Rodrigo Canellas1, Grace Lo1, Sreejita Bhowmik1, Cristina Ferrone2, Dushyant Sahani1. 1. Department of Radiology, Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features are associated with pNETs (pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors) grade based on the WHO classification, as well as identify MRI features related to disease progression after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved study, 1.5T and 3.0T MRI scans of 80 patients with surgically verified pNETs were assessed. The images were evaluated for tumor location; size; pattern; predominant signal intensity on precontrast T1 - and T2 -weighted images, as well as on postcontrast arterial and portal venous phase T1 -weighted sequences; presence of pancreatic duct dilatation; pancreatic atrophy; restricted diffusion; vascular involvement by the tumor; extrapancreatic tumor spread; and synchronous liver metastases. Tumors were graded based on the WHO classification and patients were followed-up with computed tomography (CT) or MRI after surgical resection. Data were analyzed with Student's t and chi-square tests, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: The MRI features that were associated with aggressive tumors were: size >2.0 cm (odds ratio [OR] = 4.8, P = 0.002), "T2 nonbright lesions" on T2 -weighted images (OR = 4.6, P = 0.008), presence of pancreatic ductal dilatation (OR = 4.9, P = 0.024), and restricted diffusion within the lesion (OR = 4.9, P = 0.013). Differences in progression-free survival distribution were found for patients whose pNETs were associated with the following MRI features: size >2.0 cm (χ2 (1) = 6.0, P = 0.014), "nonbright lesions" on T2 -weighted images (χ2 (1) = 6.8, P = 0.009), and presence of pancreatic duct dilatation (χ2 (1) = 10.9, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: MRI features can be used to assess pNETs aggressiveness and identify patients at risk for early disease progression after surgical resection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:425-432.
PURPOSE: To assess which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features are associated with pNETs (pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors) grade based on the WHO classification, as well as identify MRI features related to disease progression after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved study, 1.5T and 3.0T MRI scans of 80 patients with surgically verified pNETs were assessed. The images were evaluated for tumor location; size; pattern; predominant signal intensity on precontrast T1 - and T2 -weighted images, as well as on postcontrast arterial and portal venous phase T1 -weighted sequences; presence of pancreatic duct dilatation; pancreatic atrophy; restricted diffusion; vascular involvement by the tumor; extrapancreatic tumor spread; and synchronous liver metastases. Tumors were graded based on the WHO classification and patients were followed-up with computed tomography (CT) or MRI after surgical resection. Data were analyzed with Student's t and chi-square tests, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: The MRI features that were associated with aggressive tumors were: size >2.0 cm (odds ratio [OR] = 4.8, P = 0.002), "T2 nonbright lesions" on T2 -weighted images (OR = 4.6, P = 0.008), presence of pancreatic ductal dilatation (OR = 4.9, P = 0.024), and restricted diffusion within the lesion (OR = 4.9, P = 0.013). Differences in progression-free survival distribution were found for patients whose pNETs were associated with the following MRI features: size >2.0 cm (χ2 (1) = 6.0, P = 0.014), "nonbright lesions" on T2 -weighted images (χ2 (1) = 6.8, P = 0.009), and presence of pancreatic duct dilatation (χ2 (1) = 10.9, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: MRI features can be used to assess pNETs aggressiveness and identify patients at risk for early disease progression after surgical resection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:425-432.
Authors: Marco Dioguardi Burgio; Jérome Cros; Nicola Panvini; Thomas Depoilly; Anne Couvelard; Philippe Ruszniewski; Louis de Mestier; Olivia Hentic; Alain Sauvanet; Safi Dokmak; Alex Faccinetto; Maxime Ronot; Valérie Vilgrain Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alessandra Pulvirenti; Rikiya Yamashita; Jayasree Chakraborty; Natally Horvat; Kenneth Seier; Caitlin A McIntyre; Sharon A Lawrence; Abhishek Midya; Maura A Koszalka; Mithat Gonen; David S Klimstra; Diane L Reidy; Peter J Allen; Richard K G Do; Amber L Simpson Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-06
Authors: Ephraïm Partouche; Randy Yeh; Thomas Eche; Laura Rozenblum; Nicolas Carrere; Rosine Guimbaud; Lawrence O Dierickx; Hervé Rousseau; Laurent Dercle; Fatima-Zohra Mokrane Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 6.244