|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
03226nam a2200337 u 4500 |
| 001 |
EB001840192 |
| 003 |
EBX01000000000000001004181 |
| 005 |
00000000000000.0 |
| 007 |
tu||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 008 |
180702 r ||| eng |
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of disease and staging of cancers in adult patients with gastroenterological or oncological disease
|h Elektronische Ressource
|b a review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety
|c prepared by Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
|
| 246 |
3 |
1 |
|a Endoscopic ultrasound for disease diagnosis and cancer staging
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Ottawa (ON)
|b Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
|c 2014, 18 March 2014
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 1 PDF file (23 pages)
|b illustration
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a Includes bibliographical references
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Ultrasonography
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Neoplasm Staging
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Cost-Benefit Analysis
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Diagnostic Imaging / methods
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Treatment Outcome
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Neoplasms / diagnostic imaging
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Gastrointestinal Diseases / diagnostic imaging
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Endosonography
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
|
| 041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
| 989 |
|
|
|b NCBI
|a National Center for Biotechnology Information
|
| 490 |
0 |
|
|a Rapid response report: summary with critical appraisal
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Title from PDF caption. - "CADTH rapid response service."
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK268809
|3 Volltext
|n NLM Bookshelf Books
|3 Volltext
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 610
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a Identification of cancers and gastroenterological diseases can be challenging, as clinicians must ensure the process for identification is accurate while minimizing complications and ensuring sustainability associated with procedures. In addition, for those with cancer, accurate staging is vital for guiding the most appropriate therapy. There are a number of minimally invasive imaging strategies that may be used for identifying and staging different types of cancers, as well as identifying gastroentological disease. Examples of imaging strategies include computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Each strategy is associated with differing accuracy for different diseases, as well as when comparing diagnosis and staging of illness. In addition, each strategy is associated with other benefits and limitations. For example, EUS is often less expensive and more readily available relative to other imaging modalities like CT, PET and MRI, but CT, PET and MRI allow for visualization of a larger area compared with EUS. Also, the amount of radiation exposure, and need for contrast media, differs between each modality. Lastly, these imaging modalities may be complementary to one another, for example, using EUS to minimize exposure to the more invasive ERCP in people with acute biliary pancreatitis. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the evidence for clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost effectiveness of EUS compared to other imaging modalities including CT, MRI, PET, or ERCP.
|