"Peripancreatic strands appearance" in pancreatic body and tail carcinoma: evaluation by multi-detector CT with pathological correlation

Efficiency evaluation of dual-energy CT to predict the postoperative early recurrence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of quantitative parameters from dual-energy CT (DECT) and basic CT features in predicting the postoperative early recurrence (ER) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

In this study, patients with PDAC who underwent radical resection and DECT from 2018 to 2022 were enrolled and categorised into ER and non-ER groups. The clinical data, basic CT features and DECT parameters of all patients were analyzed. Independent predictors of ER were identified with Logistic regression analyses. Three models (model A: basic CT features; model B: DECT parameters; model C: basic CT features + DECT parameters) were established. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was utilized to evaluate predictive performance.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were enrolled (ER group: n = 63; non-ER group: n = 87). Rim enhancement (odds ratio [OR], 3.32), peripancreatic strands appearance (OR, 2.68), electron density in the pancreatic parenchymal phase (P-Rho; OR, 0.90), arterial enhancement fraction (AEF; OR, 0.05) and pancreatic parenchyma fat fraction in the delayed phase (OR, 1.25) were identified as independent predictors of ER. Model C showed the highest area under the curve of 0.898. In addition, the corresponding ER risk factors were identified separately for resectable and borderline resectable PDAC subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

DECT quantitative parameters allow for the noninvasive prediction of postoperative ER in patients with PDAC, and the combination of DECT parameters and basic CT features shows a high prediction efficiency. Our model can help to identify patients with high-risk factors to guide preoperative decision making.

Rim Enhancement and Peripancreatic Fat Stranding in Preoperative MDCT as Predictors for Occult Metastasis in PDAC Patients

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

To identify the radiological features and clinical biomarkers that could predict the occult metastasis (OM) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included PDAC patients who were radiologically diagnosed resectable (R) or borderline resectable (BR) and underwent surgical exploration from January 2018 to December 2021. Depending on whether distant metastases were found during the exploration, patients were divided into OM and non-OM groups. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the radiological and clinical predictive factors for occult metastasis. Model performance was determined by discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

A total of 502 patients (median age, 64 years; interquartile range, 57-70 years; 294 men) were enrolled, among which 68 (13.5%) patients were found with distant metastases, with 45 liver-only, 19 peritoneal-only, four patients had both liver and peritoneal metastases. Rim enhancement and peripancreatic fat stranding were more frequent in the OM group than in the non-OM group. Tumor size (p = 0.028), tumor resectability (p = 0.031), rim enhancement (p < 0.001), peripancreatic fat stranding (p < 0.001) and level of CA125 (p = 0.021) were independent predictors of occult metastasis according to the multivariable analyses, and the areas under the curve (AUCs) of these characteristics were 0.703, 0.594, 0.638, 0.655, 0.631, respectively. The combined model showed the highest AUC of 0.823.

CONCLUSIONS

Rim enhancement, peripancreatic fat stranding, tumor size, tumor resectability and level of CA125 are risk factors for OM of PDAC. The combined model of radiological and clinical features may help the preoperative prediction of OM in PDAC.

Prediction of prognosis and resectability using MR imaging, clinical, and histopathological findings in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

PURPOSE

To predict poor overall survival (OS) and risk of residual tumor after surgery using MR imaging, clinical, and histopathological findings in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

196 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who underwent preoperative MRI and curative-intent surgery were retrospectively included. MRI findings were assessed by two radiologists. Clinical characteristics and histopathological results such as serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), T and N stage, and resection status, were also investigated. Cox regression analysis and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to identify prognostic factors for OS. We further analyzed the correlation between MRI features and residual tumors using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The median OS was 25.0 ± 26.6 months. T stage (hazard ratio [HR] 6.26, p = 0.014), N stage (HR 1.86, p = 0.002), CA-19-9 >37 U/mL (HR 2.06, p < 0.001), enlarged LN on MRI (HR 1.69, p = 0.006), and residual tumor (HR 1.52, p = 0.034) were important predictors of poor survival. The 5-year OS of the complete resection group (n = 107) was significantly better than that of the residual tumor group (n = 89) (35.5% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.002). Additionally, peritumoral fat stranding (odds ratio[OR] 2.09, p = 0.027), Bismuth type III/IV (OR 1.95, p = 0.022), and common bile duct (CBD) involvement (OR 2.3, p = 0.008) on MRI were important predictors of residual tumors in univariate analyses. However, absence of peritumoral fat stranding was a significant independent predictor for complete resection (OR 1.99, p = 0.048) and showed the highest sensitivity, at 79.8%.

CONCLUSION

MR imaging, clinical and histopathological results are useful for predicting poor survival after surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Furthermore, MRI findings, including peritumoral fat stranding, CBD involvement, and Bismuth type, are important for the prediction of residual tumors.

CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a more reliable prognostic factor for survival than pathology-diagnosed extension

OBJECTIVES

To determine the correlation between CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), pathology-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension, and survival in patients with PDAC.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 87 patients with resected PDAC. Two radiologists evaluated negative ((i) tumours surrounded by the pancreatic parenchyma and (ii) tumours contacting the pancreatic surface) or positive ((iii) tumours with peri-pancreatic strand appearances and/or with expansive growth) CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension. Clinical, pathological, and CT imaging characteristics predicting disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Cox proportional-hazards models. Diagnostic accuracy for pathology-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension was also assessed.

RESULTS

CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension (42/87 tumours, 48.3%; κ = 0.82) had a higher hazard ratio (HR) for the DFS (HR, 5.30; p < 0.01) and OS (HR, 5.31; p < 0.01) rates than pathology-diagnosed extension in univariable analyses. It was also an independent prognostic factor for the DFS (HR, 4.22; p < 0.01) and OS (HR, 4.38; p < 0.01) rates in multivariable analyses. Of 45 tumours without CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension, pathology-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension was observed in 2/8 (25.0%) and 32/37 (86.5%) tumours with CT categories (i) and (ii), respectively. However, the differences in the survival rates between patients with CT categories (i) and (ii) were insignificant, although those in the latter category had significantly better survival rates than those with CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension (category (iii)).

CONCLUSIONS

CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension was a better prognostic factor than pathology-diagnosed extension and considered an independent factor for the postoperative DFS and OS rates with reasonable frequency and high reproducibility, despite the low diagnostic accuracy for predicting pathology-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension.

KEY POINTS

• A CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension had a higher hazard ratio for both disease-free survival and overall survival compared to pathology-diagnosed extension in univariable survival analyses. • A CT-diagnosed extra-pancreatic extension was a significant independent predictor of both disease-free survival and overall survival, as observed in multivariable survival analyses. • Patients with tumours contacting with the pancreatic surface on CT images (CT category (ii)) showed similar survival rates to those whose tumours were surrounded by the pancreatic parenchyma (CT category (i)), although many tumours with CT category (ii) extended pathologically beyond the pancreas.

MDCT findings predicting post-operative residual tumor and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

To predict residual tumor (R) classification and overall survival (OS) on preoperative MDCT in patients who underwent first-line surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA).

METHODS

Three hundred sixteen patients with PDA who underwent MDCT and first-line surgery were included. Patients were divided into a test (n = 216) and a validation group (n = 100). The R classification was categorized into R0 (no residual tumor) and R1/R2 (microscopic/macroscopic residual tumor). We assessed the correlation between the MDCT findings and the R classification. For survival analysis, we used the Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazard model to determine the prognostic factors for OS. Validation of the prediction models for the R classification and OS was performed using C statistics and calibration plot.

RESULTS

Peritumoral fat stranding (odds ratio (OR) 3.826), suspicious distant metastasis (OR 2.916), portal vein involvement (OR 2.795), and tumor size (OR 1.045) were independent predictors for residual tumor (p < .05). On survival analysis, common hepatic artery involvement (hazard ratio (HR) 5.656), R1/R2 stage (HR 2.476), and N1 stage (HR 1.745) were predictors of poor OS (p < .05). C statistics for prediction models for R classification and OS were 0.816 and 0.662, respectively. Calibration plots showed good predictive performance in a high probability of the R1/R2 stage or poor OS.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative MDCT is useful for predicting the R classification using the tumor size, peritumoral fat stranding, portal vein involvement, and suspicious distant metastasis, as well as for anticipating poor OS using the N1 stage, common hepatic artery involvement, and R1/R2 stage in patients with PDA.

KEY POINTS

• Thorough assessment of the involvement of common hepatic artery or portal vein and peritumoral fat stranding is warranted for predicting prognosis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. • Not only encasement but also abutment of common hepatic artery or portal vein by tumor predicts poor prognosis after upfront surgery. • If residual tumor or poor overall survival is anticipated on preoperative MDCT, neoadjuvant treatment can be performed.

Differentiation of focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic carcinoma: assessment by multiphase contrast-enhanced CT

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the utility of multiphase contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) findings alone and in combination for differentiating focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (f-AIP) from pancreatic carcinoma (PC).

METHODS

The study group comprised 22 f-AIP lesions and 61 PC lesions. Two radiologists independently evaluated CT findings. Frequencies of findings were compared between f-AIP and PC. Statistical, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Homogeneous enhancement during the portal phase (AIP, 59 % vs. PC, 3 %; P < 0.001), dotted enhancement during the pancreatic phase (50 % vs. 7 %; P < 0.001), duct-penetrating sign (46 % vs. 2 %; P < 0.001), enhanced duct sign (36 % vs. 2 %; P < 0.001) and capsule-like rim (46 % vs. 3 %; P < 0.001) were more frequently observed in AIP. Ring-like enhancement during the delayed phase (5 % vs. 46 %; P < 0.001) and peripancreatic strands with a length of at least 10 mm (5 % vs. 39 %; P = 0.001) were more frequently observed in PC. AIP was identified with 82 % sensitivity and 98 % specificity using four of these seven findings. Multivariate analysis revealed significant differences in dotted enhancement (P = 0.004), duct-penetrating sign (P < 0.001) and capsule-like rim (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of CT findings may allow improvements in differentiating f-AIP from PC.

KEY POINTS

• f-AIP can mimic PC on imaging findings. • The differentiation of f-AIP from PC is important in patient management. • Some CT findings can be used to identify AIP. • The combination of CT findings will improve differentiation from PC.