MR imaging versus PET/CT for evaluation of pancreatic lesions

PET/MRI for Gastrointestinal Imaging: Current Clinical Status and Future Prospects

Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) with 2-deoxy-2-[¹⁸F]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) has become the standard of care for the initial staging and subsequent treatment response assessment for numerous gastrointestinal malignancies. However, it is often supplemented by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for local tumor staging. Hybrid PET/MRI scanners, which acquire PET data and MRI data simultaneously, have the potential to provide accurate whole-body staging in a single examination. Furthermore, to address certain limitations of FDG, many new PET tracers have been developed to probe distinctive aspects of tumor biology.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the value of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (¹⁸F-FDG PET) and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Science Direct, Springer link, CBM, Cnki, Wan fang and VIP databases were searched by computer before April 1, 2015 to retrieve articles on the study of ¹⁸F-FDG PET and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. Studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality assessment was made using the QUADAS scale. Meta-Disc 1.4 software was used to analyze the heterogeneity of the included articles, and the SROC curve was plotted to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The publication bias was assessed with Stata 12.0 software.

RESULTS: A total of 51 English-language articles were included. The summary sensitivity and specificity of ¹⁸F-FDG PET in diagnosing pancreatic cancer were 87% (95%CI: 85%-89%) and 78% (95%CI: 74%-81%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.38 (95%CI: 2.64-4.33) and 0.18 (95%CI: 0.14-0.23), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 21.91 (95%CI: 14.15-33.93), and the area under the SROC curve was 0.8930. The summary sensitivity and specificity of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing pancreatic cancer were 91% (95%CI: 88%-93%) and 77% (95%CI: 72%-82%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.57 (95%CI: 2.96-4.31) and 0.14 (95%CI: 0.11-0.18), respectively. The DOR was 28.52 (95%CI: 19.63-41.42), and the area under the SROC curve was 0.9315.

CONCLUSION: ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET have higher diagnostic value than CT in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT is superior to ¹⁸F-FDG PET in terms of sensitivity and both of them can be used as diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer with negative traditional examinations.

Genetically modified bacteria as a tool to detect microscopic solid tumor masses with triggered release of a recombinant biomarker

Current tomographic methods of cancer detection have limited sensitivity and are unable to detect malignant masses smaller than half a centimeter in diameter. Mortality from tumor recurrence and metastatic disease would be reduced if small lesions could be detected earlier. To overcome this limitation, we created a detection system that combines the specificity of tumor-targeting bacteria with the sensitivity of a synthetic biomarker. Bacteria, specifically Salmonella, preferentially accumulate in tumors and microscopic metastases as small as five cell layers thick. To create tumor detecting bacteria, an attenuated strain of Salmonella was engineered to express and release the fluorescent protein ZsGreen. A single-layer antibody method was developed to measure low concentrations of ZsGreen. Engineered bacteria were administered to a microfluidic tumor-on-a-chip device to measure protein production. In culture, half of produced ZsGreen was released by viable bacteria at a rate of 87.6 fg bacterium(-1) h(-1). Single-layer antibody dots were able to detect bacterially produced ZsGreen at concentrations down to 4.5 ng ml(-1). Bacteria colonized in 0.12 mm(3) of tumor tissue in the microfluidic device released ZsGreen at a rate of 23.9 μg h(-1). This release demonstrates that ZsGreen readily diffuses through tissue and accumulates at detectable concentrations. Based on a mathematical pharmacokinetic model, the measured rate of release would enable detection of 0.043 mm(3) tumor masses, which is 2600 times smaller than the current limit of tomographic techniques. Tumor-detecting bacteria would provide a sensitive, minimally invasive method to detect tumor recurrence, monitor treatment efficacy, and identify the onset of metastatic disease.

Hybrid imaging for pancreatic malignancy: clinical applications, merits, limitations, and pitfalls

The role of PET/CT in pancreatic malignancy is evolving with new scientific evidence emerging continuously. PET/CT applications in imaging the pancreas and its organ-specific merits, limitations, and potential pitfalls are still evolving. This article provides an overview of the state-of-the-art applications of PET/CT imaging in evaluating pancreatic malignancy, comparing with conventional imaging modalities, such as contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. Current PET/MRI is also reviewed, along with brief discussion on cost-benefit analysis.

Usefulness of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to confirm suspected pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is among the five most lethal malignancies in the world. Unfortunately, many malignant tumors go undetected by the current primary diagnostic tools. (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT might be useful to confirm suspected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed using all major search engines. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed as well as quality of the PET-protocol. The following pooled estimates served as primary outcome measures: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 90%, NPV 76% and accuracy 86%. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET/CT were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 89%, NPV 78% and accuracy 86%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for (18)FDG-PET to differentiate between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis were 90% and 84%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT offer no benefit over the current primary diagnostic tools in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, the (18)FDG-PET/CT systems are still improving. We should investigate the sensitivity and specificity of these new systems while reevaluating the tradeoff between false positive and false negative results. Yet, (18)FDG-PET/CT may have a role in the staging of pancreatic cancer, in survival prediction, and may add to other diagnostic information, like histology.

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: current status, future aspects

Simultaneous positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is a promising novel technology for oncology diagnosis and staging and neurologic and cardiac applications. Our institution's current research protocol results in a total imaging time of approximately 45 to 70 minutes with simultaneous PET/MR imaging, making this a feasible total body imaging protocol. Further development of MR-based attenuation correction will improve PET quantification. Quantitatively accurate multiparametric PET/MR data sets will likely improve diagnosis of disease and help guide and monitor the therapies for individualized patient care.