Comparison of Multidetector CT and Gadobutrol-Enhanced MR Imaging for Evaluation of Small, Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Preoperative assessment of peripheral vascular invasion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma based on high-resolution MRI

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative imaging of vascular invasion is important for surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, whether MRI and CT share the same evaluation criteria remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI), conventional MRI (non-HR-MRI) and CT for PDAC vascular invasion.

METHODS

Pathologically proven PDAC with preoperative HR-MRI (79 cases, 58 with CT) and non-HR-MRI (77 cases, 59 with CT) were retrospectively collected. Vascular invasion was confirmed surgically or pathologically. The degree of tumour-vascular contact, vessel narrowing and contour irregularity were reviewed respectively. Diagnostic criteria 1 (C1) was the presence of all three characteristics, and criteria 2 (C2) was the presence of any one of them. The diagnostic efficacies of different examination methods and criteria were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

HR-MRI showed satisfactory performance in assessing vascular invasion (AUC: 0.87-0.92), especially better sensitivity (0.79-0.86 vs. 0.40-0.79) than that with non-HR-MRI and CT. HR-MRI was superior to non-HR-MRI. C2 was superior to C1 on CT evaluation (0.85 vs. 0.79, P = 0.03). C1 was superior to C2 in the venous assessment using HR-MRI (0.90 vs. 0.87, P = 0.04) and in the arterial assessment using non-HR-MRI (0.69 vs. 0.68, P = 0.04). The combination of C1-assessed HR-MRI and C2-assessed CT was significantly better than that of CT alone (0.96 vs. 0.86, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

HR-MRI more accurately assessed PDAC vascular invasion than conventional MRI and may contribute to operative decision-making. C1 was more applicable to MRI scans, and C2 to CT scans. The combination of C1-assessed HR-MRI and C2-assessed CT outperformed CT alone and showed the best efficacy in preoperative examination of PDAC.

Pancreatic cancer detection with a non-contrast MR protocol: is it reliable?

PURPOSE

The pancreatic cancer (PC) is the 4th leading cancer-related death, becoming the second one by 2030, with a 5 year survival rate of 8%. Considering its increased incidence in high-risk categories compared to the general population, we aimed to validate a non-contrast MR protocol, to detect PC in its earliest phase, which could be suitable as a screening tool in high-risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we selected 200 patients (> 40 years) from our radiological database, which performed upper abdominal MRI between 2012 and 2017. 100 were negative for pancreatic lesions and 100 positive for pancreatic lesion (< 30 mm). The latter group included: 40 PDAC (pancreatic adenocarcinoma), 42 BD-IPMN (Branch Duct- Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm), 10 PNET(pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor), 4 SCN(serous cystic neoplasm), 3 IPS(intrapancreatic spleen), 1 MCN(mucinous cystic neoplasm). Three readers (R1, R2 and R3) with a high, medium and low experience, respectively, analysed, first, the non-contrast MR sequences (single-shot T2w breath-hold, GE T1w FS, DWI and 2D/3D MRCP), and then the standard MR protocol, independently, randomly and anonymously. Readers identified or excluded the presence of pancreatic lesion, in both reading sessions. These results were compared with the histopathological diagnosis, and then divided into 3 different classes of lesions: all lesions, pancreatic adenocarcinoma and solid lesion. Mcnemar's test was used to compare the results. The inter-observer agreement was determined according to the kappa statistic in both protocols, and then the inter-protocol agreement was calculated.

RESULTS

The non-contrast MR protocol has reached statistical parameters values ranging between 83% in SE (sensitivity) by R3 and 99% in NPV (negative predictive value) by R1. The standard MR protocol has reported slight increasing statistical parameters compared to those of the proposed one. However, there are not significant statistical differences between the both protocols. The proposed non-contrast MR protocol has reported the highest NPVs in the PDAC group detection (R1: 99%, R2: 99%, R3: 98%). In all groups of lesions, the agreement between the two protocols was excellent for each Reader ranging from 96 to 98%.

CONCLUSION

The proposed non-contrast MR protocol showed high PC detection values and a time execution ≤ 20 min. Therefore, it can be proposed as a screening tool in high-risk patients.

Tumor microenvironment enriches the stemness features: the architectural event of therapy resistance and metastasis

Cancer divergence has many facets other than being considered a genetic term. It is a tremendous challenge to understand the metastasis and therapy response in cancer biology; however, it postulates the opportunity to explore the possible mechanism in the surrounding tumor environment. Most deadly solid malignancies are distinctly characterized by their tumor microenvironment (TME). TME consists of stromal components such as immune, inflammatory, endothelial, adipocytes, and fibroblast cells. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) or cancer stem-like cells are a small sub-set of the population within cancer cells believed to be a responsible player in the self-renewal, metastasis, and therapy response of cancer cells. The correlation between TME and CSCs remains an enigma in understanding the events of metastasis and therapy resistance in cancer biology. Recent evidence suggests that TME dictates the CSCs maintenance to arbitrate cancer progression and metastasis. The immune, inflammatory, endothelial, adipocyte, and fibroblast cells in the TME release growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, microRNAs, and exosomes that provide cues for the gain and maintenance of CSC features. These intricate cross-talks are fueled to evolve into aggressive, invasive, migratory phenotypes for cancer development. In this review, we have abridged the recent developments in the role of the TME factors in CSC maintenance and how these events influence the transition of tumor progression to further translate into metastasis and therapy resistance in cancer.

Role of 3D Volumetric and Perfusion Imaging for Detecting Early Changes in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Purpose

There is a major shortage of reliable early detection methods for pancreatic cancer in high-risk groups. The focus of this preliminary study was to use Time Intensity-Density Curve (TIDC) and Marley Equation analyses, in conjunction with 3D volumetric and perfusion imaging to demonstrate their potential as imaging biomarkers to assist in the early detection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Experimental Designs

A quantitative retrospective and prospective study was done by analyzing multi-phase Computed Tomography (CT) images of 28 patients undergoing treatment at different stages of pancreatic adenocarcinoma using advanced 3D imaging software to identify the perfusion and radio density of tumors.

Results

TIDC and the Marley Equation proved useful in quantifying tumor aggressiveness. Perfusion delays in the venous phase can be linked to Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)-related activity which represents the active part of the tumor. 3D volume analysis of the multiphase CT scan of the patient showed clear changes in arterial and venous perfusion indicating the aggressive state of the tumor.

Conclusion

TIDC and 3D volumetric analysis can play a significant role in defining the response of the tumor to treatment and identifying early-stage aggressiveness.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up of Exocrine Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Evidence Evaluation and Recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in women (7%) and the sixth in men (5%) in Italy, with a life expectancy of around 5% at 5 years. From 2010, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) developed national guidelines for several cancers. In this report, we report a summary of clinical recommendations of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of PDAC, which may guide physicians in their current practice. A panel of AIOM experts in upper gastrointestinal cancer malignancies discussed the available scientific evidence supporting the clinical recommendations.

Small pancreatic ductal carcinomas on triple-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography: enhanced rims and the pathologic correlation

PURPOSE

To reveal the prevalence of small (≤ 20 mm) pancreatic ductal carcinomas with enhanced rims on triple-phase contrast-enhanced CT and correlate the CT images with the pathologic findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2005 and April 2016, 45 patients underwent preoperative triple-phase contrast-enhanced CT and were pathologically diagnosed with small pancreatic ductal carcinoma. CT images were independently reviewed by two radiologists. The attenuation values of the enhanced rims, internal areas of the tumors, and surrounding pancreatic parenchyma were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. These areas were also correlated with the pathologic findings. Tumor invasiveness was compared between the tumors with and without enhanced rims using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Enhanced rims were identified in 18 tumors (40%) by consensus between the two reviewers. The enhanced rims showed significantly higher mean attenuation values compared with the internal areas of the tumors (p < 0.001) and surrounding pancreatic parenchyma (p < 0.0086), and were most clearly visualized on equilibrium phase. The enhanced rims pathologically reflected the abundant fibrotic stroma with cancer cells in all tumors. There was no statistically significant difference in tumor invasiveness between the tumors with and without enhanced rims (anterior peripancreatic invasion, p = 0.137; posterior peripancreatic invasion, p = 0.758; portal vein invasion, p = 0.639; and lymph node metastases, p = 0.359).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced rims were detected at a rate of 40% in small pancreatic ductal carcinomas and could be an important finding for diagnosis on CT images, but did not suggest a less aggressive nature.

Gadobutrol: A Review in Contrast-Enhanced MRI and MRA

Intravenous gadobutrol [Gadovist^™ (EU); Gadavist^® (USA)] is a second-generation, extracellular non-ionic macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) that is approved for use in paediatric (including term neonates) and adult patients undergoing diagnostic contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI for visualization of pathological lesions in all body regions or for CE MRA to evaluate perfusion and flow-related abnormalities. Its unique physicochemical profile, including its high thermostability and proton relaxation times, means that gadobutrol is formulated at twice the gadolinium ion concentration of other GBCAs, resulting in a narrower bolus and consequently, improved dynamic image enhancement. Based on >  20 years of experience in the clinical trial and real-world settings (>  50 million doses) and its low risk for developing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), gadobutrol represents an effective and safe diagnostic GBCA for use in CE MRI and MRA to visualize pathological lesions and vascular perfusion and flow-related abnormalities in all body regions in a broad spectrum of patients, including term neonates and other paediatric patients, young and elderly adult patients, and those with moderate or severe renal or hepatic impairment or cardiovascular (CV) disease.

Imaging and Screening of Pancreatic Cancer

Given the low disease prevalence of both exocrine and endocrine cancers in the general population, screening is not recommended. However, in as many as 25% of cases there is a precursor lesion or an identifiable genetic predisposition. For these patients at increased risk, screening with imaging is recommended. Multidetector computed tomography, MR imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound examination can be used as screening modalities. Recent advances in dual energy CT and total body MR imaging have increased the suitability of these noninvasive modalities as first-line imaging screening options.

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Objective

To evaluate the frequency and adequacy of statistical analyses in a general radiology journal when reporting a reliability analysis for a diagnostic test.

Materials and Methods

Sixty-three studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and 36 studies reporting reliability analyses published in the Korean Journal of Radiology between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Studies were judged using the methodological guidelines of the Radiological Society of North America-Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (RSNA-QIBA), and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative. DTA studies were evaluated by nine editorial board members of the journal. Reliability studies were evaluated by study reviewers experienced with reliability analysis.

Results

Thirty-one (49.2%) of the 63 DTA studies did not include a reliability analysis when deemed necessary. Among the 36 reliability studies, proper statistical methods were used in all (5/5) studies dealing with dichotomous/nominal data, 46.7% (7/15) of studies dealing with ordinal data, and 95.2% (20/21) of studies dealing with continuous data. Statistical methods were described in sufficient detail regarding weighted kappa in 28.6% (2/7) of studies and regarding the model and assumptions of intraclass correlation coefficient in 35.3% (6/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of studies, respectively. Reliability parameters were used as if they were agreement parameters in 23.1% (3/13) of studies. Reproducibility and repeatability were used incorrectly in 20% (3/15) of studies.

Conclusion

Greater attention to the importance of reporting reliability, thorough description of the related statistical methods, efforts not to neglect agreement parameters, and better use of relevant terminology is necessary.

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.

Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma and image guided therapies - how we do it

Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma have evolved over recent years. Interventional radiologists and surgeons can offer curative treatments for early stage tumours, and locoregional therapies can be provided resulting in longer survival times. Early diagnosis with screening ultrasound is the key. CT and MRI are used to characterize lesions and determine the extent of tumour burden. Imaging techniques are discussed in this article as the correct imaging protocols are essential to optimise successful detection and characterisation. After treatment it is important to establish regular imaging follow up with CT or MRI as local residual disease can be easily treated, and recurrence elsewhere in the liver is common.