Joanna G Escalon1, Scott Gerst2, Matthew Porembka3, Peter J Allen3, Richard K G Do4. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10021. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065. 3. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065. Electronic address: dok@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare tubular pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (tPDAC) and colloid subtype pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (cPDAC) associated with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) on computed tomography. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective study included patients with either IPMN tPDAC or cPDAC. Enhancing mural nodules (MN), solid component (SC), main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter, and abrupt change in MPD caliber were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with cPDAC and 17 patients with tPDAC showed no significant difference in MPD size. MN and SC were seen in cPDAC/tPDAC in 55%/18% and 9%/53%, respectively. Abrupt change in MPD caliber was seen in cPDAC/tPDAC at 18%/59%. CONCLUSION: cPDAC and tPDAC differ in the frequency of MN, SC, and changes in MPD caliber.
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare tubular pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (tPDAC) and colloid subtype pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (cPDAC) associated with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) on computed tomography. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective study included patients with either IPMNtPDAC or cPDAC. Enhancing mural nodules (MN), solid component (SC), main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter, and abrupt change in MPD caliber were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with cPDAC and 17 patients with tPDAC showed no significant difference in MPD size. MN and SC were seen in cPDAC/tPDAC in 55%/18% and 9%/53%, respectively. Abrupt change in MPD caliber was seen in cPDAC/tPDAC at 18%/59%. CONCLUSION:cPDAC and tPDAC differ in the frequency of MN, SC, and changes in MPD caliber.
Authors: Klaus Sahora; Mari Mino-Kenudson; William Brugge; Sarah P Thayer; Cristina R Ferrone; Dushyant Sahani; Martha B Pitman; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Carlos F Fernandez-del Castillo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Richard K G Do; Seth S Katz; Marc J Gollub; Jian Li; Jennifer LaFemina; Emily C Zabor; Chaya S Moskowitz; David S Klimstra; Peter J Allen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lincoln L Berland; Stuart G Silverman; Richard M Gore; William W Mayo-Smith; Alec J Megibow; Judy Yee; James A Brink; Mark E Baker; Michael P Federle; W Dennis Foley; Isaac R Francis; Brian R Herts; Gary M Israel; Glenn Krinsky; Joel F Platt; William P Shuman; Andrew J Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Soon Ho Yoon; Jeong Min Lee; Jae Yoon Cho; Kyung Bun Lee; Ji Eun Kim; Seung Kyoung Moon; Soo Jin Kim; Jee Hyun Baek; Seung Ho Kim; Se Hyung Kim; Jae Young Lee; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Min A Yoon; Jeong Min Lee; Se Hyung Kim; Jae Young Lee; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi; Jin-Young Choi; Seong Ho Park; Min Woo Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thomas A Laffan; Karen M Horton; Alison P Klein; Bruce Berlanstein; Stanley S Siegelman; Satomi Kawamoto; Pamela T Johnson; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.959