Value of near-isovoxel ultrasound for evaluation of ductal communications with pancreatic cystic lesions: correlation with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

Factors affecting the ability of abdominal ultrasonography to detect focal pancreatic lesions identified using endoscopic ultrasonography

Purpose

This study was conducted to determine which factors influence the ability of abdominal ultrasonography (US) to detect focal pancreatic lesions identified using endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).

Methods

In this study, 338 consecutive patients with focal pancreatic lesions (cyst, n=253; adenocarcinoma, n=54; pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, n=24; solid pseudopapillary neoplasm, n=4; intrapancreatic accessory spleen, n=1; metastasis, n=1; and lymphoma, n=1) detected by EUS who underwent US were enrolled. We reviewed their radiologic reports and assessed the presence or absence of a focal lesion, the multiplicity of the lesions, and their size and location on US. We evaluated how these parameters differed depending on whether the lesion was solid or cystic. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed.

Results

The overall detection rate of focal pancreatic lesions by US was 61.5% (208 of 338). Using US, the detection rate of cystic lesions was 58.5% (148 of 253), while that of solid lesions was 70.6% (60 of 85). In the univariate analysis, location in the neck or body, solid characteristics, and a relatively large size (15.50±10.08 mm vs. 23.09±12.93 mm) were associated with a significantly higher detection rate (P<0.001, P=0.047, and P<0.001, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, location in the neck or body (odds ratio [OR], 3.238; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.926 to 5.443; P<0.001) and size (OR, 1.070; 95% CI, 1.044 to 1.096; P<0.001) were proven to be significant predictors of detectability (P<0.001).

Conclusion

US is useful for detecting focal pancreatic lesions, especially when they are located in the neck or body and are relatively large.

Role of abdominal ultrasound for the surveillance follow-up of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a cost-effective safe alternative to the routine use of magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Patients with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN), without surgical indication at the time of diagnosis according to current guidelines, require lifetime image-based surveillance follow-up. In these patients, the current European evidenced-based guidelines advise magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning every 6 mo in the first year, then annually for the next five years, without reference to any role for trans-abdominal ultrasound (US). In this study, we report on our clinical experience of a follow-up strategy of image-based surveillance with US, and restricted use of MRI every two years and for urgent evaluation whenever suspicious changes are detected by US.

AIM

To report the results and cost-efficacy of a US-based surveillance follow-up for known PCNs, with restricted use of MRI.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the records of all the patients treated in our institution with non-surgical PCN who received follow-up abdominal US and restricted MRI from the time of diagnosis, between January 2012 and January 2017. After US diagnosis and MRI confirmation, all patients underwent US surveillance every 6 mo for the first year, and then annually. A MRI scan was routinely performed every 2 years, or at any stage for all suspicious US findings. In this communication, we reported the clinical results of this alternative follow-up, and the results of a comparative cost-analysis between our surveillance protocol (abdominal US and restricted MRI) and the same patient cohort that has been followed-up in strict accordance with the European guidelines recommended for an exclusive MRI-based surveillance protocol.

RESULTS

In the 5-year period, 200 patients entered the prescribed US-restricted MRI surveillance follow-up. Mean follow-up period was 25.1 ± 18.2 mo. Surgery was required in two patients (1%) because of the appearance of suspicious features at imaging (with complete concordance between the US scan and the on-demand MRI). During the follow-up, US revealed changes in PCN appearance in 28 patients (14%). These comprised main pancreatic duct dilatation (n = 1), increased size of the main cyst (n = 14) and increased number of PNC (n = 13). In all of these patients, MRI confirmed US findings, without adding more information. The bi-annual MRI identified evolution of the lesions not identified by US in only 11 patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (5.5%), largely consisting of an increased number of very small PCN (P = 0.14). The overall mean cost of surveillance, based on a theoretical use of the European evidenced-based exclusive MRI surveillance in the same group of patients, would have been 1158.9 ± 798.6 € per patient, in contrast with a significantly lower cost of 366.4 ± 348.7 € (P < 0.0001) incurred by the US-restricted MRI surveillance used at our institution.

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-surgical PCN at the time of diagnosis, US surveillance could be a safe complementary approach to MRI, delaying and reducing the numbers of second level examinations and therefore reducing the costs.

Utility of transabdominal ultrasound for surveillance of known pancreatic cystic lesions: prospective evaluation with MRI as reference standard

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively assess the utility of transabdominal ultrasound in surveillance of known pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) using same day MRI as reference standard.

METHODS

In an IRB-approved study with written informed consent, patients with known PCL underwent pancreas US on same day as surveillance MRI. US was performed blinded to same date MRI results. Transverse (TR), antero-posterior (AP), cranio-caudal (CC), and longest any plane diameter, were measured for each PCL at US and MRI. Visualization was correlated with patient (weight, abdominal diameter, thickness of abdominal fat, sex) and cyst (location, size, internal complexity) factors.

RESULTS

252 PCLs evaluated in 57 subjects (39 females; mean age 67 (range 39-86) yrs). Mean maximum PCL diameter 8.5 (range 2-92) mm. US identified 100% (5/5) of cysts ≥3 cm; 92% (12/13) ≥2 and <3 cm; 78% (43/55) ≥1 and <2 cm; 35% (27/78) ≥5 mm and <1 cm; and 16% (16/101) <5 mm. US visualization correlated with PCL location (<0.0001), size (p < 0.0001), patient gender (p = 0.005), participation of attending radiologist (p = 0.03); inversely with patient weight (p = 0.012) and AP abdominal diameter (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Many PCLs are visualized and accurately measured at follow-up with transabdominal ultrasound. Visualization correlates with lesion size, location, patient sex, weight, and abdominal diameter.

Transabdominal Ultrasound Detection of Pancreatic Cysts Incidentally Detected at CT, MRI, or Endoscopic Ultrasound

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the detection rate of incidental pancreatic cysts on transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) as well as factors influencing detection rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine hundred thirty-eight patients with 1064 pancreatic cysts who underwent both TAUS and other imaging examinations including CT, MRI, or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) were enrolled. We reviewed formal reports and assessed the effect of cyst size and location and the effect of the correlative images for cyst detection on TAUS. Statistical analyses were performed using the chi-square test, t test, and Cramér value (V).

RESULTS

The overall detection rate of TAUS was 88.3% (940/1064). Cysts detected on TAUS were more often in younger patients and male patients. The detected cysts (median, 13 mm; interquartile range [IQR], 8-18 mm) were significantly larger than the undetected cysts (median, 10 mm; IQR, 6-14 mm) (p < 0.0001). However, waist circumference did not affect the detection rate. The detection rate was significantly improved from 49.2% (289/587) to 86.7% (830/957) when TAUS was performed after correlative imaging (p < 0.001). Although the detection rate for cysts in the entire pancreas was significantly increased with correlative images (p < 0.001), the detection rate for cysts in the uncinate process showed a much greater increase using correlative images (p < 0.001). However, detection of cysts in the tail of the pancreas showed the least improvement using correlative images. The detection rate was significantly improved with correlative images for cysts 25 mm or smaller.

CONCLUSION

Because the detection rate of TAUS for pancreatic cysts was significantly improved after CT, MRI, or EUS, TAUS could be a useful surveillance imaging tool for pancreatic cysts incidentally detected on CT, MRI, or EUS.

Management of Incidental Pancreatic Cystic Lesions

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) are common. They are increasingly detected as an incidental finding of transabdominal ultrasound or cross-sectional imaging. In contrast to other parenchymal organs, dysontogenetic pancreatic cysts are extremely rare. In symptomatic patients the most frequent PCL are acute and chronic pseudocysts. The majority of incidental cystic lesions, however, are neoplasias which have different risks of malignancy.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines using the following key words: ('pancreatic cystic lesions' OR 'cystic pancreatic lesions' OR 'intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia' OR 'mucinous cystic neoplasia' OR 'pancreatic cyst' OR 'pancreatic pseudocyst') AND (management OR treatment OR outcome OR prognosis OR diagnosis OR imaging OR 'endoscopic ultrasound' EUS-FNA OR EUS OR 'endoscopic ultrasonography' OR CT OR MRI). Retrieved papers were reviewed with regard to the diagnostic and therapeutic management of incidental PCL.

RESULTS

In addition to clinical criteria, transabdominal ultrasonography including contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, cross-sectional radiological imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are used for diagnostic characterization and risk assessment. EUS plays an outstanding role in differential diagnosis and prognostic characterization of incidental PCL. In a single examination it is possible to perform high-resolution morphological description, perfusion imaging, as well as fine-needle aspiration of cyst content, cyst wall, and solid components. An international consensus guideline has defined worrisome and high-risk criteria for the risk assessment of mucinous pancreatic cysts, which are mainly based on the results of EUS and cross-sectional imaging. Nevertheless, despite diagnostic progress and guideline recommendations, differential diagnosis and management decisions remain difficult. This review will discuss problems in and approaches to the diagnosis of incidental PCL.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-based algorithm for the diagnosis of incidental PCL is proposed.