Table 2 summarizes the diagnostic power of EUS-FNA and PJC. The EUS-FNA results were: sensitivity 86.0%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 70.5%, and accuracy 89.5%. The PJC results were: sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 84.4%, and accuracy 88.8%. No significant differences were seen in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive

value, negative Temozolomide predictive value, and accuracy between EUS-FNA and PJC. When the EUS-FNA and PJC results were combined, the results were as follows: sensitivity 92.5%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 91.7%, and accuracy 95.9%. The accuracy of EUS-FNA and/or PJC was significantly higher than that of EUS-FNA (P = 0.031) or PJC (P = 0.027) alone. Table 3 shows the diagnostic sensitivities of EUS-FNA and/ or PJC in subgroups of pancreatic malignancy. Sensitivities for pancreatic selleck chemicals llc malignancy were 95.0% in the head, 96.7% in the body, and 97.3% in the tail of the pancreas. Sensitivities were 90.6% for carcinomas ≤ 20 mm, 97.4% for 21–40 mm, 100% for 41–60 mm, and 100% for carcinomas ≥ 61 mm. Sensitivities were 100% for Tis, 100% for T1, 95% for T2, 82.4% for T3, and 100% for T4. No significant

differences were seen in diagnostic sensitivity among any subgroups of pancreatic malignancy. Five patients (2.9%) in this study developed complications following EUS-FNA and/or PJC; all five cases developed pancreatitis after PJC, but not EUS-FNA, and were cured by conservative treatment. A case of early pancreatic cancer that could be diagnosed by PJC alone is presented. In a 79-year-old man, CT of the abdomen found a dilatation MCE公司 of the main duct in the body and tail of the pancreas, which suggested a pancreatic-ductal stricture in the tail of the pancreas (Fig. 1a). ERCP indicated a pancreatic-ductal stricture in the body of the pancreas (Fig. 1b). PJC of the stricture revealed malignant cells (Fig. 1c). Pathologic examination of the resected specimen disclosed a noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the pancreas, which was present in the strictured main duct (Fig. 1d). Previous reports have

shown that the accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis was 85–90.7%, with sensitivity of 80–89.5%, specificity of 96–100%, positive predictive value of 98.8–100%, and negative predictive value of 51–68.8%.[1, 12-14] The present results were similar to the previously reported results. However, it is difficult to strengthen the diagnostic power of EUS-FNA because EUS cannot detect minimally invasive carcinoma, and EUS-FNA cannot be performed for cases with a potential for bleeding or those with IPMC because of the potential for needle tract seeding.[3, 4] PJC has yielded sensitivities for pancreatic cancer that ranged from 33.3% to 67%, with specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 27.3%–98%, and accuracy 46.7%–93%.