OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiation of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) subtypes based on objective imaging criteria. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with 60 histologically confirmed IPMNs were included in this retrospective study. Eighty-three imaging studies (CT,n = 42; MRI,n = 41) were analysed by three independent blinded observers (O1-O3), using established imaging criteria to assess likelihood of malignancy (-5, very likely benign; 5, very likely malignant) and histological subtype (i.e., low-grade (LGD), moderate-grade (MGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), early invasive carcinoma (IPMC), solid carcinoma (CA) arising from IPMN). RESULTS: Forty-one benign (LGD IPMN,n = 20; MGD IPMN,n = 21) and 19 malignant (HGD IPMN,n = 3; IPMC,n = 6; solid CA,n = 10) IPMNs located in the main duct (n = 6), branch duct (n = 37), or both (n = 17) were evaluated. Overall accuracy of differentiation between benign and malignant IPMNs was 86/92 % (CT/MRI). Exclusion of overtly malignant cases (solid CA) resulted in overall accuracy of 83/90 % (CT/MRI). The presence of mural nodules and ductal lesion size ≥30 mm were significant indicators of malignancy (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Invasive IPMN can be identified with high confidence and sensitivity using CT and MRI. The diagnostic problem that remains is the accurate radiological differentiation of premalignant and non-invasive subtypes. KEY POINTS: • CT and MRI can differentiate benign from malignant forms of IPMN. • Identifying (pre)malignant histological IPMN subtypes by CT and MRI is difficult. • Overall, diagnostic performance with MRI was slightly (not significantly) superior to CT.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiation of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) subtypes based on objective imaging criteria. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with 60 histologically confirmed IPMNs were included in this retrospective study. Eighty-three imaging studies (CT,n = 42; MRI,n = 41) were analysed by three independent blinded observers (O1-O3), using established imaging criteria to assess likelihood of malignancy (-5, very likely benign; 5, very likely malignant) and histological subtype (i.e., low-grade (LGD), moderate-grade (MGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), early invasive carcinoma (IPMC), solid carcinoma (CA) arising from IPMN). RESULTS: Forty-one benign (LGD IPMN,n = 20; MGD IPMN,n = 21) and 19 malignant (HGD IPMN,n = 3; IPMC,n = 6; solid CA,n = 10) IPMNs located in the main duct (n = 6), branch duct (n = 37), or both (n = 17) were evaluated. Overall accuracy of differentiation between benign and malignant IPMNs was 86/92 % (CT/MRI). Exclusion of overtly malignant cases (solid CA) resulted in overall accuracy of 83/90 % (CT/MRI). The presence of mural nodules and ductal lesion size ≥30 mm were significant indicators of malignancy (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Invasive IPMN can be identified with high confidence and sensitivity using CT and MRI. The diagnostic problem that remains is the accurate radiological differentiation of premalignant and non-invasive subtypes. KEY POINTS: • CT and MRI can differentiate benign from malignant forms of IPMN. • Identifying (pre)malignant histological IPMN subtypes by CT and MRI is difficult. • Overall, diagnostic performance with MRI was slightly (not significantly) superior to CT.
Authors: Y Sawai; K Yamao; V Bhatia; T Chiba; N Mizuno; A Sawaki; K Takahashi; M Tajika; Y Shimizu; Y Yatabe; A Yanagisawa Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: K Sandrasegaran; F M Akisik; A A Patel; M Rydberg; H M Cramer; N P Agaram; C M Schmidt Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2011-05-20 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Jian Wu; Hanno Matthaei; Anirban Maitra; Marco Dal Molin; Laura D Wood; James R Eshleman; Michael Goggins; Marcia I Canto; Richard D Schulick; Barish H Edil; Christopher L Wolfgang; Alison P Klein; Luis A Diaz; Peter J Allen; C Max Schmidt; Kenneth W Kinzler; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Ralph H Hruban; Bert Vogelstein Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Stefano Crippa; Roberto Salvia; Andrew L Warshaw; Ismael Domínguez; Claudio Bassi; Massimo Falconi; Sarah P Thayer; Giuseppe Zamboni; Gregory Y Lauwers; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Paola Capelli; Paolo Pederzoli; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Stefan Fritz; Miriam Klauss; Frank Bergmann; Thilo Hackert; Werner Hartwig; Oliver Strobel; Bogata D Bundy; Markus W Büchler; Jens Werner Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17