000510730
  23. 23. Dietrich CF, Burmeister S, Hollerbach S, Arcidiacono PG, Braden B, Fusaroli P, et al. Do we need elastography for EUS? Endosc Ultrasound. 2020;9(5):284-290. DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_25_20
  24. 24. Dietrich CF, Barr RG, Farrokh A, Dighe M, Hocke M, Jenssen C, et al. Strain elastography: How to do it? Ultrasound International Open. 2017;3(4):E137-Ee49. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-119412
  25. 25. Giovannini M, Hookey LC, Bories E, Pesenti C, Monges G, Delpero JR. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: The first step towards virtual biopsy? Preliminary results in 49 patients. Endoscopy. 2006;38(4):344-348. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-925158
  26. 26. Giovannini M, Thomas B, Erwan B, Christian P, Fabrice C, Benjamin E, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of lymph nodes and pancreatic masses: A multicenter study. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2009;15(13):1587-1593. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.15.1587
  27. 27. Săftoiu A, Vilmann P. Differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses by semiquantitative EUS elastography: Between strain ratios and strain histograms. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2013;78(1):188-189. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.024
  28. 28. Iglesias-Garcia J, Lindkvist B, Lariño-Noia J, Abdulkader-Nallib I, Dominguez-Muñoz JE. Differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: Contrast-enhanced harmonic (CEH-EUS), quantitative-elastography (QE-EUS), or both? United European Gastroenterology Journal. 2017;5(2):236-246. DOI: 10.1177/2050640616640635
  29. 29. Săftoiu A, Vilmann P, Gorunescu F, Gheonea DI, Gorunescu M, Ciurea T, et al. Neural network analysis of dynamic sequences of EUS elastography used for the differential diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;68(6):1086-1094. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.04.031
  30. 30. Schrader H, Wiese M, Ellrichmann M, Belyaev O, Uhl W, Tannapfel A, et al. Diagnostic value of quantitative EUS elastography for malignant pancreatic tumors: Relationship with pancreatic fibrosis. Ultraschall in der Medizin. 2012;33(7):E196-e201. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1273256
  31. 31. Mei M, Ni J, Liu D, Jin P, Sun L. EUS elastography for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2013;77(4):578-589. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.09.035
  32. 32. Ying L, Lin X, Xie ZL, Hu YP, Tang KF, Shi KQ. Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for identification of malignant pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2013;28(9):1434-1443. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12292
  33. 33. Li X, Xu W, Shi J, Lin Y, Zeng X. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differentiating between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and inflammatory masses: A meta-analysis. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2013;19(37):6284-6291. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i37.6284
  34. 34. Hu DM, Gong TT, Zhu Q. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2013;58(4):1125-1131. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2428-5
  35. 35. Xu W, Shi J, Li X, Zeng X, Lin Y. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic masses: A systemic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2013;25(2):218-224. DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32835a7f7c
  36. 36. Lu Y, Chen L, Li C, Chen H, Chen J. Diagnostic utility of endoscopic ultrasonography-elastography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Medical Ultrasonography. 2017;19(2):150-158. DOI: 10.11152/mu-987
  37. 37. Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, Dhar A, Vlavianos P, Monahan KJ. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2012;75(2):319-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.049
  38. 38. Kataoka K, Ishikawa T, Ohno E, Iida T, Suzuki H, Uetsuki K, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for small solid pancreatic lesions with or without main pancreatic duct dilatation. Pancreatology. 2021;21(2):451-458. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.12.012
  39. 39. Ignee A, Jenssen C, Arcidiacono PG, Hocke M, Möller K, Saftoiu A, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography of small solid pancreatic lesions: A multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2018;50(11):1071-1079. DOI: 10.1055/a-0588-4941
  40. 40. Iordache S, Costache MI, Popescu CF, Streba CT, Cazacu S, Săftoiu A. Clinical impact of EUS elastography followed by contrast-enhanced EUS in patients with focal pancreatic masses and negative EUS-guided FNA. Medical Ultrasonography. 2016;18(1):18-24. DOI: 10.11152/mu.2013.2066.181.ich
  41. 41. Yamada K, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Ishikawa T, Tanaka H, Nakamura M, et al. Diagnosis of vascular invasion in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using endoscopic ultrasound elastography. BMC Gastroenterology. 2020;20(1):81. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01228-9
  42. 42. Mazzawi T, Chaiyapo A, Kongkam P, Ridtitid W, Rerknimitr R. Elastography of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma following EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (with video). Arabian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2020;21(2):128-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajg.2020.04.014
  43. 43. Ohno E, Kawashima H, Ishikawa T, Iida T, Suzuki H, Uetsuki K, et al. Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided elastography for solid pancreatic lesions: Shear-wave measurements versus strain elastography with histogram analysis. Digestive Endoscopy. 2021;33(4):629-638. DOI: 10.1111/den.13791
  44. 44. Yamashita Y, Kitano M. Benefits and limitations of each type of endoscopic ultrasonography elastography technology for diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. Digestive Endoscopy. 2021;33(4):554-556. DOI: 10.1111/den.13870
  45. 45. Kuwahara T, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Ishikawa T, Yamamura T, et al. Usefulness of shear wave elastography as a quantitative diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2018;33(3):756-761. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13926
  46. 46. Kuwahara T, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Sugimoto H, Hayashi D, et al. Quantitative evaluation of pancreatic tumor fibrosis using shear wave elastography. Pancreatology. 2016;16(6):1063-1068. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2016.09.012
  47. 47. Itoh Y, Itoh A, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Nakamura Y, Hiramatsu T, et al. Quantitative analysis of diagnosing pancreatic fibrosis using EUS-elastography (comparison with surgical specimens). Journal of Gastroenterology. 2014;49(7):1183-1192. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-013-0880-4
  48. 48. Kuwahara T, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Ishikawa T, Kawai M, et al. Quantitative diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis using EUS elastography. Journal of Gastroenterology. 2017;52(7):868-874. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-016-1296-8
  49. 49. Ohno E, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, Ishikawa T, Tanaka H, Sakai D, et al. Feasibility and usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided shear-wave measurement for assessment of autoimmune pancreatitis activity: A prospective exploratory study. Journal of Medical Ultrasonics (2001). 2019;46(4):425-433. DOI: 10.1007/s10396-019-00944-4
  50. 50. Yamashita Y, Tanioka K, Kawaji Y, Tamura T, Nuta J, Hatamaru K, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography shear wave as a predictive factor of endocrine/exocrine dysfunction in chronic pancreatitis. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2021;36(2):391-396. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15137
  51. 51. Dietrich CF, Hirche TO, Ott M, Ignee A. Real-time tissue elastography in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2009;41(8):718-720. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1214866
  52. 52. Ishikawa T, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Mizutani Y, Fujishiro M. Imaging diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis using endoscopic ultrasonography. Journal of Medical Ultrasonics (2001). 2021;48(4):543-553. DOI: 10.1007/s10396-021-01143-w
  53. 53. Kuwahara T, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Yokoyama Y, Fujii T, et al. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography-elastography as a predictive tool for the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences. 2017;24(12):649-656. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.514

Written By

Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu and Adrian Saftoiu

Submitted: February 9th, 2022 Reviewed: February 23rd, 2022 Published: May 3rd, 2022