Background: Differentiating benign from malignant pancreatic lesions requires integrating clinical, biochemical, and imaging data. We identified factors associated with malignancy and evaluated endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) alongside CT/MRI in pancreatic lesions with a reference diagnosis established by histopathology or clinical–radiological follow-up. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study (Sibiu, Romania; 2022–2025), all patients underwent EUS-guided FNA and CT and/or MRI. The reference standard was histopathology in 193 patients (82.1%) and clinical–radiological follow-up in 42 benign lesions (17.9%). Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with malignancy. EUS–CT/MRI agreement was assessed by concordance and Cohen’s kappa; diagnostic performance by sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and Youden index. Results: Of 235 patients, 47 (20.0%) had malignant lesions. Age, ln-transformed CA 19-9, pancreatic duct dilation (OR 18.97; 95% CI 5.95–60.50), and lymphadenopathy were independently associated with malignancy (apparent AUC 0.956; optimism-corrected AUC 0.949 after internal bootstrap validation; no external validation). EUS visualized 46 lesions not detected on CT/MRI. Agreement was 95.8% for size category (κ = 0.905) and 87.8% for morphology (κ = 0.510). Sensitivity was 80.9% for both modalities; specificity 59.0% (EUS) and 51.6% (CT/MRI); Youden index 0.399 and 0.324. All 38 EUS-solid lesions were malignant (all adenocarcinoma) in this selected referral cohort. Conclusions: EUS detected additional lesions, but both modalities showed limited overall discrimination with comparable sensitivity. Findings support complementary use of EUS and CT/MRI within an integrated clinical assessment; the regression model requires validation. Predictive values apply to this selected referral cohort and may not be transferable to unselected populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boicean et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: