[Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma: MRI versus multislice-CT -- a prospective study]

The Value of Circulating Tumor Cells in the Prognosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

In the past few decades, tumor diagnosis and treatment theory have developed in a variety of directions. The number of people dying from pancreatic cancer increases while the mortality rate of other common tumors decreases. Traditional imaging methods show the boundaries of pancreatic tumor, but they are not sufficient to judge early micrometastasis. Although carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen19-9 (CA19-9) have the obvious advantages of simplicity and minimal invasiveness, these biomarkers obviously lack sensitivity and specificity. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have attracted attention as a non-invasive, dynamic, and real-time liquid biopsy technique for analyzing tumor characteristics. With the continuous development of new CTCs enrichment technologies, substantial progress has been made in the basic research of CTCs clinical application prospects. In many metastatic cancers, CTCs have been studied as an independent prognostic factor. This article reviews the research progress of CTCs in the treatment and prognosis of pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic Cancer Presenting as a Pancreatic Duct Disruption

The high mortality rate associated with pancreatic cancer necessitates accurate and early detection methods. Computed tomography currently is the primary diagnostic modality used; however, subtle imaging features in concert with novel clinical presentations may obscure the initial diagnosis. Here, we describe a unique initial presentation of pancreatic cancer as a pancreatic leak, with subtle initial CT evidence of malignancy. An 83-year-old female with prior surgical history of open splenectomy and ventral hernia repair presented with two weeks of vague abdominal pain and leukocytosis. Initial CT revealed abdominal peripancreatic fluid collections. Interventional radiology-guided drain placement was performed, which revealed amylase-rich pancreatic fluid within the collections. Repeat CT scan revealed subtle pancreatic duct dilation with slow resolution of the fluid collections. Ultimately, endoscopic ultrasound identified an ill-defined pancreatic mass, revealed to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The patient subsequently underwent an open distal pancreatectomy. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer relies heavily on cross-sectional imaging, with no screening tests currently available. However, subtle radiographic features and unique clinical presentations may delay accurate diagnosis and staging. EUS may be a useful tool for initial evaluation of high-risk individuals.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND

Periampullary cancer includes cancer of the head and neck of the pancreas, cancer of the distal end of the bile duct, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, and cancer of the second part of the duodenum. Surgical resection is the only established potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Other imaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), PET-CT, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have been used to detect local invasion or distant metastases not visualised on CT scanning which could prevent unnecessary laparotomy. No systematic review or meta-analysis has examined the role of different imaging modalities in assessing the resectability with curative intent in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, PET scan, and EUS performed as an add-on test or PET-CT as a replacement test to CT scanning in detecting curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases up to 5 November 2015. Two review authors independently screened the references and selected the studies for inclusion. We also searched for articles related to the included studies by performing the "related search" function in MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) and a "citing reference" search (by searching the articles that cite the included articles).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of MRI, PET scan, PET-CT, and EUS in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies - 2) tool. Although we planned to use bivariate methods for analysis of sensitivities and specificities, we were able to fit only the univariate fixed-effect models for both sensitivity and specificity because of the paucity of data. We calculated the probability of unresectability in patients who had a positive index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) and in those with negative index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) using the mean probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies and the positive and negative likelihood ratios derived from the model. The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of the index test compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies (34 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Both studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of EUS in assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic cancers. There was low concerns about applicability for most domains in both studies. The overall risk of bias was low in one study and unclear or high in the second study. The mean probability of unresectable disease after CT scan across studies was 60.5% (that is 61 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan had unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary estimate of sensitivity of EUS for unresectability was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.97) and the summary estimate of specificity for unresectability was 0.80 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). The positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 4.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 18.6) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.8) respectively. At the mean pre-test probability of 60.5%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a positive EUS (EUS indicating unresectability) was 86.9% (95% CI 60.9% to 96.6%) and the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a negative EUS (EUS indicating resectability) was 20.0% (5.1% to 53.7%). This means that 13% of people (95% CI 3% to 39%) with positive EUS have potentially resectable cancer and 20% (5% to 53%) of people with negative EUS have unresectable cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on two small studies, there is significant uncertainty in the utility of EUS in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. No studies have assessed the utility of EUS in people with periampullary cancer.There is no evidence to suggest that it should be performed routinely in people with pancreatic cancer or periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan.

Presurgical Evaluation of Pancreatic Cancer: A Comprehensive Imaging Comparison of CT Versus MRI

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare comprehensive CT and MRI in the presurgical evaluation of pancreatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients with pathologically proven pancreatic cancer were included in a retrospective study. CT with negative-contrast CT cholangiopancreatography and CT angiography (CTA) (CT image set) versus MRI with MRCP and MR angiography (MRI image set) were analyzed independently by two reviewers for tumor detection, extension, metastasis, vascular invasion, and resectability. These results were compared with the surgical and pathologic findings.

RESULTS

The rate of detection of tumors was higher with MRI than with CT but not significantly so (reviewer 1, p = 1.000; reviewer 2, p = 0.500). In the evaluation of vessel involvement, nodal status, and resectability, although CT had higher ROC AUC values than did MRI (reviewer 1, 0.913 vs 0.858, 0.613 vs 0.503, and 0.866 vs 0.774; reviewer 2, 0.879 vs 0.849, 0.640 vs 0.583, and 0.830 vs 0.815), the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.189 vs 0.494, 0.328 vs 0.244, and 0.193 vs 0.813 for reviewers 1 and 2). In the evaluation of tumor extension and organ metastases in the 38 patients, correct diagnosis of one of two liver metastases was achieved with both image sets, one case of omental and one case of peritoneal seeding were underestimated, and one case of stomach invasion was overestimated.

CONCLUSION

MRI and CT had similar performance in the presurgical evaluation of pancreatic cancer.

Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: A state-of-the-art review

Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains one of the deadliest cancers worldwide, and has a poor, five-year survival rate of 5%. Although complete surgical resection is the only curative therapy for pancreatic cancer, less than 20% of newly-diagnosed patients undergo surgical resection with a curative intent. Due to the lack of early symptoms and the tendency of pancreatic adenocarcinoma to invade adjacent structures or to metastasize at an early stage, many patients with pancreatic cancer already have advanced disease at the time of their diagnosis and, therefore, there is a high mortality rate. To improve the patient survival rate, early detection of PC is critical. The diagnosis of PC relies on computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), or biopsy or fine-needle aspiration using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Although multi-detector row computed tomography currently has a major role in the evaluation of PC, MRI with MRCP facilitates better detection of tumors at an early stage by allowing a comprehensive analysis of the morphological changes of the pancreas parenchyma and pancreatic duct. The diagnosis could be improved using positron emission tomography techniques in special conditions in which CT and EUS are not completely diagnostic. It is essential for clinicians to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the various pancreatic imaging modalities in order to be able to make optimal treatment and management decisions. Our study investigates the current role and innovative techniques of pancreatic imaging focused on the detection of pancreatic cancer.

[Neuroendocrine tumors of the duodenum and pancreas. Surgical strategy]

The incidence of neuroendocrine tumors (NET) has increased worldwide by 3-5 times over the last decades. This is mainly based on the broad use of imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic approaches. As a consequence many duodenal and pancreatic tumors are detected in an early stage resulting in an improved prognosis of these patients. Besides the measurement of serum chromogranin A and 5-hydroxy indolic acid measured in 24 h urine collection, CT, endosonographic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopy are important diagnostic tools. About 20% of all patients with pancreatic and duodenal NETs are diagnosed because of specific symptoms. More than 95% of diagnosed NETs are sporadic tumors. Whenever possible these patients should be treated by resection. Benign neuroendocrine duodenal tumors up to 1 cm in size can be removed endoscopically. The endoscopic resection of larger tumors should be performed surgically. The therapy of hereditary NETs of the duodenum and the pancreas should be decided after interdisciplinary discussion. However, even these patients seem to benefit from resection. In case of metastatic disease debulking surgery should be considered if more than 90% of the tumor mass can be resected. In patients with extensive liver metastases but resectable primary NET, liver transplantation is a reasonable option. There is no consensus about adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment of duodenal or pancreatic NETs. The therapy with everolimus or sunitinib in advanced tumor stages has shown promising results. The administration of somatostatin analogues or antacids is appropriate for symptom reduction.

Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced 3.0-T MR imaging versus multiphasic 64-detector row CT: prospective evaluation in patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance (detection, local staging) of multiphasic 64-detector row computed tomography (CT) with that of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved this prospective study, and all patients provided written informed consent. Multidetector CT and MR imaging were performed in 89 patients (48 women aged 46-89 years [mean, 65.6 years] and 41 men aged 46-86 years [mean, 65.3 years]) suspected of having pancreatic cancer on the basis of findings from clinical examination or previous imaging studies. Two readers independently assessed the images to characterize lesions and determine the presence of focal masses, vascular invasion, distant metastases, and resectability. Findings from surgery, biopsy, endosonography, or follow-up imaging were used as the standard of reference. Logistic regression, the McNemar test, and κ values were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Focal pancreatic masses were present in 63 patients; 43 patients had adenocarcinoma. For reader 1, the sensitivities and specificities in the detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were 98% (42 of 43 patients) and 96% (44 of 46 patients), respectively, for CT and 98% (42 of 43 patients) and 96% (44 of 46 patients) for MR imaging. For reader 2, the sensitivities and specificities were 93% (40 of 43 patients) and 96% (44 of 46 patients), respectively, for CT and 95% (41 of 43 patients) and 96% (44 of 46 patients) for MR imaging. Vessel infiltration was determined in 22 patients who underwent surgery, and reader 1 obtained sensitivities and specificities of 90% (nine of 10 vessels) and 98% (119 of 122 vessels), respectively, for CT and 80% (eight of 10 vessels) and 96% (117 of 122 vessels) for MR imaging; for reader 2, those values were 70% (seven of 10 vessels) and 98% (120 of 122 vessels) for CT and 50% (five of 10 vessels) and 98% (120 of 122 vessels) for MR imaging. Both readers correctly assessed resectability in 87% (13 of 15 patients) of cases with CT and 93% (14 of 15 patients) of cases with MR imaging. Nonresectability was assessed correctly with CT in 75% (six of eight patients) of cases by reader 1 and 63% (five of eight patients) of cases by reader 2; nonresectability was correctly assessed with MR imaging in 75% (six of eight patients) of cases by reader 1 and 50% (four of eight patients) of cases by reader 2. None of the differences between modalities and readers were statistically significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Both CT and MR imaging are equally suited for detecting and staging pancreatic cancer.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101189/-/DC1.

Advances in diagnosis, treatment and palliation of pancreatic carcinoma: 1990-2010

Several advances in genetics, diagnosis and palliation of pancreatic cancer (PC) have occurred in the last decades. A multidisciplinary approach to this disease is therefore recommended. PC is relatively common as it is the fourth leading cause of cancer related mortality. Most patients present with obstructive jaundice, epigastric or back pain, weight loss and anorexia. Despite improvements in diagnostic modalities, the majority of cases are still detected in advanced stages. The only curative treatment for PC remains surgical resection. No more than 20% of patients are candidates for surgery at the time of diagnosis and survival remains quite poor as adjuvant therapies are not very effective. A small percentage of patients with borderline non-resectable PC might benefit from neo-adjuvant chemoradiation therapy enabling them to undergo resection; however, randomized controlled studies are needed to prove the benefits of this strategy. Patients with unresectable PC benefit from palliative interventions such as biliary decompression and celiac plexus block. Further clinical trials to evaluate new chemo and radiation protocols as well as identification of genetic markers for PC are needed to improve the overall survival of patients affected by PC, as the current overall 5-year survival rate of patients affected by PC is still less than 5%. The aim of this article is to review the most recent high quality literature on this topic.

Staging cancer of the pancreas

Pancreatic carcinoma is the fourth cause of death from cancer in the United States, with a survival rate at 5 years of less than 5%. About 60% of tumors originate at the head of the pancreas, 15% in the body, 5% in the tail; 20% are diffuse within the pancreas. This article discusses the imaging and staging of pancreatic cancer.

Prediction of vascular involvement and resectability by multidetector-row CT versus MR imaging with MR angiography in patients who underwent surgery for resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic value of dual-phase multidetector-row CT (MDCT) and MR imaging with dual-phase three-dimensional MR angiography (MRA) in the prediction of vascular involvement and resectability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

116 patients with proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma underwent both MDCT and combined MR imaging prior to surgery. Of 116 patients, 56 who underwent surgery were included. Two radiologists independently attempt to assess detectability, vascular involvement and resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma on both images. Results were compared with surgical findings and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

MDCT detected pancreatic mass in 45 of 56 patients (80.3%) and MR imaging in 44 patients (78.6%). In assessment of vascular involvement, sensitivities and specificities of MDCT were 61% and 96% on a vessel-by-vessel basis, respectively. Those of MR imaging were 57% and 98%, respectively. In determining resectability, sensitivities and specificities of MDCT were 90% and 65%, respectively. Those of MR imaging were 90% and 41%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in detecting tumor, assessing vascular involvement and determining resectability between MDCT and MR imaging (p=0.5).

CONCLUSION

MDCT and MR imaging with MRA demonstrated an equal ability in detection, predicting vascular involvement, and determining resectability for a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Retrospective analysis of dual-phase MDCT and follow-up EUS/EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for detecting small pancreatic tumors is uncertain. We compared multidetector CT (MDCT) with follow-up endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) without or with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosing pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with suspicion of pancreatic cancer who underwent dual-phase MDCT and follow-up EUS were retrospectively reviewed. This consisted of scoring MDCT scans independently by three radiologists on a 1-5 scale of certainty, determining whether a stent was present, scoring EUS reports regarding presence of a mass and analyzing EUS-FNA results.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients underwent MDCT and EUS. ROC values for MDCT were 0.85, 0.87, and 0.91. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of EUS and MDCT. Follow-up EUS (99%) was significantly more sensitive than MDCT (89% and 93%), as interpreted by two radiologists. Follow-up EUS was statistically significantly more sensitive than MDCT (96% vs. 70%) for one radiologist for tumors < 2 cm. Specificity of EUS was 50%, and sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 82%. Negative predictive value of EUS-FNA was significantly less in patients with (21%) than without (70%) biliary stents.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up EUS improves lesion detection over MDCT alone. Close follow-up/repeat biopsy should be considered if FNA is negative, but EUS is positive.

A new invasion score for determining the resectability of pancreatic carcinomas with contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography

OBJECTIVE

It was the aim of this study to evaluate a new infiltration score to determine the resectability of pancreatic carcinomas in preoperative planning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty patients with suspected pancreatic tumor were examined prospectively using 16-row spiral CT. The scans were evaluated for the presence of pancreatic carcinoma, peripancreatic tumor extension and vascular invasion using a standardized questionnaire. Invasion of the surgically relevant vessels was evaluated using a new invasion score. The operative and histological findings and the clinical follow-up served as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Forty patients had a pancreatic carcinoma, 5 had metastasis of a different primary tumor, and in 35 patients, there was no malignant pancreatic disease. The sensitivity for tumor detection was 100%, with a specificity of 88% for differentiating between malignant and benign pancreatic tumors. Invasion of the surrounding vessels was evaluated correctly using the invasion score, with a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 99%. In evaluation of resectability, a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 89% were achieved.

CONCLUSION

Using 16-row spiral CT, the invasion score is a valid tool for correctly assessing invasion in relevant vessels in cases of pancreatic carcinoma and for determining resectability.

State-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging of pancreatic cancer

Technical advances of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including ultrahigh-field magnetic resonance at 3.0 T, parallel imaging techniques, and multichannel receive coils of the abdomen, have promoted MRI of the pancreas. For adenocarcinoma, which is the most common malignant pancreatic tumor, helical CT has been most often used for detection and staging, but it has limitations in the detection of small cancers 2 cm in diameter or less (sensitivity, 63%). Moreover, it is not very accurate in determining nonresectability, because small liver metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and subtle signs of vascular infiltration may be missed. At ultrahigh field at 3.0 T, gadolinium-enhanced MRI using volume-interpolated 3-dimensional gradient-recalled echo pulse sequences with near-isotropic voxels are very useful for detection of subtle abnormalities. Mangafodipir-enhanced MRI reveals a very high tumor-pancreas contrast, which helps to diagnose small cancers. Contrast-enhanced MRI is a problem-solving tool in case of equivocal CT: it helps to differentiate between cancer and focal pancreatitis. Neuroendocrine carcinoma may present with a spectrum of appearances at MRI, but the primary tumor and liver metastases are hypervascular in approximately 70%. In this article, pancreas imaging protocols for 1.5 and 3.0 T are explained. We present the imaging features of pancreatic cancer and the important questions in staging, which should be addressed by the radiologist.

[Pancreas. Part II: Tumors]

Adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant pancreatic tumor, affecting the head in 60-70% of cases. By the time of diagnosis, approximately 80% of tumors are unresectable. Helical CT is very effective in detection and staging of adenocarcinoma, with a sensitivity of 76-92% for detection and an accuracy of 80-90% for staging, but it has limitations in the detection of small cancers (< or =2 cm). Multidetector CT (MDCT) has brought substantial improvements with its inherent 3D imaging capability. Mangafodipir-enhanced MRI is a problem-solving tool in the depiction of small cancers following an equivocal CT imaging result. Gadolinium-enhanced 3D gradient-echo MRI is helpful in the assessment of vascular invasion of cancer and in determining the etiology of cystic lesions. Serous cystadenoma is benign, has a lobulated contour and contains innumerable small cysts of 0.1-2 cm in diameter. Mucinous cystic neoplasms are unilocular or multilocular (fewer than six cysts), and the cyst diameter exceeds 2 cm. The presence of solid nodular components should alert the radiologist to suspect cystadenocarcinoma. Neuroendocrine tumors are mostly hypervascular. Diagnosis of insulinoma is a challenge: they are <2 cm in 90% of cases and mostly hypervascular at CT or MRI. A combination of contrast-enhanced MDCT, MRI, endosonography, and/or somatostatin receptor scintigraphy is used to detect these small tumors. This review summarizes the imaging features of the most common pancreatic tumors and discusses the limitations of CT, MRI and endosonography.

MRI of the pancreas: tumours and tumour-simulating processes

The most important issues in pancreatic imaging are the detection and staging of pancreatic cancer, differentiation between cancer and focal pancreatitis, the characterization of cystic lesions and the search for neuroendocrine tumours. Magnetic resonance (MR) units (1.5 T) with strong gradients and a phased-array torso coil should be used, making breath-hold imaging possible in order to avoid motion artifacts. Standard imaging sequences are T1-weighted (T1w) gradient recalled-echo (GRE) with and without fat saturation. For T2-weighted (T2w) imaging, axial single-shot turbo spin-echo (TSE) and coronal/oblique MR cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP) pulse sequences are preferable. As contrast agents either gadolinium agents or mangafodipir trisodium are used. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced T1w fatsat 3D GRE images are helpful to delineate vessel infiltration by adenocarcinoma and to assess the aetiology of cystic masses. Mangafodipir-enhanced MRI has been found to be superior to helical computed tomography (CT) in the detection of small cancers and in the delineation of liver metastases. In cases of an equivocal pancreatic mass the presence of the “duct penetrating sign” at MRCP (i.e., the duct traversing the mass) is suggestive of an inflammatory pseudotumour. Hypoattenuation due to focal fatty infiltration may mimic a tumour at CT, but in-phase and opposed-phased T1w imaging readily depicts the fat. Multi-detector CT has gained increasing popularity for pancreatic imaging because of the 3D visualization of the peripancreatic vessels. However, MR imaging is excellent in the delineation of small pancreatic tumours. Due to its superior soft tissue contrast, MR imaging is also the method of choice in the differential diagnosis between tumours and tumour-simulating conditions in patients with equivocal CT and to assess cystic lesions.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant pancreatic tumor, affecting the head of the pancreas in 60-70% of cases. By the time of diagnosis, at least 80% of tumors are unresectable. Helical computed tomography (CT) is very effective in detecting and staging adenocarcinoma, with a sensitivity of up to 90% for detection and an accuracy of 80-90% for staging, but it has limitations in detecting small cancers. Moreover, it is not very accurate for determining nonresectability because small liver metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and subtle signs of vascular infiltration may be missed. Multidetector-row CT (MDCT) has brought substantial improvements with its inherent ability to visualize vascular involvement in three dimensions. MDCT has been found to be at least equivalent to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting adenocarcinoma. MRI can be used as a problem-solving tool in equivocal CT: MRI may help rule out pitfalls, such as inflammatory pseudotumor, focal lipomatosis, abscess, or cystic tumors. Mangafodipir-enhanced MRI reveals a very high tumor-pancreas contrast, which helps in diagnosing small cancers. Endosonography is, if available, also a very accurate tool for detecting small cancers, with a sensitivity of up to 98%. It is the technique of choice for image-guided biopsy if a histologic diagnosis is required for further therapy.