Comparison of diagnostic performance between CT and MRI in differentiating non-diffuse-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:5267-5274. [PMID: 29948075 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5565-1]

CT surveillance for type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: cumulative radiation dose and diagnostic performance for disease relapse

OBJECTIVES

Long-term follow-up is essential for type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) patients due to high relapse rates. The cumulative radiation dose from repeated CT scans during follow-up should not be ignored. We aim to investigate the cumulative radiation dose in AIP patients undergoing CT surveillance and the diagnostic performance of CT in detecting disease relapse. The diagnostic performance of MRI from a secondary cohort during the same period was also investigated.

METHODS

This retrospective single-institutional study included 247 type 1 AIP patients with one or more follow-up CT scans, and 120 patients with MR follow-ups. Four metrics were utilized to report the radiation dose, including the volume computed tomography dose index, the dose length product, size-specific dose estimate and effective dose. The diagnostic performance for AIP relapse was assessed, taking the final clinical diagnosis in retrospect as the reference standard.

RESULTS

With a median 2.3-year follow-up period, AIP patients followed up with CT exhibited a median cumulative radiation dose of 37.5 mSv. 11.3% of patients have accumulated doses exceeding 100 mSv. For the 169 patients followed over a year, 30.8% sustained an average annual radiation dose surpassing 20 mSv. The sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of CT for detecting abdominal organ relapse was 64.1%/99.6%/97.0%. For AIP patients followed up with MRI, the sensitivity for detecting disease relapse was 90.5%.

CONCLUSION

Considering the accumulation of radiation dose in AIP patients and the insufficient sensitivity in detecting disease relapse with CT, safer and more sensitive imaging follow-up strategies should be explored.

KEY POINTS

Question CT, as the primary imaging modality for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) follow-up, raises concerns regarding radiation exposure and lacks reported diagnostic performance in detecting AIP relapse. Findings CT in AIP follow-up causes significant cumulative radiation exposure and exhibits insufficient sensitivity in relapse detection. Clinical relevance Type 1 AIP necessitates long-term imaging follow-up, yet current guidelines lack consensus regarding the prioritization of CT or MRI for such follow-up. CT is widely used but has radiation concerns and limited sensitivity, calling for safer, efficient strategies.

Mimics of pancreatic neoplasms at cross-sectional imaging: Pearls for characterization and diagnostic work-up

Interpreting imaging examinations of the pancreas can be a challenge. Several different entities can mimic or mask pancreatic neoplasms, including normal anatomic variants, non-pancreatic lesions, and both acute and chronic pancreatitis. It is important to distinguish these entities from pancreatic neoplasms, as the management and prognosis of a pancreatic neoplasm, particularly adenocarcinoma, have considerable impact on patients. Normal pancreatic variants that mimic a focal lesion include focal fatty atrophy, annular pancreas, and ectopic pancreas. Extra-pancreatic lesions that can mimic a primary pancreatic neoplasm include vascular lesions, such as arteriovenous malformations and pseudoaneurysms, duodenal diverticula, and intra-pancreatic accessory spleen. Both acute and chronic pancreatitis can mimic or mask a pancreatic neoplasm and are also associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Awareness of these entities and their imaging features will enable the radiologist to narrow the differential diagnosis, provide recommendations that expedite diagnosis and avoid unnecessary work-up or delays in patient care.

CA19-9/DBil: a promising indicator to distinguish between CA19-9-elevated pancreatic head-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic head cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic head-type autoimmune pancreatitis (PH-AIP) with elevated CA19-9 is sometimes difficult to distinguish from pancreatic head cancer (PHC) with elevated CA19-9. At times, IgG4 proves inadequate in offering assistance. The study aimed to elucidate the performance of CA19-9/DBil in distinguishing between the two conditions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. We collected serologic indicators from participants in PH-AIP and PHC Group. Three logistic regression equations were established ranging from non-adjustment (Model 1, only CA19-9/DBil included) to adjusting for sex, age, and CEA (Model 2 and Model 3) to explore the relationship between CA19-9/DBil and PH-AIP probability. ROC, Decision Curve Analysis (DCA), calibration curve were conducted. P for AUCs and net reclassification improvements (NRI) were computed to evaluate differences in discrimination and the improvement in risk reclassification between models.

RESULTS

The study included 90 PHC and 35 PH-AIP patients, all with elevated CA19-9. The ORs for CA19-9/DBil in three models were similar (0.915 to 0.921). ROC revealed that Model 1 had an AUC of 0.772. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy at the best threshold were all > 0.7. Model 1, although simple, was not inferior in its discriminative ability compared to complex models: the difference in discrimination between Model 1 and each of two adjusted models was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, both AUC and NRI). Additionally, calibration curve and DCA suggested that Model 1 had good calibration and clinical utility.

CONCLUSIONS

CA19-9/DBil exhibited promising diagnostic performance in differentiating between CA19-9-elevated PH-AIP and PHC.

Autoimmune Pancreatitis: A Review

Autoimmune pancreatitis is a rare condition of pancreatic inflammation with two classic subtypes. The emergence of a third subtype, ICI-induced pancreatitis, highlights the need for knowledge of each type to ensure accurate diagnosis and treatment. Abbreviations: AIP-Autoimmune pancreatitis; AIP-1-Type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis, also known as lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis (LPSP); AIP-2-Type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis, also referred to as idiopathic duct-centric pancreatitis (IDCP); AIP-3-Type 3 autoimmune pancreatitis, also known as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-induced autoimmune pancreatitis; IgG4-RD-Immunoglobulin G4-related disease.

Relationship between MRI findings and renal histopathology in IgG4-related tubulointerstitial nephritis

OBJECTIVES

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is expected to be a valuable tool for evaluating disease activity in immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related tubulointerstitial nephritis (IgG4-TIN). However, the correlation between MRI findings and renal histopathological findings remains to be elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the correlation.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study investigated 26 patients with biopsy-proven IgG4-TIN who underwent simultaneous percutaneous kidney biopsies and abdominal MRI examinations. We reviewed kidney biopsy specimens and scored the degree of inflammatory cell infiltration and interstitial fibrosis. We assessed abdominal MRI, specifically examining T1-weighted imaging (T1WI), T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), for the presence of abnormal signals in the inferior pole of the kidney. Spearman's correlation coefficient test was conducted to examine the relationship between the images and histological findings.

RESULTS

For T1WI, eight cases showed a positive low-intensity signal, and 18 cases were negative. For T2WI, 19 cases were positive for a low-intensity signal, and seven cases were negative. In DWI, 23 cases were positive for a high-intensity signal, and one was negative. T1WI low-intensity signal and T2WI low-intensity signal were significantly correlated with interstitial fibrosis score (correlation coefficients 0.52 and 0.64).

CONCLUSION

Low-intensity signal on T2WI is useful for predicting the degree of fibrosis in IgG4-TIN.

Quantitative MR imaging biomarkers for distinguishing inflammatory pancreatic mass and pancreatic cancer-a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging biomarkers in distinguishing between inflammatory pancreatic masses (IPM) and pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through August 2023. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability of the studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method. Univariate meta-regression analysis was used to identify the potential factors of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included in this meta-analysis. The two main types of IPM, mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) and autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), differ in their apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Compared with PC, the ADC value was higher in MFP but lower in AIP. The pooled sensitivity/specificity of ADC were 0.80/0.85 for distinguishing MFP from PC and 0.82/0.84 for distinguishing AIP from PC. The pooled sensitivity/specificity for the maximal diameter of the upstream main pancreatic duct (dMPD) was 0.86/0.74, with a cutoff of dMPD ≤ 4 mm, and 0.97/0.52, with a cutoff of dMPD ≤ 5 mm. The pooled sensitivity/specificity for perfusion fraction (f) was 0.82/0.68, and 0.82/0.77 for mass stiffness values.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative MR imaging biomarkers are useful in distinguishing between IPM and PC. ADC values differ between MFP and AIP, and they should be separated for consideration in future studies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Quantitative MR parameters could serve as non-invasive imaging biomarkers for differentiating malignant pancreatic neoplasms from inflammatory masses of the pancreas, and hence help to avoid unnecessary surgery.

KEY POINTS

• Several quantitative MR imaging biomarkers performed well in differential diagnosis between inflammatory pancreatic mass and pancreatic cancer. • The ADC value could discern pancreatic cancer from mass-forming pancreatitis or autoimmune pancreatitis, if the two inflammatory mass types are not combined. • The diameter of main pancreatic duct had the highest specificity for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer.

Clinical characteristics, imaging diagnostic accuracy, and prognosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: A real-world study in China

OBJECTIVE

In this study we aimed to comprehensively evaluate the clinical features and treatment outcomes of Chinese patients with autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) through a single-center real-world study.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with AIP in Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University from January 2014 to December 2021 were included. Baseline characteristics, laboratory test results, cross-sectional imaging and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings, and long-term follow-up data were obtained. The differences in these characteristics between type 1 and type 2 AIP patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among all 320 patients, 271 (84.7%) and 49 (15.3%) had type 1 and type 2 AIP, respectively. The most common initial symptom was abdominal discomfort (58.1%), followed by obstructive jaundice (32.5%). Extrapancreatic organ involvement was identified in 126 (39.4%) patients, with the biliary system being the most commonly involved (36.6%). Elevated serum IgG4 level was rare in type 2 AIP patients. The diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and EUS for definitive and probable AIP were 78.0%, 68.7%, and 80.5%, respectively. EUS-guided tissue acquisition with immunohistochemical staining helped establish a final diagnosis in 39.7% of patients. During the follow-up period of 60 months, 18.6% of patients experienced relapse. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year relapse rates were higher in type 1 AIP patients, with an accumulated rate of 8.0%, 12.6%, and 15.1%, when compared with those with type 2 AIP.

CONCLUSIONS

Type 2 AIP is not uncommon in Chinese population. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and EUS for AIP might be superior to that of MRI.

Head-to-head comparison of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET in the detection of bone and lymph node metastasis in various cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of our meta-analysis and systematic review was to contrast the positivity rates of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET in detecting bone and lymph node metastases across diverse cancer types.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search for eligible articles up until August 2023, utilizing databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies focusing on the positivity rate of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET vs. [18F]FDG PET for bone and lymph metastasis were included. Using random-effect model, the positivity rate for [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET were generated. In order to gauge the heterogeneity among aggregated studies, we utilized the I2 statistic. Additionally, we applied the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies (QUADAS-2) methodology to evaluate the caliber of the studies encompassed in our analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 430 publications were initially identified in the search. Eventually, 25 studies, involving 779 patients, met the inclusion criteria. In terms of bone metastasis, the findings indicate no statistically significant difference between the use of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET (P = 0.34). However, concerning lymph node metastasis, the results demonstrate significant difference between the two imaging agents (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET appears to outperform [18F]FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastases. However, when it comes to bone metastasis, no statistically significant difference was observed. It is crucial to acknowledge that the insights concerning bone metastasis stem from studies with comparatively modest sample sizes. Consequently, there is a pressing demand for further, expansive prospective studies in this field.

Differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma using CT characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine informational CT findings for distinguishing autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to review their diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

A systematic and detailed literature review was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. Similar descriptors to embody the identical image finding were labeled as a single CT characteristic. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) of each CT characteristic using a bivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 145 various descriptors from 15 studies (including 562 AIP and 869 PDAC patients) were categorized into 16 CT characteristics. According to the pooled DOR, 16 CT characteristics were classified into three groups (suggesting AIP, suggesting PDAC, and not informational). Seven characteristics suggesting AIP were diffuse pancreatic enlargement (DOR, 48), delayed homogeneous enhancement (DOR, 46), capsule-like rim (DOR, 34), multiple pancreatic masses (DOR, 16), renal involvement (DOR, 15), retroperitoneal fibrosis (DOR, 13), and bile duct involvement (DOR, 8). Delayed homogeneous enhancement showed a pooled sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%. The other six characteristics showed relatively low sensitivity (12-63%) but high specificity (93-99%). Four characteristics suggesting PDAC were discrete pancreatic mass (DOR, 23), pancreatic duct cutoff (DOR, 16), upstream main pancreatic duct dilatation (DOR, 8), and upstream parenchymal atrophy (DOR, 7).

CONCLUSION

Eleven CT characteristics were informational to distinguish AIP from PDAC. Diffuse pancreatic enlargement, delayed homogeneous enhancement, and capsule-like rim suggested AIP with the highest DORs, whereas discrete pancreatic mass suggested PDAC. However, pooled sensitivities of informational CT characteristics were moderate.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This meta-analysis underscores eleven distinctive CT characteristics that aid in differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma, potentially preventing misdiagnoses in patients presenting with focal/diffuse pancreatic enlargement.

KEY POINTS

• Diffuse pancreatic enlargement (pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR], 48), delayed homogeneous enhancement (46), and capsule-like rim (34) were CT characteristics suggesting autoimmune pancreatitis. • The CT characteristics suggesting autoimmune pancreatitis, except delayed homogeneous enhancement, had a general tendency to show relatively low sensitivity (12-63%) but high specificity (93-99%). • Discrete pancreatic mass (pooled diagnostic odds ratio, 23) was the CT characteristic suggesting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with the highest pooled DORs.

Autoimmune pancreatitis type 2 (idiopathic duct-centric pancreatitis): A comprehensive review

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is an uncommon fibro-inflammatory disorder precipitated by autoimmune/inflammatory reactions. Currently, there are two clinical subtypes of AIP (type 1 [AIP-1] and type 2 [AIP-2]) that correspond to two histologic descriptors (lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis and idiopathic duct-centric pancreatitis, respectively). While our understanding of AIP-1 has evolved considerably over the years, little is known about AIP-2 due to its rarity, often leading to misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, and even unnecessary surgical resection. Compared to AIP-1, AIP-2 exhibits distinct clinical and histologic features. Because AIP-2 is a pancreas-restricted disease without a specific serum marker, the evaluation of histologic features (e.g., granulocytic epithelial lesions) is essential for an accurate diagnosis. Patients with AIP-2 respond well to glucocorticoids, with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibodies as a promising alternative therapy. The prognosis of AIP-2 is generally favorable and relapse is uncommon. Here, we provide an overview of our current knowledge on the clinical features, diagnosis, therapeutic regimens, prognosis, and putative mechanisms underlying AIP-2. Notably, the diagnostic differentiation between AIP-2, especially the mass-forming/focal type, and pancreatic cancer is important, but challenging. In this regard, endoscopic ultrasound-guided core biopsy has a key role, but novel diagnostic markers and modalities are clearly needed.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%-88%; I2  = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%-97%; I2  = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61-30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94-201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75-85%; I2  = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90-96%; I2  = 74.87%); the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86-21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45-113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42-3.83], P  > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions.

Challenges for clinicians treating autoimmune pancreatitis: Current perspectives

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare disease clinically characterized by obstructive jaundice, unintentional weight loss, acute pancreatitis, focal pancreatic mass, and diabetes. AIP is classified into two subtypes - type 1 and type 2 - according to pathological findings, clinical features, and serology test results, but some cases may be defined as type not otherwise in the absence of pathological findings and inflammatory bowel disease. To address the differences in diagnostic criteria by country, standard diagnostic criteria for AIP were proposed in 2011 by an international consensus of expert opinions. Differential diagnosis of AIP from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is important but remains challenging for clinicians. Fortunately, all subtypes of AIP show dramatic response to steroid treatment. This review discusses the current perspectives on the diagnosis and management of AIP in clinical practice.

Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation of a Deep Learning-Accelerated, Single-Breath-Hold Abdominal HASTE at 1.5 T and 3 T

To evaluate the clinical performance of a deep learning-accelerated single-breath-hold half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE_DL)-sequence for T2-weighted fat-suppressed MRI of the abdomen at 1.5 T and 3 T in comparison to standard T2-weighted fat-suppressed multi-shot turbo spin echo-sequence. A total of 320 patients who underwent a clinically indicated liver MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T between August 2020 and February 2021 were enrolled in this single-center, retrospective study. HASTE_DL and standard sequences were assessed regarding overall and organ-based image quality, noise, contrast, sharpness, artifacts, diagnostic confidence, as well as lesion detectability using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4 (4 = best). The number of visible lesions of each organ was counted and the largest diameter of the major lesion was measured. HASTE_DL showed excellent image quality (median 4, interquartile range 3-4), although BLADE (median 4, interquartile range 4-4) was rated significantly higher for overall and organ-based image quality of the adrenal gland (P < .001), contrast (P < 0.001), sharpness (P < 0.001), artifacts (P < 0.001), as well as diagnostic confidence (P < .001). No significant differences were found concerning noise (P = 0.886), organ-based image quality of the liver, pancreas, spleen, and kidneys (P = 0.120-0.366), number and measured diameter of the detected lesions (ICC = 0.972-1.0). Reduction of the aquisition time (TA) was at least 89% for 1.5 T images and 86% for 3 T images. HASTE_DL provided excellent image quality, good diagnostic confidence and lesion detection compared to a standard T2-sequences, allowing an eminent reduction of the acquisition time.

Development and validation of an ultrasound-based prediction model for differentiating between malignant and benign solid pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVE

To identify the diagnostic ability of precontrast and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating between malignant and benign solid pancreatic lesions (MSPLs and BSPLs) and to develop an easy-to-use diagnostic nomogram.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the institutional review board. Patients with pathologically confirmed solid pancreatic lesions were enrolled from one tertiary medical centre from March 2011 to June 2021 and in two tertiary institutions between January 2015 and June 2021. A prediction nomogram model was established in the training set by using precontrast US and CEUS imaging features that were independently associated with MSPLs. The performance of the prediction model was further externally validated.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients (mean age, 55 ± 14.6 years, M/F = 84/71) and 78 patients (mean age, 59 ± 13.4 years, M/F = 36/42) were included in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. In the training set, an ill-defined border and dilated main pancreatic duct on precontrast ultrasound, CEUS patterns of hypoenhancement in both the arterial and venous phases of CEUS, and hyperenhancement/isoenhancement followed by washout were independently associated with MSPLs. The prediction nomogram model developed with the aforementioned variables showed good performance in differentiating MSPLs from BSPLs with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.938 in the training set and 0.906 in the validation set.

CONCLUSION

Hypoenhancement in all phases, hyperenhancement/isoenhancement followed by washout on CEUS, an ill-defined border, and a dilated main pancreatic duct were independent risk factors for MSPLs. The nomogram constructed based on these predictors can be used to diagnose MSPLs.

KEY POINTS

• An ill-defined border and dilated main pancreatic duct on precontrast ultrasound, hypoenhancement in all phases of CEUS, and hyperenhancement/isoenhancement followed by washout were independently associated with MSPLs. • The ultrasound-based prediction model showed good performance in differentiating MSPLs from BSPLs with an AUC of 0.938 in the training set and 0.906 in the external validation set. • An ultrasound-based nomogram is an easy-to-use tool to differentiate between MSPLs and BSPLs with high efficacy.

Radiomics based on diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiation between focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the parameters of support vector machine (SVM) using imaging data generated from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) to differentiate between focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (f-AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when using SVM based on diffusion-weighted imaging.

METHODS

The 2D-ADCmean and texture parameters (16 texture features × [non-filter+17 filters]) were retrospectively segmented by 2 readers in 28 patients with f-AIP and 77 patients with pathologically proven PDAC. The diagnostic accuracy of the SVM model was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Interreader reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

The 2D-ADCmean and 3D-ADCmean were significantly lower in cases of f-AIP (1.10-1.15 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.21-1.23× 10-3 mm2/s, respectively) vs PDAC (1.29-1.33 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.41-1.43 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively), with excellent and good interreader reliability, respectively (ICC = 0.909 and 0.891, respectively). Among the texture parameters, energy with exponential filtering yielded the highest AUC (Reader 1: 74.7%, Reader 2: 81.5%), with fair interreader reliability (ICC = 0.707). The non-linear SVM, a combination of 2D-ADCmean, object volume and exponential-energy showed an AUC value of 96.2% in the testing cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that non-linear SVM using a combination of 2D-ADCmean, object volume, and exponential-energy may assist in differentiating f-AIP from PDAC.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The radiomics based on an apparent diffusion coefficient value may assist in differentiating f-AIP from PDAC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of MRI features for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To identify reliable MRI features for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to summarize their diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify original articles published between January 2006 and July 2021. The pooled diagnostic accuracy, including the diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the identified features, was calculated using a bivariate random effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included, and 92 overlapping descriptors were subsumed under 16 MRI features. Ten features favoring AIP were diffuse enlargement (DOR, 75; 95% CI, 9-594), capsule-like rim (DOR, 52; 95% CI, 20-131), multiple main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures (DOR, 47; 95% CI, 17-129), homogeneous delayed enhancement (DOR, 46; 95% CI, 21-104), low apparent diffusion coefficient value (DOR, 30), speckled enhancement (DOR, 30), multiple pancreatic masses (DOR, 29), tapered narrowing of MPD (DOR, 15), penetrating duct sign (DOR, 14), and delayed enhancement (DOR, 13). Six features favoring PDAC were target type enhancement (DOR, 41; 95% CI, 11-158), discrete pancreatic mass (DOR, 35; 95% CI, 15-80), upstream MPD dilatation (DOR, 13), peripancreatic fat infiltration (DOR, 10), upstream parenchymal atrophy (DOR, 5), and vascular involvement (DOR, 3).

CONCLUSION

This study identified 16 informative MRI features to differentiate AIP from PDAC. Among them, diffuse enlargement, capsule-like rim, multiple MPD strictures, and homogeneous delayed enhancement favored AIP with the highest DORs, whereas discrete mass and target type enhancement favored PDAC.

KEY POINTS

• The MRI features with the highest pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for autoimmune pancreatitis were diffuse enlargement of the pancreas (75), capsule-like rim (52), multiple strictures of the main pancreatic duct (47), and homogeneous delayed enhancement (46). • The MRI features with the highest pooled DORs for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were target type enhancement (41) and discrete pancreatic mass (35).

NAFLD determined by Dallas Steatosis Index is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia: a cohort study

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a worldwide health challenge. Liver steatosis diagnosis based on imaging studies has been implicated in poor outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia, but results are inconsistent. The Dallas Steatosis Index (DSI) is an available calculator developed to identify patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We hypothesized that it would be associated with in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission (ICU), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We conducted a retrospective cohort study on inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia between February 26 and April 11, 2020. We computed the DSI on admission, and patients with high DSI were considered with NAFLD. We employed logistic regression to study the association between NAFLD, mortality, ICU admission, and IMV. We studied the association between liver steatosis on computed tomography (CT) and these outcomes, and also between Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) based on CT findings and risk factors and the outcomes. 470 patients were included; 359 had NAFLD according to the DSI. They had a higher frequency of type 2 diabetes (31% vs 14%, p < 0.001), obesity (58% vs 14%, p < 0.001), and arterial hypertension (34% vs 22%, p = 0.02). In univariable analysis, NAFLD was associated with mortality, ICU admission, and IMV. Liver steatosis by CT and MAFLD were not associated with any of these outcomes. In multivariable logistic regression, high DSI remained significantly associated with IMV and death. High DSI, which can be easily computed on admission, was associated with IMV and death, and its use to better stratify the prognosis of these patients should be explored. On the other hand, liver steatosis by CT and MAFLD were not associated with poor outcomes.

MRI features for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The accurate differential diagnosis between autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is clinically important. We aimed to determine significant MRI features for differentiating AIP from PDAC, including assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using three databases. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was calculated using a bivariate random effects model to determine significant MRI features for differentiating AIP from PDAC. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The qualitative systematic review for DWI assessment was performed.

RESULTS

Of nine studies (775 patients), multiple main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures, absence of upstream marked MPD dilatation, peripancreatic rim, and duct penetration sign were significant MRI features for differentiating AIP from PDAC. Absence of MPD dilatation had the highest pooled sensitivity (87%, 95% CI=68-96%), whereas peripancreatic rim had the highest pooled specificity (100%, 95% CI=88-100%). Of 12 studies evaluating DWI, seven reported statistically significant differences in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values between AIP and PDAC; however, four reported lower ADC values in AIP than in PDAC, but three reported the opposite result.

CONCLUSION

The four significant MRI features can be useful to differentiate AIP from PDAC, but DWI assessment might be limited.

CT Radiomics Features in Differentiation of Focal-Type Autoimmune Pancreatitis from Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the radiomics score (rad-score) for differentiating focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (fAIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

This retrospective review included 42 consecutive patients with fAIP diagnosed according to the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria between January 2011 and December 2018. Furthermore, 334 consecutive patients with PDAC confirmed by pathology were also reviewed during the same period. Patients with PDAC and fAIP were matched via propensity score matching (PSM). All patients underwent multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). For each patient, 1409 radiomics features of the portal phase were extracted and reduced using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression algorithm. The portal rad-score performance was assessed based on its discriminative ability.

RESULTS

After PSM, we matched 55 patients with PDAC to 42 patients with fAIP, based on clinical and CT characteristics (e.g., patient age, sex, body mass index, location, size, enhanced mode). A rad-score for discriminating fAIP from PDAC, which contained four CT derived radiomic features, was developed (area under the curve = 0.97). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the radiomics model were 95.24%, 92.73% and 0.94, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The portal rad-score can accurately and noninvasively differentiate fAIP from PDAC.

Application of dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound in distinguishing focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To explore the value of dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) in preoperative differential diagnosis of focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 2016 to March 2020, patients with biopsy and histopathologically confirmed focal-type AIP (n = 9) were retrospectively included. All patients received contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations one week before surgery/biopsy. Dynamic analysis was performed by VueBox® software (Bracco, Italy). Eighteen cases of resection and histopathologically proved PDAC lesions were also included as control group. B mode ultrasound (BMUS) features, CEUS enhancement patterns, time intensity curves (TICs) and CEUS quantitative parameters were obtained and compared between AIP and PDAC lesions.

RESULTS

After injection of ultrasound contrast agents, most focal-type AIP lesions displayed hyper-enhancement (2/9, 22.2%) or iso-enhancement (6/9, 66.7%) during arterial phase of CEUS, while most of PDAC lesions showed hypo-enhancement (88.9%) (P < 0.01). During late phase, most of AIP lesions showed iso-enhancement (8/9, 88.9%), while most of PDAC lesions showed hypo-enhancement (94.4%) (P < 0.001). Compared with PDAC lesions, TICs of AIP lesions showed delayed and higher enhancement. Among all CEUS perfusion parameters, ratio of PE (peak enhancement), WiAUC (wash-in area under the curve), WiR (wash-in rate), WiPI (wash-in perfusion index, WiPI = WiAUC/ rise time), WoAUC (wash-out area under the curve), WiWoAUC (wash-in and wash-out area under the curve) and WoR (wash-out rate) between pancreatic lesion and surrounding normal pancreatic tissue were significantly higher in AIP lesions than PDAC lesions (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

DCE-US with quantitative analysis has the potential to make preoperative differential diagnosis between focal-type AIP and PDAC non-invasively.

Use of MRI signal intensity ratio to differentiate between autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of the lesion-to-erector spinae signal intensity ratio (SIR) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for distinguishing autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MRI data of 21 patients with AIP and 27 patients with PDA were analysed retrospectively, and the signal intensity in pancreatic lesions and erector spinae muscles at the same level on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), arterial phase (AP) imaging, and delayed phase (DP) imaging was measured for calculation of SIRs.

RESULTS

The mean SIRs of the pancreatic lesions and erector spinae from T2WI, AP, and DP images of AIP patients were 0.96, 1.27, and 1.42, respectively, while those of PDA patients were 1.35, 0.80, and 0.91, respectively. The differences in the SIRs between the AIP and PDA groups were statistically significant (p<0.001), with corresponding area under curve (AUC) values of 0.925, 0.906, and 0.961, respectively. The optimal cut-off values for the SIRs on T2WI, AP and DP images were 1.21, 1.01, and 1.08, respectively. SIR values < 1.21 on T2WI, >1.01 on AP imaging, and >1.08 on DP imaging identified AIP with sensitivities of 85.7%, 90.5%, and 90.5%, respectively, and specificities of 81.5%, 74.6%, and 81.5%, respectively. The AUC values for SIRs did not differ significantly between T2WI and DP imaging or AP and DP imaging (Z = 0.778, p=0.436; Z = 1.279, p=0.201).

CONCLUSION

The SIRs of pancreatic lesions and erector spinae on T2WI, AP, and DP images can be used to differentiate AIP from PDA.

Multimodel magnetic resonance imaging of mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis: differential diagnosis with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

To assess the value of the multimodel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including unenhanced images, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), MR-cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), in differentiation of mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Twelve patients with mass-forming AIP and 30 with PDAC were included. All patients underwent unenhanced MRI, DCE-MRI, DWI, and MRCP. Relevant values including sensitivity and specificity of the imaging features and their diagnostic performance for predicting mass-forming AIP were analyzed.

RESULTS

Several statistically significant MR findings and quantitative indexes differentiating mass-forming AIP from PDAC, including multiplicity, irregularity or conformation, capsule-like rim enhancement, absence of internal cystic or necrotic portion, homogeneous enhancement during pancreatic, venous, and delayed phases, skipped stricture or stricture of MPD, absence of side branch dilation, maximum upstream MPD diameter < 2.4 mm, ContrastUP > 0.739, ContrastAP > 0.710, ContrastPP > 0.879, and ContrastVP or ContrastDP > 0.949, indicated mass-forming AIP (P < 0.05). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value was also significantly lower in mass-forming AIP compared to that in PDAC (P = 0.006). The cutoff value of ADC for distinguishing mass-forming AIP from PDAC was 1.099 × 10-3 mm2/s.

CONCLUSION

Multimodel MRI, including unenhanced MRI, DCE-MRI with DWI and MRCP can provide qualitative and quantitative information about mass-forming AIP characterization. Multimodel MRI are valuable for differentiating mass-forming AIP from PDAC.

Multifocal autoimmune pancreatitis: A retrospective study in a single tertiary center of 26 patients with a 20-year literature review

BACKGROUND

Multifocal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), sometimes forming multiple pancreatic masses, is frequently misdiagnosed as pancreatic malignancy in routine clinical practice. It is critical to know the imaging features of multifocal-type AIP to prevent misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies evaluating the value of diffusionweighted imaging (DWI), axial fat-suppressed T1 weighted image (T1WI), and dynamic contrast enhanced-computed tomography (DCE-CT) in detecting the lesions of multifocal-type AIP.

AIM

To clarify the exact prevalence and radiological findings of multifocal AIP in our cohorts and compare the sensitivity of DWI, axial fat-suppressed T1WI, and DCE-CT for detecting AIP lesions. We also compared radiological features between multifocal AIP and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with several key imaging landmarks.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with proven multifocal AIP were retrospectively included. Two blinded independent radiologists rated their confidence level in detecting the lesions on a 5-point scale and assessed the diagnostic performance of DWI, axial fat-suppressed T1WI, and DCE-CT. CT and magnetic resonance imaging of multifocal AIP were systematically reviewed for typical imaging findings and compared with the key imaging features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Among 118 patients with AIP, 26 (22.0%) had multiple lesions (56 lesions). Ulcerative colitis was associated with multifocal AIP in 7.7% (2/26) of patients, and Crohn’s disease was present in 15.3% (4/26) of patients. In multifocal AIP, multiple lesions, delayed homogeneous enhancement, multifocal strictures of the main pancreatic duct, capsule-like rim, lower apparent diffusion coefficient values, and elevated serum Ig4 level were observed significantly more frequently than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, whereas the presence of capsule-like rim in multifocal-type AIP was lower in frequency than total AIP. Of these lesions of multifocal AIP, DWI detected 89.3% (50/56) and 82.1% (46/56) by the senior and junior radiologist, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Multifocal AIP is not as rare as previously thought and was seen in 22.0% of our patients. The diagnostic performance of DWI for detecting multifocal AIP was best followed by axial fat-suppressed T1WI and DCE-CT.

The role of apparent diffusion coefficient value in the diagnosis of localized type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: differentiation from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and evaluation of response to steroids

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to clarify the usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in the differential diagnosis of localized autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and the evaluation of response to steroids.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 40 patients with localized AIP and 71 patients with PDAC who underwent abdominal MRI with DWI (b = 0 and 1000 s/mm²). Their ADC values at the lesion sites and five MRI findings useful for diagnosing AIP were evaluated. In addition, ADC values before and after steroid therapy were compared in 28 patients with localized AIP.

RESULTS

The median ADC value was significantly lower for localized AIP than for PDAC (1.057 × 10^-3 vs 1.376 × 10^-3 mm²/s, P < 0.001). In the ROC curve analysis, the area under the curve was 0.957 and optimal cut-off value of ADC for differentiating localized AIP from PDAC was 1.188 × 10^-3 mm²/s. ADC value ≤ 1.188 × 10^-3 mm²/s showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy among the MRI findings (92.6% and 90.7%, respectively), and when combined with one or more other MRI findings, showed 96.3% specificity. The median ADC values before and after steroid therapy (mean 7.9 days) were 1.061 × 10^-3 and 1.340 × 10^-3 mm²/s, respectively, and ADC values were significantly elevated after steroid induction (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The measurement of ADC values was useful for the differential diagnosis of localized AIP and PDAC and for the early determination of the effect of steroid therapy.

Comparison of five-phase computed tomography images of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: Emphasis on cases with atypical images

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

International consensus diagnostic criteria (ICDC) include characteristic images of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP); however, reports on atypical cases are increasing. The aims of this study were to compare CT findings between AIP and pancreatic cancer (PC), and to analyze type 1 AIPs showing atypical images.

METHODS

Five-phase CT images were compared between 80 type 1-AIP lesions and 80 size- and location-matched PCs in the case-control study. Atypical AIPs were diagnosed based on the four ICDC items.

RESULTS

ICDC items were recognized in most AIP lesions; pancreatic enlargement (87.7%), narrowing of the main pancreatic duct (98.8%), delayed enhancement (100%), and no marked upstream-duct dilation (97.5%). CT values of AIPs increased rapidly until the pancreatic phase and decreased afterward, while those of PCs gradually increased until the delayed phase (P < 0.0001). Atypical images were recognized in 14.8% of AIPs, commonly without pancreatic enlargement (18.5 mm) and sometimes mimicking intraductal neoplasms. The CT values and their ratios were different between atypical AIPs and size-matched PCs most significantly in the pancreatic phase, but similar in the delayed phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Ordinary type 1 AIPs can be diagnosed with the ICDC, but atypical AIPs represented a small fraction. "Delayed enhancement" is characteristic to ordinary AIPs, however, "pancreatic-phase enhancement" is more diagnostic for atypical AIPs.

Optimal target b-value on computed diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for visualization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and focal autoimmune pancreatitis

PURPOSE

To compare computed diffusion-weighted imaging (cDWI) feasibility with that of directly acquired DWI for visualizing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and focal autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP).

METHODS

From April 2012 to January 2017, 135 patients with PDAC (n = 111) or focal AIP (n = 24) were retrospectively enrolled. They underwent DWI with b-values of 0, 500, and 1000 s/mm². From DWI₀ and DWI₁₀₀₀, we generated cDWIs with targeted b-values of 1500, 2000, and 3000 s/mm². The lesions' signal intensities, image quality, signal intensity ratio (SIR) of lesions and pancreatic parenchyma to spinal cord, and lesion-to-pancreatic parenchyma contrast ratio (CR) were compared among the five DWI protocols (DWI₅₀₀, DWI₁₀₀₀, cDWI₁₅₀₀, cDWI₂₀₀₀, and cDWI₃₀₀₀). SIR was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

RESULTS

DWI₅₀₀, DWI₁₀₀₀, and cDWI₁₅₀₀ had higher image quality than cDWI₂₀₀₀ and cDWI₃₀₀₀ (P < 0.001). The incidence of clear hyperintense PDAC was highest on cDWI₂₀₀₀, followed by cDWI₁₅₀₀, and cDWI₃₀₀₀ (P < 0.001-0.002), while the incidence of clear hyperintense AIP was higher on DWI₁₀₀₀, cDWI₁₅₀₀, and cDWI₂₀₀₀ than on DWI₅₀₀ and cDWI₃₀₀₀ (P = 0.001-0.022). SIRs decreased whereas CRs increased as the b-value increased, for both PDAC and AIP. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of SIR_lesion was significantly lower on cDWI₁₅₀₀ than on cDWI₂₀₀₀ and cDWI₃₀₀₀ (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

cDWI₁₅₀₀ or cDWI₂₀₀₀ generated from b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm² were the most effective for visualizing PDAC and focal AIP; however, the SIR_lesion AUC was significantly lower on cDWI₁₅₀₀ than on cDWI₂₀₀₀ and cDWI₃₀₀₀.

Atypical enhanced computed tomography signs of pancreatic cancer and its differential diagnosis from autoimmune pancreatitis

Background

To analyze the atypical enhanced computed tomography (CT) signs of pancreatic cancer (PC) and compare them with those of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) to explore the differential diagnosis value of CT.

Methods

The clinical data of 36 AIP (AIP group) and 38 PC patients (PC group), who were admitted to our hospital from January 2013 to June 2020 and confirmed by surgical biopsy or hormone therapy, were retrospectively analyzed. Participants in both groups were examined by CT, the imaging signs of the 2 groups were analyzed, and the results of CT examination were compared.

Results

In the PC group, the density of the lesions on the CT scan was mostly reduced, the pancreas was not swollen, and the kidneys were not involved. The bile duct wall was thickened with a sausage-like appearance, enveloped edges were rare, blood vessels were invaded, lymph nodes were enlarged, and the pancreatic duct was truncated. The findings of the AIP group were the opposite. The difference in the proportion of participants with the above-mentioned CT features between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). The shape of the lesions in the AIP group was mainly elongated, of uneven density, and the density of enhanced scanning was medium to high. The predominant shape of the lesions in PC participants was spherical, and the density was uniform. The enhanced scan was mainly low-density. The difference in shape and density between the 2 groups was also statistically significant (P<0.05). The CT values of the plain scan, intravenous phase, and delayed phase in the AIP group were significantly higher than those in the PC group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

The imaging signs of AIP and PC overlap. Examination with CT is of great value in the differential diagnosis between AIP and PC. Familiarity with and mastery of the CT signs of AIP and PC can help to improve the accuracy of clinical diagnosis and provide a reliable basis for patients' follow-up treatment.

Imaging diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a pancreatic phenotype of IgG4-related systemic disease. Since its first description in the literature, characteristic imaging features have gradually become known to many clinicians encompassing various specialties in the past quarter century. CT and MRI have been the workhorses for imaging diagnosis of AIP. Typical features include sausage-like swelling of the focal or entire pancreas, duct-penetrating sign, a capsule-like rim of the affected lesions, and homogeneous delayed enhancement or enhanced duct sign after contrast administration, as well as characteristic combined findings reflecting coexisting pathologies in the other organs as a systemic disease. In this review, recent and future developments in CT and MRI that may help diagnose AIP are discussed, including restricted diffusion and perfusion and increased elasticity measured using MR.

Meta-analysis of CT and MRI for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To systematically determine the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a comparison between the two imaging modalities.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify original articles published between 2009 and 2019 reporting the diagnostic performance of CT and MRI for differentiating AIP from PDAC. The meta-analytic sensitivity and specificity of CT and MRI were calculated, and compared using a bivariate random effects model. Subgroup analysis for differentiating focal AIP from PDAC was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 856 articles screened, 11 eligible articles are remained, i.e., five studies for CT, four for MRI, and two for both. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity of CT were 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-75%) and 99% (95% CI, 88-100%), respectively, while those of MRI were 84% (95% CI, 68-93%) and 97% (95% CI, 87-99%). MRI had a significantly higher meta-analytic summary sensitivity than CT (84% vs. 59%, p = 0.02) but a similar specificity (97% vs. 99%, p = 0.18). In the subgroup analysis for focal AIP, the sensitivity for distinguishing between focal AIP and PDAC was lower than that for the overall analysis. MRI had a higher sensitivity than CT (76% vs. 50%, p = 0.28) but a similar specificity (97% vs. 98%, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

MRI might be clinically more useful to evaluate patients with AIP, particularly for differentiating AIP from PDAC.

KEY POINTS

• MRI had an overall good diagnostic performance to differentiate AIP from PDAC with a meta-analytic summary estimate of 83% for sensitivity and of 97% for specificity. • CT had a very high specificity (99%), but a suboptimal sensitivity (59%) for differentiating AIP from PDAC. • Compared with CT, MRI had a higher sensitivity, but a similar specificity.

Autoimmune pancreatitis type 2

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare inflammatory disease of the pancreas. Very few data have been published on this particular subtype, which differs from the 'classical' IgG4-related type 1 AIP in terms of pathological features, epidemiology and risk of relapse. The aim of the current review is to summarize the available literature, suggesting a diagnostic and therapeutic approach to this disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria, to achieve a 'definitive' diagnosis of type 2 AIP, histology is required. If a definitive histological diagnosis is lacking (not-performed or inconclusive), concomitant presence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and effective response to steroids are needed for a 'probable' diagnosis of type 2 AIP.

SUMMARY

Type 2 AIP is a selective pancreatic disease, without association to other organ involvement. The lack of validated serological markers makes the diagnosis challenging in clinical practice, particularly in focal forms. A careful evaluation of the clinical profile (especially of a concomitant IBD), associated with an accurate imaging, might help in clinical practice to suspect type 2 AIP. Response to steroids is crucial to achieve diagnosis in patients without a diagnostic histology.

Autoimmune pancreatitis - An ongoing challenge

Autoimmune pancreatitis is a rare form of chronic pancreatitis. The first descriptions of the disease date back to the 1990s. Etiology is multifactorial, with the use of genetic, environmental and complex immunological mechanisms. It is classified into two subtypes. Type 1 is part of a group of diseases called IgG4-related disease. Clinically is autoimmune pancreatitis manifested by icterus and abdominal discomfort. It can rarely present as acute pancreatitis. There is also a completely asymptomatic form of the disease. The diagnosis is based on abnormalities in histology, imaging methods, serology, the involvement of other organs in relation to IgG4-related disease, and a significant positive response to corticosteroid therapy. Differential diagnosis between the focal form of autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer can be complicated, with endosonography playing an important role. In the treatment, we use corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants including biological therapy. Patients with the asymptomatic disease should also be treated to prevent late complications and exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. In addition to drug treatment, endoscopic and/or surgical treatment may be necessary. Even after recovery, the disease can relapse. The relationship between autoimmune pancreatitis and malignancies has not been clearly confirmed. The goal of this review is to provide a comprehensive look at autoimmune pancreatitis and translate latest scientific knowledge into clinical practice.

Imaging diagnosis and staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a comprehensive review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has continued to have a poor prognosis for the last few decades in spite of recent advances in different imaging modalities mainly due to difficulty in early diagnosis and aggressive biological behavior. Early PDAC can be missed on CT due to similar attenuation relative to the normal pancreas, small size, or hidden location in the uncinate process. Tumor resectability and its contingency on the vascular invasion most commonly assessed with multi-phasic thin-slice CT is a continuously changing concept, particularly in the era of frequent neoadjuvant therapy. Coexistent celiac artery stenosis may affect the surgical plan in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. In this review, we discuss the challenges related to the imaging of PDAC. These include radiological and clinical subtleties of the tumor, evolving imaging criteria for tumor resectability, preoperative diagnosis of accompanying celiac artery stenosis, and post-neoadjuvant therapy imaging. For each category, the key imaging features and potential pitfalls on cross-sectional imaging will be discussed. Also, we will describe the imaging discriminators of potential mimickers of PDAC.

Diagnostic imaging guide for autoimmune pancreatitis

The International Consensus Diagnosis Criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) has been published internationally for the diagnosis of AIP. However, since the revisions in 2006 and 2011, the Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Autoimmune Pancreatitis 2018 have been published. The criteria were revised based the Clinical Diagnostic Criteria 2011, and included descriptions of characteristic imaging findings such as (1) pancreatic enlargement and (2) distinctive narrowing of the main pancreatic duct. In addition, pancreatic duct images obtained by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography as well as conventional endoscopic retrograde pancreatography were newly adopted. The guideline explains some characteristic imaging findings, but does not contain descriptions of the imaging methods, such as detailed imaging parameters and optimal timings of dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. It is a matter of concern that imaging methods can vary from hospital to hospital. Although other characteristic findings have been reported, these findings were not described in the guideline. The present paper describes the imaging methods for obtaining optimal images and the characteristic imaging findings with the aim of standardizing image quality and improving diagnostic accuracy when radiologists diagnose AIP in actual clinical settings.

Differentiating focal autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: contrast-enhanced MRI with special emphasis on the arterial phase

OBJECTIVES

To compare focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) using contrast-enhanced MR imaging (CE-MRI), and to assess diagnostic performance of the lesion contrast at arterial phase (AP) (Contrast_AP) for differentiating between the two diseases.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients with focal-type AIP and 72 patients with PDA were included. All included patients underwent CE-MRI with triple phases. The signal intensity (SI) of the mass and normal pancreas was measured at each phase, and the lesion contrast (SI_pancreas/SI_mass) was compared between AIP and PDA groups. The sensitivity and specificity of Contrast_AP using an optimal cutoff point were compared with those of key imaging features specific to AIP and PDA.

RESULTS

The lesion contrast differed significantly between AIP and PDA groups at all phases of CE-MRI; the maximum difference was observed at AP. For AIP, the sensitivity (94.4%) and specificity (87.5%) of Contrast_AP (cutoff ≤ 1.41) were comparable or significantly higher than those of all key imaging features (sensitivity, 38.9-88.9%; specificity, 48.6-95.8%), except for the halo sign. For PDA, the sensitivity (87.5%) and specificity (94.4%) of Contrast_AP (cutoff > 1.41) were comparable or significantly higher than those of all key imaging features (sensitivity, 40.3-68.1%; specificity, 72.2-94.4%), except for the discrete mass.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative analysis of the lesion contrast using CE-MRI, particularly at AP, was helpful to differentiate focal-type AIP from PDA. The diagnostic performance of Contrast_AP was mostly comparable or higher than those of the key imaging features.

KEY POINTS

• Diagnosis of focal-type AIP vs. PDA using imaging techniques is extremely challenging. • Lesion contrast in the arterial-phase MRI differs significantly between focal-type AIP and PDA. • Quantitative analysis of lesion contrast using CE-MRI, particularly at the arterial phase, is helpful to differentiate focal-type AIP from PDA.