Yu Shi1, Feng Gao2, Yue Li3, Shengzhen Tao4, Bing Yu1, Zaiyi Liu5, Yanqing Liu1, Kevin J Glaser4, Richard L Ehman4, Qiyong Guo6. 1. Department of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No.36, Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110004, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Tumour Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Pathology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 6. Department of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No.36, Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110004, People's Republic of China. guoqiyongcmu@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performance of MR elastography (MRE) and compare it with serum CA19-9 in differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic masses, with emphasis on differentiating between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP). METHODS: We performed a prospective, consecutive, 24-month study in 85 patients with solid pancreatic masses confirmed by histopathologic examinations. The mass stiffness and stiffness ratio (calculated as the ratio of mass stiffness to the parenchymal stiffness) were assessed. The diagnostic accuracy was analysed by calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). RESULTS: The final diagnosis included 54 malignant tumours (43 patients with PDAC) and 31 benign masses (24 patients with MFP). The stiffness ratio showed better diagnostic performance than the mass stiffness and serum CA19-9 for the differentiation between malignant and benign masses (AUC: 0.912 vs. 0.845 vs. 0.702; P = 0.026, P < 0.001) and, specifically, between PDAC and MFP (AUC: 0.955 vs. 0.882 vs. 0.745; P = 0.026, P = 0.003). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of stiffness ratio for the differentiation of PDAC and MFP were all higher than 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: MRE presents an effective and quantitative strategy for non-invasive differentiation between PDAC and MFP based on their mechanical properties. KEY POINTS: • 3D MRE is useful for calculating stiffness of solid pancreatic tumours. • Stiffness ratio outperformed stiffness and CA19-9 for differentiating PDAC from MFP. • Incorporation of 3D MRE into a standard MRI protocol is recommended.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performance of MR elastography (MRE) and compare it with serum CA19-9 in differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic masses, with emphasis on differentiating between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP). METHODS: We performed a prospective, consecutive, 24-month study in 85 patients with solid pancreatic masses confirmed by histopathologic examinations. The mass stiffness and stiffness ratio (calculated as the ratio of mass stiffness to the parenchymal stiffness) were assessed. The diagnostic accuracy was analysed by calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). RESULTS: The final diagnosis included 54 malignant tumours (43 patients with PDAC) and 31 benign masses (24 patients with MFP). The stiffness ratio showed better diagnostic performance than the mass stiffness and serum CA19-9 for the differentiation between malignant and benign masses (AUC: 0.912 vs. 0.845 vs. 0.702; P = 0.026, P < 0.001) and, specifically, between PDAC and MFP (AUC: 0.955 vs. 0.882 vs. 0.745; P = 0.026, P = 0.003). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of stiffness ratio for the differentiation of PDAC and MFP were all higher than 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: MRE presents an effective and quantitative strategy for non-invasive differentiation between PDAC and MFP based on their mechanical properties. KEY POINTS: • 3D MRE is useful for calculating stiffness of solid pancreatic tumours. • Stiffness ratio outperformed stiffness and CA19-9 for differentiating PDAC from MFP. • Incorporation of 3D MRE into a standard MRI protocol is recommended.
Authors: Thomas Armstrong; Graham Packham; Lindsay B Murphy; Adrian C Bateman; John A Conti; David R Fine; Colin D Johnson; R Christopher Benyon; John P Iredale Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Darwin L Conwell; Linda S Lee; Dhiraj Yadav; Daniel S Longnecker; Frank H Miller; Koenraad J Mortele; Michael J Levy; Richard Kwon; John G Lieb; Tyler Stevens; Phillip P Toskes; Timothy B Gardner; Andres Gelrud; Bechien U Wu; Christopher E Forsmark; Santhi S Vege Journal: Pancreas Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: T Imamura; H Iguchi; T Manabe; G Ohshio; T Yoshimura; Z H Wang; H Suwa; S Ishigami; M Imamura Journal: Pancreas Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Marvin Schober; Ralf Jesenofsky; Ralf Faissner; Cornelius Weidenauer; Wolfgang Hagmann; Patrick Michl; Rainer L Heuchel; Stephan L Haas; J-Matthias Löhr Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Min Kyoung Park; JeongHyun Jo; Heejin Kwon; Jin Han Cho; Jong Young Oh; Myung Hwan Noh; Kyung Jin Nam Journal: Ultrasonography Date: 2013-12-09
Authors: David A Hormuth; Anna G Sorace; John Virostko; Richard G Abramson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Pedro Enriquez-Navas; Robert Gillies; John D Hazle; Ralph P Mason; C Chad Quarles; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Junzhong Xu; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jonathan M Scott; Arvin Arani; Armando Manduca; Kiaran P McGee; Joshua D Trzasko; John Huston; Richard L Ehman; Matthew C Murphy Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Emily Rose Triolo; Oleksandr Khegai; Efe Ozkaya; Nicholas Rossi; Akbar Alipour; Lazar Fleysher; Priti Balchandani; Mehmet Kurt Journal: Curr Protoc Date: 2022-03