Massimo Galia1, Domenico Albano2, Dario Picone1, Maria Chiara Terranova1, Antonino Agrusa3, Giuseppe Di Buono3, Annalisa Licata4, Giuseppe Lo Re1, Ludovico La Grutta1, Massimo Midiri1. 1. Department of Radiology, Di.Bi.Med., University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127 Palermo, Italy. 2. Department of Radiology, Di.Bi.Med., University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127 Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: albanodomenico@me.com. 3. Department of General Surgery, Urgency and Organ Transplantation, University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127 Palermo, Italy. 4. Gastroenterology and Hepatology Section, Di.Bi.Mis., University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare imaging features of pancreatic metastases (PM) with those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC). METHODS: CT and MR scans of 24 patients with 54 PM and 30 patients with PDAC were reviewed to evaluate the imaging features, which were compared by using a Chi square test. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference between PM and PDAC based on location (P < 0.001), margins (P < 0.001), arterial enhancement (P = 0.004), rim enhancement (P < 0.001), pancreatic duct dilatation (P = 0.01), common bile duct dilatation (P = 0.003), vascular involvement (P = 0.02), parenchymal atrophy (P < 0.001), peripancreatic fluid (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Imaging features might be helpful to differentiate PM from PDAC.
PURPOSE: To compare imaging features of pancreatic metastases (PM) with those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC). METHODS: CT and MR scans of 24 patients with 54 PM and 30 patients with PDAC were reviewed to evaluate the imaging features, which were compared by using a Chi square test. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference between PM and PDAC based on location (P < 0.001), margins (P < 0.001), arterial enhancement (P = 0.004), rim enhancement (P < 0.001), pancreatic duct dilatation (P = 0.01), common bile duct dilatation (P = 0.003), vascular involvement (P = 0.02), parenchymal atrophy (P < 0.001), peripancreatic fluid (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Imaging features might be helpful to differentiate PM from PDAC.
Authors: Domenico Albano; Francesco Agnello; Federico Midiri; Giusy Pecoraro; Alberto Bruno; Pierpaolo Alongi; Patrizia Toia; Giuseppe Di Buono; Antonino Agrusa; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Salvatore Pardo; Ludovico La Grutta; Massimo Midiri; Massimo Galia Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2019-01-25