Literature DB >> 18333085

Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Fumihiko Miura1, Tadahiro Takada, Hodaka Amano, Masahiro Yoshida, Shigeru Furui, Koji Takeshita.   

Abstract

The ability to diagnose pancreatic carcinoma has been rapidly improving with the recent advances in diagnostic techniques such as contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound (US), helical computed tomography (CT), enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and endoscopic US (EUS). Each technique has advantages and limitations, making the selection of the proper diagnostic technique, in terms of purpose and characteristics, especially important. Abdominal US is the modality often used first to identify a cause of abdominal pain or jaundice, while the accuracy of conventional US for diagnosing pancreatic tumors is only 50-70%. CT is the most widely used imaging examination for the detection and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is generally depicted as a hypoattenuating area on contrast-enhanced CT. The reported sensitivity of helical CT in revealing pancreatic carcinoma is high, ranging between 89% and 97%. Multi-detector-row (MD) CT may offer an improvement in the early detection and accurate staging of pancreatic carcinoma. It should be taken into consideration that some pancreatic adenocarcinomas are depicted as isoattenuating and that pancreatitis accompanied by pancreatic adenocarcinoma might occasionally result in the overestimation of staging. T1-weighted spin-echo images with fat suppression and dynamic gradient-echo MR images enhanced with gadolinium have been reported to be superior to helical CT for detecting small lesions. However, chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma are not distinguished on the basis of degree and time of enhancement on dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MRI. EUS is superior to spiral CT and MRI in the detection of small tumors, and can also localize lymph node metastases or vascular tumor infiltration with high sensitivity. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy is a safe and highly accurate method for tissue diagnosis of patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has been suggested as a promising modality for noninvasive differentiation between benign and malignant lesions. Previous studies reported the sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET for detecting malignant pancreatic tumors as being 71-100% and 64-90%, respectively. FDG-PET does not replace, but is complementary to morphologic imaging, and therefore, in doubtful cases, the method must be combined with other imaging modalities.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 18333085      PMCID: PMC2020745          DOI: 10.1080/13651820500540949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HPB (Oxford)        ISSN: 1365-182X            Impact factor:   3.647


  32 in total

Review 1.  Pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  S Rosewicz; B Wiedenmann
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-02-15       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Pancreatic tumors: comparison of dual-phase helical CT and endoscopic sonography.

Authors:  P Legmann; O Vignaux; B Dousset; A J Baraza; L Palazzo; I Dumontier; J Coste; A Louvel; G Roseau; D Couturier; A Bonnin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  K J Chang; P Nguyen; R A Erickson; T E Durbin; K D Katz
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Duct-penetrating sign at MRCP: usefulness for differentiating inflammatory pancreatic mass from pancreatic carcinomas.

Authors:  T Ichikawa; H Sou; T Araki; A S Arbab; T Yoshikawa; K Ishigame; H Haradome; J Hachiya
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma at multi-detector row CT: secondary signs.

Authors:  Rupert W Prokesch; Lawrence C Chow; Christopher F Beaulieu; Roland Bammer; R Brooke Jeffrey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Small pancreatic adenocarcinomas: efficacy of MR imaging with fat suppression and gadolinium enhancement.

Authors:  T Gabata; O Matsui; M Kadoya; J Yoshikawa; S Miyayama; T Takashima; T Nagakawa; M Kayahara; A Nonomura
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Pancreatic carcinoma: the role of high-resolution multislice spiral CT in the diagnosis and assessment of resectability.

Authors:  Carlo Catalano; Andrea Laghi; Francesco Fraioli; Federica Pediconi; Alessandro Napoli; Massimiliano Danti; Isabella Reitano; Roberto Passariello
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-07-18       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer: comparison of mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR imaging and contrast-enhanced helical hydro-CT.

Authors:  Wolfgang Schima; Reinhold Függer; Ewald Schober; Claudia Oettl; Peter Wamser; Florian Grabenwöger; J Mark Ryan; Gottfried Novacek
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Two-phase helical CT for pancreatic tumors: pancreatic versus hepatic phase enhancement of tumor, pancreas, and vascular structures.

Authors:  D S Lu; S Vedantham; R M Krasny; B Kadell; W L Berger; H A Reber
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Pancreatic tumors: evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging.

Authors:  M F Müller; C Meyenberger; P Bertschinger; R Schaer; B Marincek
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  40 in total

1.  Diagnostic value of IMP3 in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qianqian Wang; Tao Wang; Zhu Wang; Hong Zheng
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-07-15

2.  Diagnostic utility of clinical and biochemical parameters in pancreatic head malignancy patients with normal carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels.

Authors:  Xiaoli Jin; Yulian Wu
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 0.927

3.  Diagnostic value of mesothelinin pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lin Zhu; Yiling Liu; Guangyuan Chen
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-11-15

Review 4.  Abdominal perfusion computed tomography.

Authors:  Hayri Ogul; Ummugulsum Bayraktutan; Yesim Kizrak; Berhan Pirimoglu; Zeynep Yuceler; M Erdem Sagsoz; Omer Yilmaz; Bulent Aydinli; Gurkan Ozturk; Mecit Kantarci
Journal:  Eurasian J Med       Date:  2013-02

5.  Near-infrared fluorescence imaging in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  M Hutteman; J R van der Vorst; J S D Mieog; B A Bonsing; H H Hartgrink; P J K Kuppen; C W G M Löwik; J V Frangioni; C J H van de Velde; A L Vahrmeijer
Journal:  Eur Surg Res       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 1.745

Review 6.  Diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Zaheer S Kanji; Steven Gallinger
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Imaging of pancreatic cancer: An overview.

Authors:  Pavan Tummala; Omer Junaidi; Banke Agarwal
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2011-09

8.  Positron emission tomography (PET) has limited utility in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Peter Einersen; Irene Epelboym; Megan D Winner; David Leung; John A Chabot; John D Allendorf
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer from other solid tumours arising from the periampullary area on MDCT.

Authors:  Suk Ki Jang; Jung Hoon Kim; Ijin Joo; Ju Hyun Jeon; Kyung Sook Shin; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Time trends in the treatment and prognosis of resectable pancreatic cancer in a large tertiary referral centre.

Authors:  Giuliano Barugola; Stefano Partelli; Stefano Crippa; Giovanni Butturini; Roberto Salvia; Nora Sartori; Claudio Bassi; Massimo Falconi; Paolo Pederzoli
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 3.647

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.