BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are no accurate and reliable tools for diagnosis of early stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) or small metastatic lesions. It is also a challenge to differentiate PDA from focal mass-forming pancreatitis (FMP). There is controversy regarding the efficacy of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the diagnosis of PDA. We investigated whether FDG-PET provides information that, combined with data from other imaging techniques, can aid in decision making for patients with suspected PDA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data collected from 232 consecutive patients with suspected PDA at Kobe University Hospital from January 2006 through June 2012. All patients underwent a diagnostic imaging protocol that included multidetector row computed tomography, superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, and FDG-PET. Based on endoscopic ultrasonography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography analyses, 218 patients had PDA (89 underwent resection and 129 did not) and 14 patients had FMP (8 had focal mass-forming chronic pancreatitis and 6 had focal mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis). RESULTS: FDG-PET detected 50% of stages 0 and I, 91.9% of stage II, 100% of stage III, and 96.8% of stage IV tumors. Detection was affected significantly by tumor size (P = .024) and T stage (P = .023) in resected tumors. Multidetector row computed tomography detected significantly more liver metastases than FDG-PET. Few para-aortic lymph node or peritoneal metastases were detected by FDG-PET. FDG-PET correctly identified 11 of the 14 patients with FMP (5 of 8 with focal mass-forming chronic pancreatitis and 6 of 6 with focal mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis). CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET is not effective in detecting early stage PDA and small metastases, or in differentiating PDA from FMP. Combining FDG-PET with current diagnostic techniques for PDA did not provide any decisive information, therefore it should not be included in this analysis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are no accurate and reliable tools for diagnosis of early stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) or small metastatic lesions. It is also a challenge to differentiate PDA from focal mass-forming pancreatitis (FMP). There is controversy regarding the efficacy of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the diagnosis of PDA. We investigated whether FDG-PET provides information that, combined with data from other imaging techniques, can aid in decision making for patients with suspected PDA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data collected from 232 consecutive patients with suspected PDA at Kobe University Hospital from January 2006 through June 2012. All patients underwent a diagnostic imaging protocol that included multidetector row computed tomography, superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, and FDG-PET. Based on endoscopic ultrasonography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography analyses, 218 patients had PDA (89 underwent resection and 129 did not) and 14 patients had FMP (8 had focal mass-forming chronic pancreatitis and 6 had focal mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis). RESULTS: FDG-PET detected 50% of stages 0 and I, 91.9% of stage II, 100% of stage III, and 96.8% of stage IV tumors. Detection was affected significantly by tumor size (P = .024) and T stage (P = .023) in resected tumors. Multidetector row computed tomography detected significantly more liver metastases than FDG-PET. Few para-aortic lymph node or peritoneal metastases were detected by FDG-PET. FDG-PET correctly identified 11 of the 14 patients with FMP (5 of 8 with focal mass-forming chronic pancreatitis and 6 of 6 with focal mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis). CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET is not effective in detecting early stage PDA and small metastases, or in differentiating PDA from FMP. Combining FDG-PET with current diagnostic techniques for PDA did not provide any decisive information, therefore it should not be included in this analysis.
Authors: Claudio Scafoglio; Bruce A Hirayama; Vladimir Kepe; Jie Liu; Chiara Ghezzi; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Neda A Moatamed; Jiaoti Huang; Hermann Koepsell; Jorge R Barrio; Ernest M Wright Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthew E Burge; Nick O'Rourke; David Cavallucci; Richard Bryant; Alessandra Francesconi; Kathleen Houston; David Wyld; Melissa Eastgate; Robert Finch; George Hopkins; Paul Thomas; David Macfarlane Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Kasper A Overbeek; Djuna L Cahen; Marcia Irene Canto; Marco J Bruno Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 3.043
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17