Mohammed Saleh1, Priya R Bhosale1, Motoyo Yano2, Malak Itani3, Ahmed K Elsayes1, Daniel Halperin4, Emily K Bergsland5, Ajaykumar C Morani6. 1. Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holocombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, 77030, USA. 3. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. GI Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holocombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holocombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. amorani@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the applications of various imaging tools including conventional MDCT, MRI including DWI, CT & MRI radiomics, FDG & DOTATATE PET-CT for diagnosis, staging, grading, prognostication, treatment planning and assessing treatment response in cases of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP NENs) are very diverse clinically & biologically. Their treatment and prognosis depend on staging and primary site, as well as histological grading, the importance of which is also reflected in the recently updated WHO classification of GEP NENs. Grade 3 poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are aggressive & nearly always advanced at diagnosis with poor prognosis; whereas Grades-1 and 2 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be quite indolent. Grade 3 well-differentiated NETs represent a new category of neoplasm with an intermediate prognosis. Importantly, the evidence suggest grade heterogeneity can occur within a given tumor and even grade progression can occur over time. Emerging evidence suggests that several non-invasive qualitative and quantitative imaging features on CT, dual-energy CT (DECT), MRI, PET and somatostatin receptor imaging with new tracers, as well as texture analysis, may be useful to grade, prognosticate, and accurately stage primary NENs. Imaging features may also help to inform choice of treatment and follow these neoplasms post-treatment. CONCLUSION: GEP NENs treatment and prognosis depend on the stage as well as histological grade of the tumor. Traditional ways of imaging evaluation for diagnosis and staging does not yet yield sufficient information to replace operative and histological evaluation. Recognition of important qualitative imaging features together with quantitative features and advanced imaging tools including functional imaging with DWI MRI, DOTATATE PET/CT, texture analysis with radiomics and radiogenomic features appear promising for more accurate staging, tumor risk stratification, guiding management and assessing treatment response.
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the applications of various imaging tools including conventional MDCT, MRI including DWI, CT & MRI radiomics, FDG & DOTATATE PET-CT for diagnosis, staging, grading, prognostication, treatment planning and assessing treatment response in cases of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP NENs) are very diverse clinically & biologically. Their treatment and prognosis depend on staging and primary site, as well as histological grading, the importance of which is also reflected in the recently updated WHO classification of GEP NENs. Grade 3 poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are aggressive & nearly always advanced at diagnosis with poor prognosis; whereas Grades-1 and 2 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be quite indolent. Grade 3 well-differentiated NETs represent a new category of neoplasm with an intermediate prognosis. Importantly, the evidence suggest grade heterogeneity can occur within a given tumor and even grade progression can occur over time. Emerging evidence suggests that several non-invasive qualitative and quantitative imaging features on CT, dual-energy CT (DECT), MRI, PET and somatostatin receptor imaging with new tracers, as well as texture analysis, may be useful to grade, prognosticate, and accurately stage primary NENs. Imaging features may also help to inform choice of treatment and follow these neoplasms post-treatment. CONCLUSION: GEP NENs treatment and prognosis depend on the stage as well as histological grade of the tumor. Traditional ways of imaging evaluation for diagnosis and staging does not yet yield sufficient information to replace operative and histological evaluation. Recognition of important qualitative imaging features together with quantitative features and advanced imaging tools including functional imaging with DWI MRI, DOTATATE PET/CT, texture analysis with radiomics and radiogenomic features appear promising for more accurate staging, tumor risk stratification, guiding management and assessing treatment response.
Authors: M Rodallec; V Vilgrain; A Couvelard; P Rufat; D O'Toole; V Barrau; A Sauvanet; P Ruszniewski; Y Menu Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2005-11-29 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Anders Sundin; Rudolf Arnold; Eric Baudin; Jaroslaw B Cwikla; Barbro Eriksson; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fazio; Francesco Giammarile; Rodney J Hicks; Andreas Kjaer; Eric Krenning; Dik Kwekkeboom; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan M O'Connor; Dermot O'Toole; Andrea Rockall; Bertram Wiedenmann; Juan W Valle; Marie-Pierre Vullierme Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: D Hoyer; G I Bell; M Berelowitz; J Epelbaum; W Feniuk; P P Humphrey; A M O'Carroll; Y C Patel; A Schonbrunn; J E Taylor Journal: Trends Pharmacol Sci Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 14.819
Authors: Jonathan R Strosberg; Asima Cheema; Jill M Weber; Masoumeh Ghayouri; Gang Han; Pamela J Hodul; Larry K Kvols Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arvind Dasari; Chan Shen; Daniel Halperin; Bo Zhao; Shouhao Zhou; Ying Xu; Tina Shih; James C Yao Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Rongzhi Wang; Rui Zheng-Pywell; H Alexander Chen; James A Bibb; Herbert Chen; J Bart Rose Journal: Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes Date: 2019-10-24
Authors: Samuel J Galgano; Ajaykumar C Morani; Dheeraj R Gopireddy; Kedar Sharbidre; David D B Bates; Ajit H Goenka; Hina Arif-Tiwari; Malak Itani; Amir Iravani; Sanaz Javadi; Silvana Faria; Chandana Lall; Emily Bergsland; Sadhna Verma; Isaac R Francis; Daniel M Halperin; Deyali Chatterjee; Priya Bhosale; Motoyo Yano Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Ajaykumar C Morani; Shiva Gupta; Khaled M Elsayes; Ahmad I Mubarak; Ahmed M Khalaf; Priya R Bhosale; Jia Sun; Corey T Jensen; Vikas Kundra Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 2.081