Literature DB >> 21761168

Accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of pancreas divisum.

Patrick Mosler1, F Akisik, K Sandrasegaran, E Fogel, J Watkins, W Alazmi, S Sherman, G Lehman, T Imperiale, L McHenry.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with pancreas divisum may develop pancreatitis. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard for diagnosing pancreas divisum. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a non-invasive test reported to be highly accurate in diagnosing pancreas divisum. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP in detecting pancreas divisum at our institution.
METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent both ERCP and MRCP. Patients who had diagnostic endoscopic pancreatograms (ERP) after MRCP comprise the study population. Secretin was given in 113/146 patients (S-MRCP). The remaining 33/146 patients had MRCP without secretin. In 7/33 patients who underwent MRCP without secretin (21.2%), the studies were non-diagnostic and, therefore, this group was not further analyzed and the study focused on the S-MRCP group only.
RESULTS: ERP identified pancreas divisum in 19/113 (16.8%) patients. S-MRCP identified 14/19 pancreas divisum and was false-positive in three cases (sensitivity 73.3%, specificity 96.8%, positive predictive value 82.4%, negative predictive value 94.8%). Of the eight patients with inaccurate S-MRCP, 5 (63%) had changes of chronic pancreatitis by ERP. This differs from the frequency of chronic pancreatitis by ERP in 24/105 (23%) patients with accurate MRCP findings. The ERCP findings of chronic pancreatitis were more frequent among incorrect S-MRCP interpretations than among correct interpretations (odds ratio [OR] 5.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-25.3]). MRCP without secretin is non-diagnostic for pancreas divisum in a significant proportion of patients. S-MRCP had a satisfactory specificity for detecting pancreas divisum. However, the sensitivity of S-MRCP for the diagnosis of pancreas divisum was modest at 73.3%. This is low compared to previous smaller studies, which reported a sensitivity of MRCP of up to 100%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21761168     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-011-1823-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  14 in total

1.  Prospective assessment of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for noninvasive imaging of the biliary tree.

Authors:  Andrew C F Taylor; Andrew F Little; Oliver F Hennessy; Simon W Banting; Peter J Smith; Paul V Desmond
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Pancreas divisum: depiction with multi-detector row CT.

Authors:  Jorge A Soto; Brian C Lucey; Joshua W Stuhlfaut
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis.

Authors:  J M Scheiman; R C Carlos; J L Barnett; G H Elta; T T Nostrant; W D Chey; I R Francis; P S Nandi
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Potential impact of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography workload and complication rate in patients referred because of abdominal pain.

Authors:  R J Farrell; N Noonan; N Mahmud; M M Morrin; D Kelleher; P W Keeling
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 10.093

5.  Pancreatic diseases: evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  E Ueno; Y Takada; I Yoshida; J Toda; T Sugiura; F Toki
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.327

6.  Accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for locating hepatolithiasis and detecting accompanying biliary strictures.

Authors:  D H Park; M H Kim; S S Lee; S K Lee; K P Kim; J M Han; S Y Kim; M H Song; D W Seo; A Y Kim; T K Kim; Y I Min
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Miss rate of pancreas divisum by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in clinical practice.

Authors:  Matthew L Carnes; Joseph Romagnuolo; Peter B Cotton
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.327

8.  Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  J A Soto; M A Barish; E K Yucel; D Siegenberg; J T Ferrucci; R Chuttani
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Accurate diagnosis of pancreas divisum by linear-array endoscopic ultrasonography.

Authors:  R Lai; M L Freeman; O W Cass; S Mallery
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 10.093

10.  Pancreas divisum: evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  P M Bret; C Reinhold; P Taourel; L Guibaud; M Atri; A N Barkun
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  12 in total

1.  Evaluating Adults With Idiopathic Pancreatitis for Genetic Predisposition: Higher Prevalence of Abnormal Results With Use of Complete Gene Sequencing.

Authors:  Darren D Ballard; Joyce R Flueckiger; Evan L Fogel; Lee McHenry; Glen A Lehman; James L Watkins; Stuart Sherman; Gregory A Coté
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.327

2.  Anatomic variants of the pancreatic duct and their clinical relevance: an MR-guided study in the general population.

Authors:  Robin Bülow; Peter Simon; Robert Thiel; Patrick Thamm; Philip Messner; Markus M Lerch; Julia Mayerle; Henry Völzke; Norbert Hosten; Jens-Peter Kühn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Identification and management of pancreas divisum.

Authors:  Aditya Gutta; Evan Fogel; Stuart Sherman
Journal:  Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 3.869

Review 4.  Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic disease.

Authors:  Christopher W Teshima; Gurpal S Sandha
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: When should we do it?

Authors:  Renáta Bor; László Madácsy; Anna Fábián; Attila Szepes; Zoltán Szepes
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-08-25

6.  The Value of Secretin-Enhanced MRCP in Patients With Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis.

Authors:  Kumar Sandrasegaran; Bilal Tahir; Udaykamal Barad; Evan Fogel; Fatih Akisik; Temel Tirkes; Stuart Sherman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound, multidetector computed tomography, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of pancreas divisum: a tertiary center experience.

Authors:  Vladimir M Kushnir; Sachin B Wani; Kathryn Fowler; Christine Menias; Rakesh Varma; Vamsi Narra; Christine Hovis; Faris M Murad; Daniel K Mullady; Sreenivasa S Jonnalagadda; Dayna S Early; Steven A Edmundowicz; Riad R Azar
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.327

8.  Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis Secondary to Graft Pancreas Divisum in a Patient with Modified Multi-Visceral Transplant.

Authors:  Haq Nawaz; Adam Slivka; Georgios I Papachristou
Journal:  ACG Case Rep J       Date:  2014-01-10

9.  Acute obstructive pancreatitis after pancreas-sparing total duodenectomy in a patient with pancreas divisum: a case report.

Authors:  Shimpei Otsuka; Teiichi Sugiura; Katsuhiko Uesaka
Journal:  Surg Case Rep       Date:  2016-11-05

10.  Imaging and Treatment Features of Idiopathic Pancreatitis and Pancreas Divisum in a Young Man: A Case Report.

Authors:  Sari VenesmaaSari Venesmaa; Markku Heikkinen; Sakari Kainulainen; Hannu Manninen
Journal:  Gastroenterology Res       Date:  2013-07-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.