IMPORTANCE: In the past few decades, there has been rapid advancements in imaging technologies that have become irreplaceable in the pre-operative assessment of patients with pancreatic tumors. Modern imaging modalities, including computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), can provide critical information of the absence or presence of metastatic disease in pancreatic cancer, as well as details on the local extent and resectability, allowing for the selection of stage appropriate treatments and pre-operatively determined surgical approach. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to discuss staging, resectability, and imaging for patients with pancreatic tumors. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature review was performed of articles relevant to the topics of staging, resectability, and imaging of pancreatic tumors. Imaging modalities included CT, EUS, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), antibody-based and narrow band imaging. FINDINGS: CT pancreas protocol combined with EUS serve as the primary modalities in diagnosis, staging, and surgical planning in patients with pancreatic tumors. MRI is an alternative to CT with near equivalent utility in the pre-operative setting. In some circumstances, PET-CT may be a cost-effective initial study to detect distant disease. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Current imaging technologies play a critical role in the evaluation of patients with pancreatic tumors. Advances in the past 3 decades in imaging technologies have revolutionized the process of assessment of stage and resectability in patients with pancreatic tumors. Future imaging technologies will address current limitation in the evaluation of occult metastatic disease. 2020 Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. All rights reserved.
IMPORTANCE: In the past few decades, there has been rapid advancements in imaging technologies that have become irreplaceable in the pre-operative assessment of patients with pancreatic tumors. Modern imaging modalities, including computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), can provide critical information of the absence or presence of metastatic disease in pancreatic cancer, as well as details on the local extent and resectability, allowing for the selection of stage appropriate treatments and pre-operatively determined surgical approach. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to discuss staging, resectability, and imaging for patients with pancreatic tumors. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature review was performed of articles relevant to the topics of staging, resectability, and imaging of pancreatic tumors. Imaging modalities included CT, EUS, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), antibody-based and narrow band imaging. FINDINGS: CT pancreas protocol combined with EUS serve as the primary modalities in diagnosis, staging, and surgical planning in patients with pancreatic tumors. MRI is an alternative to CT with near equivalent utility in the pre-operative setting. In some circumstances, PET-CT may be a cost-effective initial study to detect distant disease. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Current imaging technologies play a critical role in the evaluation of patients with pancreatic tumors. Advances in the past 3 decades in imaging technologies have revolutionized the process of assessment of stage and resectability in patients with pancreatic tumors. Future imaging technologies will address current limitation in the evaluation of occult metastatic disease. 2020 Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. All rights reserved.
Authors: Stephanie T Chang; Dennis C Nguyen; Constantine Raptis; Christine O Menias; Gongfu Zhou; Andrea Wang-Gillam; David C Linehan; William G Hawkins; Steven M Strasberg; Ryan C Fields Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Desiree E Morgan; Clinton N Waggoner; Cheri L Canon; Mark E Lockhart; Naomi S Fineberg; James A Posey; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: D B Williams; A V Sahai; L Aabakken; I D Penman; A van Velse; J Webb; M Wilson; B J Hoffman; R H Hawes Journal: Gut Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Nicolas C Buchs; Michael Chilcott; Pierre-Alexandre Poletti; Leo H Buhler; Philippe Morel Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-02-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jacob L Houghton; Brian M Zeglis; Dalya Abdel-Atti; Robert Aggeler; Ritsuko Sawada; Brian J Agnew; Wolfgang W Scholz; Jason S Lewis Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthew H G Katz; Qian Shi; Syed A Ahmad; Joseph M Herman; Robert de W Marsh; Eric Collisson; Lawrence Schwartz; Wendy Frankel; Robert Martin; William Conway; Mark Truty; Hedy Kindler; Andrew M Lowy; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Philip Philip; Mark Talamonti; Dana Cardin; Noelle LoConte; Perry Shen; John P Hoffman; Alan P Venook Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Yongzhu Pu; Chun Wang; Sheng Zhao; Ran Xie; Lei Zhao; Kun Li; Conghui Yang; Rui Zhang; Yadong Tian; Lixian Tan; Jindan Li; Shujuan Li; Long Chen; Hua Sun Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 1.241