Brief Description of the Purpose of the StudyTo compare abdominal ultrasonographic (AU) findings with endoscopic ultrasonographic (EUS) findings of solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT) of pancreas.MethodsThirteen patients (M:F=3:10; mean age, 36 years) with surgically proven SPT were included, who underwent both preoperative AU and EUS. Ultrasonographic findings of 2 modalities were compared according to internal echogenicity, solid or cystic portion, internal septum, calcification, fluid-fluid level, demarcation and main pancreatic duct dilatation.Main ResultsAmong 13 cases, 8 cases showed hypoechogenicity on both AU and EUS. Remaining 5 cases showed different echogenicity on both modalities; hypoechogenicity (n=3) and isoechogenicity (n=2) on AU, hyperechogenicity (n=2), unremarkable echogenicity due to dense rim calcifications (n=2), isoechogenicity (n=1) on EUS. In two cases with rim calcifications, evaluation of the internal content was more difficult on EUS, compared to AU. Two cases with central punctate calcifications and 1 case with peripheral calcifications were seen. Internal fluid-fluid level was noted in 2 cases on both modalities. All cases showed good demarcation without pancreatic ductal dilatation or internal septum.Importance of the ConclusionsEUS was somewhat superior to AU in the evaluation of internal echo texture (solid or cystic) of pancreatic SPT. However, AU was superior to evaluate the larger size tumor and tumors with dense rim calcifications. Brief Description of the Purpose of the StudyTo compare abdominal ultrasonographic (AU) findings with endoscopic ultrasonographic (EUS) findings of solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT) of pancreas. To compare abdominal ultrasonographic (AU) findings with endoscopic ultrasonographic (EUS) findings of solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT) of pancreas. MethodsThirteen patients (M:F=3:10; mean age, 36 years) with surgically proven SPT were included, who underwent both preoperative AU and EUS. Ultrasonographic findings of 2 modalities were compared according to internal echogenicity, solid or cystic portion, internal septum, calcification, fluid-fluid level, demarcation and main pancreatic duct dilatation. Thirteen patients (M:F=3:10; mean age, 36 years) with surgically proven SPT were included, who underwent both preoperative AU and EUS. Ultrasonographic findings of 2 modalities were compared according to internal echogenicity, solid or cystic portion, internal septum, calcification, fluid-fluid level, demarcation and main pancreatic duct dilatation. Main ResultsAmong 13 cases, 8 cases showed hypoechogenicity on both AU and EUS. Remaining 5 cases showed different echogenicity on both modalities; hypoechogenicity (n=3) and isoechogenicity (n=2) on AU, hyperechogenicity (n=2), unremarkable echogenicity due to dense rim calcifications (n=2), isoechogenicity (n=1) on EUS. In two cases with rim calcifications, evaluation of the internal content was more difficult on EUS, compared to AU. Two cases with central punctate calcifications and 1 case with peripheral calcifications were seen. Internal fluid-fluid level was noted in 2 cases on both modalities. All cases showed good demarcation without pancreatic ductal dilatation or internal septum. Among 13 cases, 8 cases showed hypoechogenicity on both AU and EUS. Remaining 5 cases showed different echogenicity on both modalities; hypoechogenicity (n=3) and isoechogenicity (n=2) on AU, hyperechogenicity (n=2), unremarkable echogenicity due to dense rim calcifications (n=2), isoechogenicity (n=1) on EUS. In two cases with rim calcifications, evaluation of the internal content was more difficult on EUS, compared to AU. Two cases with central punctate calcifications and 1 case with peripheral calcifications were seen. Internal fluid-fluid level was noted in 2 cases on both modalities. All cases showed good demarcation without pancreatic ductal dilatation or internal septum. Importance of the ConclusionsEUS was somewhat superior to AU in the evaluation of internal echo texture (solid or cystic) of pancreatic SPT. However, AU was superior to evaluate the larger size tumor and tumors with dense rim calcifications. EUS was somewhat superior to AU in the evaluation of internal echo texture (solid or cystic) of pancreatic SPT. However, AU was superior to evaluate the larger size tumor and tumors with dense rim calcifications.