Role of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer; comparison with multidetector row computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography

Utility of MRI in detection of PET-CT proven local recurrence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma after surgery

The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the accuracy and inter-observer reliability of MRI in detection of local recurrence (LR) of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) after surgery, which was proved by PET-CT and access correlation between functional MRI and PET parameters. Forty-five patients who underwent PET-CT and MRI for follow-up purposes after radical operation of PAC were included. Twenty-three were PET positive (study group) and 22 negative for LR (control group). MR examination was performed within one month after PET-CT and three readers who were blind for PET-CT findings searched LR in T2W, 3D-dynamic post-contrast T1W-FS and DWI sequences, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated while inter-reader agreement was estimated by Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient (CARC). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of LR was correlated with the size (maximal diameter) and functional PET-CT parameters: mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmean, SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG), using Spearman's correlation coefficient (rS). Sensitivity and specificity among three readers in detecting the LR were 70% and 77-84% in T2W (CARC 0.806), 91-100% and 100% in 3D post-contrast T1W-FS (CARC 0.980), and both 100% in DWI sequences (CARC 1.000). Moderate inverse correlation was found between the ADC and SUVmean (rS = - 0.484), MTV (rS = - 0.494), TLG (rS = - 0.519) and lesion size (rS = - 0.567). MRI with DWI shows high diagnostic accuracy in detecting the LR of PAC in comparison to PET-CT as reference standard. ADC significantly inversely correlates with standard and advanced PET parameters and size of LR.

PET/MRI for evaluation of patients with pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancers are the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the USA and outcomes remain poor despite improvements in imaging and treatment paradigms. Currently, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are frequently utilized for staging and restaging of these malignancies, but positron emission tomography (PET)/CT can play a role in troubleshooting and improve whole-body staging. PET/MRI is a novel imaging modality that allows for simultaneous acquisition of PET and MRI images, leading to improved image quality and potential increased sensitivity. Early studies suggest that PET/MRI may play a larger role in pancreatic cancer imaging in future. This manuscript will briefly discuss current imaging approaches to pancreatic cancer and outline existing evidence and published data supporting the use of PET/MRI for pancreatic cancers.

The Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Diagnosing Pancreatic Lesions: Comparison With CA19-9, Enhanced CT or Enhanced MR

Objective: To investigate the value of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing pancreatic lesions, and compare it with CA19-9, contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), and contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMR). Methods: Cases of patients with suspected pancreatic lesions examined between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. CA19-9, CECT and CEMR within 2 weeks of PET/CT were evaluated. We compared the diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT with CA19-9, CECT and CEMR as well as combined tests. Results: A total of 467 cases were examined in this study, including 293 males and 174 females, with an average age of 57.79 ± 12.68 y (16-95 y). Cases in the malignant group (n = 248) had significantly higher SUVmax (7.34 ± 4.17 vs. 1.70 ± 2.68, P < 0.001) and CA19-9 (663.21 ± 531.98 vs. 87.80 ± 218.47, P < 0.001) than those in the benign group (n = 219). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/CT were 91.9, 96.3, and 94.0%, respectively. Those for CECT were 83.6, 77.8, 81.2%, respectively; and 91.2, 75.0, 81.7% were for CEMR. PET/CT corrected 14.7% (28/191) CECT diagnoses and 12.2% (10/82) CEMR diagnoses. Although the diagnostic efficiency of CA19-9 was acceptable (80.0, 69.0, 74.9% respectively), the joint application of PET/CT and CA19-9 could significantly enhance the diagnostic efficiency compared with PET/CT alone (sen 97.4 vs. 90.5%, P = 0.0003; spe 100.0 vs. 95.2%, P = 0.0047). Conclusions: PET/CT has sensitivity similar to CECT, CEMR and significantly higher specificity and accuracy, helping reduce false diagnoses of morphological images. Combining PET/CT with CA19-9 could enhance diagnostic efficiency.

The Role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for Staging and Disease Response Assessment in Localized and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic Cancer (PC) has a poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of only 9%. Even after radical surgical procedures, PC patients have poor survival rates, with a high chance of relapse (70-80%). Imaging is involved in all aspects of the clinical management of PC, including detection and characterization of primary tumors and their resectability, assessment of vascular, perineural and lymphatic invasion and detection of distant metastases. The role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) in detecting PC is still controversial, with the international guidelines not recommending its routine use. However, in resectable PC, PET/CT may play a role in assessing PC stage and grade and potential resectability after neoadjuvant treatment. Quantitative image analysis (radiomics) and new PET/CT radiotracers account for future developments in metabolic imaging and may further improve the relevance of this technique in several aspects of PC. In the present review, the current state of the art and future directions of PET/CT in resectable PC are presented.

The clinical application of 18F-FDG PET/CT in pancreatic cancer: a narrative review

Pancreatic cancer is one of the worst prognoses of all malignant tumors, with an annual incidence near its annual mortality rate. To improve the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer, it is essential to diagnose and evaluate pancreatic cancer early. Imaging examinations play an essential role in tumor detection, staging, and surgical resection assessment and can provide reliable evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Currently, imaging techniques commonly used for pancreatic cancer include endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), conventional ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), multidetector spiral computed tomography (MDCT), positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), and others PET/CT is a new imaging device composed of PET and CT. ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) is a commonly used tracer in the clinic. Cancer cells are more robust than other ordinary cells in that they can ingest glucose, and the structure of glucose is similar to the structure of ¹⁸F-FDG. Therefore, after the injection of ¹⁸F-FDG, ¹⁸F-FDG in tumor cells appears very thick during PET scanning. Therefore, PET/CT can determine the metabolic capacity and anatomical position of pancreatic tumor cells in the body accurately diagnose the patient's condition and tumor location. It plays a vital role in early diagnosis and accurate staging, predicts survival, and monitors therapeutic effectiveness and pancreatic cancer recurrence. Although ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT has limitations in identifying inflammatory diseases and tumors, it still has good development potential. This article reviews the clinical application of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in pancreatic cancer.

Role of dual-point 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, in patients with and without concomitant chronic pancreatitis: Comparison with CECT and EUS

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-time-point-PET/CT, CECT and EUS + FNA in diagnosing pancreatic-ductal-adenocarcinomas (PDAC), in context of concomitant Chronic Pancreatitis (CP).

METHODS

18F-FDG-PET/CTs were prospectively acquired in 22 confirmed CP and 23 confirmed PDAC patients (calculated for 90% power); and cut-offs of 2.2 for early-SUV(∼1hr), 2.4 for delayed-SUV(∼3hr) and 1.36 for Retention-index (RI), were derived. These cut-offs were validated in PET/CTs of 75 patients (51.9 ± 13.3years; 54 men) with pancreatic masses of unknown nature. Comparisons were made with triple-phase-CECT (73 patients) and EUS + FNA (54 patients). Histopathology was obtained in 68 patients (including all PDACs) and 7 were followed up for minimum of 2 years.

RESULTS

In patients without concomitant CP, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing malignancy in standard-acquisition-PET/CT, dual-time-point-PET/CT, CECT and EUS + FNA were 97.4%, 83.3%, 94.0%; 97.4%, 75.0%, 92%; 94.6%, 66.7%, 87.8% and 92.6%, 88.9%, 91.7% respectively. Corresponding values in patients with concomitant CP were 88.9%, 57.1%, 80.0%; 100%, 57.1%, 88%; 82.4%, 57.1%, 75% and 100%, 100%, 100% respectively. In lesions ≤2 cm (AJCC-T1), dual-time-point-PET/CT was the most sensitive (95.8%). ROC-analysis revealed significantly higher area-under-the-curve for RI over early-SUV (p = 0.002) in cases with concomitant CP only. In patients with confirmed liver-metastases, PET/CT and CECT identified 15/16 and 13/16 lesions. PET/CT identified additional lung-metastases in 3 and bone-metastasis in one patient.

CONCLUSION

In patients without concomitant CP and with larger lesions, PET/CT and CECT are equivocal as screening modalities, with no benefit of dual-time-point-PET/CT acquisitions. However, in patients with concomitant CP and smaller lesions, dual-time-point PET/CT is better; with sensitivity comparable to EUS + FNA.

Clinical Impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Diagnostic Workup of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review

In this review, the performance of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the diagnostic workup of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is evaluated. A comprehensive literature search up to September 2020 was performed, selecting studies with the presence of: sample size ≥10 patients and index test (i.e., “FDG” or “18F-FDG” AND “pancreatic adenocarcinoma” or “pancreas cancer” AND “PET” or “positron emission tomography”). The methodological quality was evaluated using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool and presented according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Basic data (authors, year of publication, country and study design), patients’ characteristics (number of enrolled subjects and age), disease phase, type of treatment and grading were retrieved. Forty-six articles met the adopted research criteria. The articles were divided according to the considered clinical context. Namely, besides conventional anatomical imaging, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), molecular imaging with FDG PET/CT is an important tool in PDAC, for all disease stages. Further prospective studies will be necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of such imaging techniques by testing its real potential improvement in the clinical management of PDAC.

PET-PANC: multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and health economic analysis study of the impact of combined modality 18fluorine-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography scanning in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer diagnosis and staging can be difficult in 10-20% of patients. Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) adds precise anatomical localisation to functional data. The use of PET/CT may add further value to the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incremental diagnostic accuracy and impact of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer.

DESIGN

A multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and clinical value study of PET/CT in suspected pancreatic malignancy.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients to undergo PET/CT following standard diagnostic work-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Secondary outcomes were (1) changes in patients' diagnosis, staging and management as a result of PET/CT; (2) changes in the costs and effectiveness of patient management as a result of PET/CT; (3) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in chronic pancreatitis; (4) the identification of groups of patients who would benefit most from PET/CT; and (5) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in other pancreatic tumours.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2013, 589 patients with suspected pancreatic cancer underwent MDCT and PET/CT, with 550 patients having complete data and in-range PET/CT. Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 88.5% and 70.6%, respectively, for MDCT and 92.7% and 75.8%, respectively, for PET/CT. The maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax.) for a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was 7.5. PET/CT demonstrated a significant improvement in relative sensitivity (p = 0.01) and specificity (p = 0.023) compared with MDCT. Incremental likelihood ratios demonstrated that PET/CT significantly improved diagnostic accuracy in all scenarios (p < 0.0002). PET/CT correctly changed the staging of pancreatic cancer in 56 patients (p = 0.001). PET/CT influenced management in 250 (45%) patients. PET/CT stopped resection in 58 (20%) patients who were due to have surgery. The benefit of PET/CT was limited in patients with chronic pancreatitis or other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.0157 (95% confidence interval -0.0101 to 0.0430). In the base-case model PET/CT was seen to dominate MDCT alone and is thus highly likely to be cost-effective for the UK NHS. PET/CT was seen to be most cost-effective for the subgroup of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer who were thought to be resectable.

CONCLUSION

PET/CT provided a significant incremental diagnostic benefit in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and significantly influenced the staging and management of patients. PET/CT had limited utility in chronic pancreatitis and other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT is likely to be cost-effective at current reimbursement rates for PET/CT to the UK NHS. This was not a randomised controlled trial and therefore we do not have any information from patients who would have undergone MDCT only for comparison. In addition, there were issues in estimating costs for PET/CT. Future work should evaluate the role of PET/CT in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and prognosis and response to therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73852054 and UKCRN 8166.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Advancement in treatment and diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with radiopharmaceuticals

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a major health problem. Conventional imaging modalities show limited accuracy for reliable assessment of the tumor. Recent researches suggest that molecular imaging techniques with tracers provide more biologically relevant information and are benefit for the diagnosis of the cancer. In addition, radiopharmaceuticals also play more important roles in treatment of the disease. This review summaries the advancement of the radiolabeled compounds in the theranostics of PC.