Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Imaging 

No Results

No Results

processing….

Of all the GI malignancies, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as shown in the images below, is the second most common cause of death from cancer. In clinical practice, pancreatic cancer is synonymous with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, which constitutes 90% of all primary malignant arising from the pancreatic gland. [1, 2]

The highest incidence rates are found in North America and Western Europe, with approximately 7.4 and 6.8 per 100,000 population, respectively. Lower rates are found in Asia (3.2 per 100,000) and Africa (2 per 100,000). More men are affected than women (4.9 vs. 3.6 per 100,000), and older age is considered a strong risk factor (10.4 per 100,000 in those 55-59 yr; 24.0 in those 65-69 yr; and 55.7 in those 75 yr or older). [1, 2]

Guidelines on pancreatic cancer screening have been issued by organizations including the following [3, 4, 5, 6] :

(Radiologic characteristics of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are seen in the images below.)

may arise from pancreatic ducts (99%) or from acinar cells (1%). More than 90% of pancreatic cancers appear in the late stage of disease; this observation emphasizes the role of radiology in early detection and determination of resectability of the tumor. The role of diagnostic imaging is to demonstrate the tumor and its relationship to surrounding vasculature, and the results determine the possibility of curative resection.

The diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is rarely made at an early stage. This is one of the main reasons for failing to achieve a cure in most patients.

There is much debate concerning the sensitivity and specificity of imaging investigations in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma.

Multisection computed tomography () scanning is generally accepted to be the first line of investigation in a patient with suspected pancreatic cancer. The best imaging technique is determined by local availability and expertise, but this will nearly always be spiral (ideally multisection CT). The reasons for this preference include its wide availability, speed, thin sections, optimal enhancement, high spatial resolution, and consistently good images. [7, 8, 9, 10]

The importance of good CT technique cannot be overemphasized, and the key elements are the following: oral water as negative intraluminal contrast, 120-150 mL of iodinated contrast material intravenously administered at a rate of 3-4 mL/s, and scanning with thin (2 to 3 mm) collimation during pancreatic parenchymal phase (at 25-35 s) with the liver phase obtained at 60-70 s. [11, 12]

If the patient is clinically jaundiced and when biliary ductal dilatation is demonstrated on ultrasonographic (US) examination, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the next investigation of choice with a view to a drainage procedure. ERCP reliably demonstrates the point of obstruction. [13]

US is often the initial test in symptomatic patients. US is used for diagnosis rather than staging, although liver metastasis and ascites may be seen. Significant technical improvements in US have occurred. It may be used for problem solving in thin patients. Portal venous involvement may be more apparent on sonograms than on CT and/or MRI images, and liver lesions can be characterized as cystic or solid. [8]

MRI has improved considerably. Studies comparing CT and MRI found detection and assessment of resectability to be similar. [14] However, MRI takes longer, costs more, is more complex, and is limited by artifacts. The current role of MRI is probably problem solving; that is, if the mass is not demonstrable with CT and US, MRI could be used to evaluate the pancreas in obstructive . MRI is also helpful in evaluating and characterizing liver lesions in patients with pancreatic cancer.

In the detection and staging of small tumors, endoscopic US (EUS) can be reliable when it is performed by experienced imagers. Previous studies have demonstrated a higher sensitivity and specificity with EUS than with other modalities, but these results probably reflect the use of suboptimal CT and MR techniques. Evidence suggests that EUS is similar to CT in diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. EUS requires special endoscopic skills and expertise, and it is less readily available worldwide. [15, 8]

EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is safe and effective, especially for pancreatic head masses. EUS-guided FNA has sensitivity and specificity similar to that of CT-guided FNA cytology (FNAC).

Kamisawa et al found that diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) can be used to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic cancer. In a study of 13 patients with AIP and 40 patients with pancreatic cancer, pancreatic cancers were detected as high-signal intensity areas, which were diffuse, solitary, or multiple in patients with AIP, but solitary in patients with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer more often had a nodular shape, while AIP more often had a longitudinal shape. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were significantly lower in AIP than in pancreatic cancer, and an optimal ADC cutoff value of 1.075 x 10-3 mm2/s could be used to distinguish AIP from pancreatic cancer. [16]

In a study by Zaheer et al, findings found to be helpful for diagnosing AIP, versus pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA), were diffuse enlargement, parenchymal atrophy, and the absence of pancreatic duct dilatation and focal mass. Findings helpful for diagnosing PA were focal mass and pancreatic ductal dilatation. The authors noted that misdiagnosis of PA in patients with AIP was due to focal mass, pancreatic duct dilatation, and pancreatic atrophy, whereas misdiagnosis of AIP in patients with PA was due to absence of atrophy, presence of diffuse enlargement, and peripancreatic halo. [17]

According to a study by Takakura et al, DWI and multidetector-row CT were found to be equivalent in distinguishing pancreatic cancer in high-risk patients with main pancreatic duct dilation. The accuracy rates were 84% and 86%, respectively. The use of combined MR cholangiopancreatogrpahy and DWI allowed the authors to establish a high-risk population and detect tumors without a contrast medium. [18]

The detection of a mass on imaging is nonspecific, and 5-15% of pancreatic resections show benign pathology.

Transabdominal US (TAUS) has a relatively poor sensitivity, and its results are not satisfactory for assessment in approximately 20% of patients because of a poor acoustic window due to bowel gas.

MRI is sensitive in the detection and staging of pancreatic cancer, with sensitivity and specificity similar to that of multisection CT. MRI involves expensive equipment and meticulous attention to the image technique. Other technical limitations are movement artifacts due to bowel peristalsis and breathing. Because high sensitivity and specificity of MRI in the detection and staging of small tumors has not been achieved consistently and universally, debate continues about the superiority of MRI over CT.

Multisection CT should be used first in the detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. When CT findings are negative, MRI or EUS should be applied for detection and for the assessment of resectability. Although conventional angiography is obsolete in primary staging, it is occasionally required to assess peripancreatic vessels before surgery. Modern multislice CT scanners are capable of excellent depiction of arterial and venous branches. The role of MR angiography (MRA) in the assessment of mesenteric vessels prior to surgery is not firmly established, though some encouraging study results are reported.

See also Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Imaging: What You Need to Know, a Critical Images slideshow, for more information on the imaging studies to use to identify and evaluate this disease.

radiographs have no role in establishing a firm diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. Pancreatic calcifications may be seen concurrently in approximately 2% of patients who have chronic pancreatitis complicated by pancreatic carcinoma.

Upper GI barium studies may reveal an extrinsic impression of the mass on the posteroinferior aspect of the antrum of the stomach. This is known as antral pad sign. The medial margin of the descending duodenum may be pulled medially at the level of the ampulla, forming a reversed-3 appearance. This is known as Frostberg 3 sign. Infiltration of the duodenal mucosa may cause a spiculated appearance with irregularity and thickening of the duodenal mucosa. The changes also may represent a desmoplastic response to malignant disease. A nodular mass with an ampullary carcinoma may be observed.

Barium enema studies may demonstrate loss of normal haustral pattern from haustral padding along the transverse colon. The studies may show infiltration of the colon with an irregular or serrated contour to the bowel margin along the transverse colon, up to the level of splenic flexure. Tethering of colonic or small bowel margins resulting in asymmetry may occur from intraperitoneal seeding of pancreatic carcinoma.

In the presence of , barium studies have reasonably good specificity. The disease is usually advanced by the time the mass produces the characteristic signs on barium studies. False-positive results may occur from a pseudocyst or other mass lesions producing similar appearances on the duodenal C-loop. Small masses may produce false-negative results.

Multidetector CT is preferred for both staging and assessing pancreatic adenocarcinoma resectability. MRI may play an importand adjunctive role. [7, 9, 10]  In a study of 3567 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 90%, 87%, and 89%, respectively, for CT. [8]  Because of a lack of visible attenuation difference between the tumor and the pancreatic parenchyma, up to 11% of ductal adenocarcinomas may not be detected by MDCT. [19]

Features suggestive of underlying pancreatic cancer include the following: alterations in morphology of the gland with abnormalities of CT attenuation values, obliteration of peripancreatic fat, loss of sharp margins with surrounding structures, involvement of adjacent vessels and regional lymph nodes, pancreatic ductal dilatation, pancreatic atrophy, and obstruction of the common bile duct (CBD). [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]  (See the images below.)

Abnormal morphology of the gland, such as a change in size, shape, or attenuation values, may include focal or diffuse enlargement, a focal lobulated eccentric mass, or decreased attenuation of the mass, respectively.

Macari et al determined that at portal venous phase dual-source dual-energy CT, pancreatic malignant-tumor conspicuity is greater at 80 kVp than with 120-kVp acquisition simulated with a weighted-average acquisition. The mean difference in attenuation for pancreatic tumors and adjacent normal pancreas was 83.27 +/- 29.56 (SD) HU at 80 kVp and 49.40 +/- 23.00 HU at weighted-average 120 kVp. At 80 kVp, contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher, as was duct visualization. [28]

A change in size is usually focal, and focal enlargement is seen in about 96% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The size is an unreliable indicator of tumor, as a normally sized pancreatic head is consistent with a carcinoma of pancreas when atrophy of the body and tail is observed. This feature may be seen in pancreatic carcinoma in as many as 20% of patients. Focal enlargement also can occur in benign disease; thus, it is a nonspecific finding. Diffuse enlargement is less common and usually suggests pancreatitis.

By the time the mass has grown to produce a focal enlargement, the mass has often progressed to an inoperable stage. Some small tumors may cause biliary ductal obstruction and appear early. A change in the shape of the gland in the absence of enlargement is a more important sign and may suggest underlying tumor. Demonstration of fatty interstices within the mass suggests that the focal lobulation is of normal pancreas. If the fatty interstices are absent and if the mass is completely solid, it is more likely to be abnormal, and a biopsy is recommended.

The normal pancreas has an attenuation value of 30-50 HU. A central zone of decreased attenuation occurs in 83% of patients. The margins of the low-attenuating mass usually are poorly defined and correspond to a hypovascular scirrhous tumor. Pancreatic tumor also may undergo central necrosis to produce a low density, and the tumor then simulates a small pseudocyst.

Needle biopsy is occasionally needed to differentiate necrotic tumor from pseudocyst as a result of focal pancreatitis. The pancreatic tumors are hypovascular and are best demonstrated with the intravenous administration of contrast material and by acquiring images across the mass in the parenchymal arterial phase. The mass is seen as a low-attenuating lesion in the brightly enhancing surrounding parenchyma.

Ductal dilatation occurs in 58% of patients. Among patients with ductal dilatation, 75% have dilation of both the pancreatic ducts and the biliary ducts. Pancreatic ductal dilatation proximal to the obstructing tumor is detected in approximately 88% of pancreatic head tumors and 60% of pancreatic body neoplasms. The duct size in pancreatic cancer is 5-10 mm, and the duct is either smooth or beaded.

The pancreatic duct is dilated to more than 50% of the anteroposterior diameter of the gland in pancreatic cancer from atrophy of the gland. In chronic pancreatitis, duct dilatation is less than 50% of the anteroposterior (AP) diameter. Loss of normal peripancreatic fat-plane attenuation is suggestive of extension of tumor beyond the margins of the gland with invasion. The peripancreatic fat shows an increase in attenuation. Extension to involve peripancreatic fat and surrounding structures is observed on CT scans in 92% of patients.

Vascular encasement usually determines unresectability and is seen on CT as narrowing, displacement, or obliteration of the vessel lumen by surrounding tumor. Collateral venous circulation may be observed from venous occlusion with contrast-enhanced vessels around the stomach and splenic hilum. Arterial encasement is usually well demonstrated by good-quality CT scans, and angiography is unnecessary.

The arterial involvement, in descending order of frequency, is as follows: superior mesenteric, splenic, celiac, hepatic, gastroduodenal, and left renal. Spread to surrounding organs may involve the spleen, stomach, duodenum, splenic flexure of the colon, transverse mesocolon, porta hepatis, kidney, and spine. Local, posterior tumoral extension into the porta hepatis is seen in approximately 68% of patients. The presence of ascites indicates peritoneal metastatic disease with implants. Ascites is seen in 13% of patients with pancreatic cancer. The peritoneal deposits are poorly demonstrated by means of CT.

Regional lymph node metastasis has been reported to vary from 38 to 65%. Metastasis to liver is the most common in pancreatic cancer, occurring in approximately 17-55%. The CBD is displaced anteriorly and medially when the pancreatic mass causes distal ductal obstruction. Intrahepatic ductal dilatation and gall bladder dilatation can be demonstrated.

CT is the most widely used and most sensitive test for an evaluation of the pancreas for pancreatic carcinoma. Dynamic CT has a detection rate of approximately 99%. Multisection CT should be the first-line study for detecting this tumor and for evaluating its resectability.

According to a study by Raman et al, MDCT can accurately stage patients with pancreatic cancer, but its accuracy in excluding distant metastatic disease depreciates over time. The authors concluded from their findings that patients should undergo a repeat MDCT within 25 days of any planned definitive operative intervention for pancreatic cancer to avoid unexpectedly finding metastatic disease at surgery. [29]

Cysts or focal pancreatitis can occasionally cause problems in diagnosis, and it can produce false-positive and false-negative results.

The role of MRI in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has yet to be firmly established. Compared with other modalities, MRI appears to be more valuable for staging the extent and spread of pancreatic carcinoma than for tumor detection of lesions smaller than 2 cm. The ability of MRI to demonstrate pancreatic adenocarcinoma largely depends on the demonstration of deformity of the gland, as reflected in its size, shape, contour, and signal intensity characteristics. [30, 31, 32, 33]

The criteria to suspect a mass are similar to those applied with CT, as discussed above. Rarely, nonenhanced MRI reveals a carcinoma of the pancreas before it deforms the gland. However, when such a feature is encountered, the dilemma to distinguish the focal abnormality from focal pancreatitis becomes challenging.

An alteration in signal characteristics is less specific for tumor because the tissue relaxation times between pancreatic cancer, pancreatitis, and controls can overlap significantly. The mean T1 relaxation time of normal pancreas is 507 ms ± 98, and the T1 relaxation time of pancreatic tumor is about 660 ms ± 115. The T2 relaxation time of normal pancreas is 59 ms ± 9, and the T2 relaxation time of pancreatic tumor is 67 ms ± 29.

The normal pancreas is of low signal intensity on T1-weighted images and of intermediate signal on T2-weighted images, with a variable amount of fat in the gland parenchyma.

Newer techniques to obtain images using breath-hold techniques and advances in body coil technology and faster techniques have made it possible to acquire images with excellent spatial resolution.

T1-weighted fat-suppressed spin-echo and single–breath-hold gradient-echo fast low-angle shot (FLASH) sequences with gadolinium enhancement are valuable for tumor detection. The mass is demonstrated as a low-intensity lesion within a homogeneously enhancing normal pancreatic gland. Intravenous Gd-enhanced FLASH images obtained 10 s after contrast enhancement has proven to be more sensitive in demonstrating tumor than other techniques.

Gadolinium-based contrast agents have been linked to the development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) or nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy (NFD). The disease has occurred in patients with moderate to end-stage renal disease after being given a gadolinium-based contrast agent to enhance MRI or MRA scans. NSF/NFD is a debilitating and sometimes fatal disease. Characteristics include red or dark patches on the skin; burning, itching, swelling, hardening, and tightening of the skin; yellow spots on the whites of the eyes; joint stiffness with trouble moving or straightening the arms, hands, legs, or feet; pain deep in the hip bones or ribs; and muscle weakness.

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is as sensitive as ERCP and may prevent inappropriate explorations of the pancreatic and bile ducts in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma in whom interventional endoscopic therapy is unlikely. The sensitivity of MRCP in a study of 124 patients was 84% with a specificity of 97% for pancreatic cancer. The findings are complimentary to those of ERCP and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC).

It has been difficult to prove consistent results using MRI in demonstrating the tumor and its resectability. The degree of confidence with MRI is less than that with CT because of the wide variability in MRI techniques and its limitations from motion artifacts. Some studies have demonstrated results confirming greater reliability with MRI performed by using meticulous technique.

The lesion may have a variable appearance on US. It may be hypoechoic, isoechoic, or hyperechoic to the normal pancreas. Pancreatic ductal dilatation and biliary ductal dilatation are easily demonstrated in patients with a tumor in the head of the pancreas that causes an obstruction. [34, 35]

Lymphadenopathy, the relation of the tumor to peripancreatic vessels, and the tumor margins are demonstrated less reliably with US than with other modalities. The mass appears as an irregular hypoechoic mass that infiltrates a bright pancreatic parenchyma.

The degree of confidence may be improved by using EUS in the detection of tumors smaller than 2 cm.

US equipment has improved considerably, and this is likely to have reflected on the sensitivity for detecting pancreatic masses. [15] TAUS examination is still less sensitive than other modalities in the detection of pancreatic malignancy smaller than 2 cm. It has a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 95% for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.

The specificity of EUS for differentiating benign from malignant lesions using US appearance alone remains unsatisfactory. EUS has a high sensitivity and specificity for pancreatic cancer, with an overall staging accuracy higher than 80%. The possibility of performing EUS-guided FNA significantly improves both diagnostic and staging capability of EUS. EUS-guided FNA is safe, with a morbidity of less than 2%.

In a review of 63 patients, the assessment of tumor resectability with EUS was compared with an assessment with MRI. The sensitivity for EUS for resectability was 61%, and that of MRI was 73%. When EUS and MRI were used together, the sensitivity was 89% for resectability.

The detection of a pancreatic tumor and distinguishing its appearances from those of other focal pancreatic diseases has remained a challenging diagnostic problem.

Positron emission tomography (PET) is based on functional changes in the pancreatic cancer cells caused by enhanced glucose utilization as in any other malignant tissue. With 2-[fluorine 18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG), PET can be used to identify pancreatic cancer and differentiate it from chronic pancreatitis with a sensitivity of 85-98% and a specificity of 53-93%. [36, 37, 38]

PET maps the metabolic activity at a molecular level; therefore, the uptake of FDG by neoplastic tissue is also dependent on factors such as tissue oxygenation, regional blood flow, and a peritumoral inflammatory reaction.

PET is also useful in staging and determination of resectability of the tumor at the time of initial diagnosis. PET also has been shown to be an effective tool in the follow-up care of patients with pancreatic cancer. In more than 50% of patients in one study, additional information using PET influences the therapeutic procedure. [39, 40, 41]

FDG PET/CT has been found to be useful when contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is equivocal and to be able to detect recurrence in patients with normal CA 19-9. [38]

In general, the sensitivity of PET is high in the detection of lesions more than a centimeter in diameter. Early detection because of increased metabolic activity in cancer usually precedes the structural changes detected with US, MRI, or CT.

PET has shown some promise in the detection of tumors, with high sensitivity and specificity. PET is dependent on tumor stage. However, further clinical trials are required to demonstrate the limitations of PET in the assessment of early pancreatic cancer.

PET is not an absolute technique, as it fails to demonstrate pancreatic adenocarcinoma smaller than 1 cm. False-positive results may occur when focal pancreatitis is associated with early pancreatic carcinoma.

Angiography is an invasive procedure that demands considerable operator skill and high-quality radiographic technique. Selective arteriograms obtained with an injection of iodinated contrast through the celiac axis and superior mesenteric artery with some magnification techniques may be required to demonstrate detail. [27, 42]

Pancreatic carcinoma is relatively avascular and associated with neovascularity in 50% of patients. Pancreatic malignancy usually demonstrates arterial encasement of peripancreatic vessels or, actually, of vessels within the pancreas. The vessels involved are the following, in descending order of frequency: superior mesenteric artery (33%), splenic artery (14%), celiac artery (11%), hepatic artery (11%), gastroduodenal artery (3%), and left renal artery (0.6%).

When the disease is advanced, venous occlusions and venous encasement with collateral vessels may be observed. Superior mesenteric vein encasement by tumor is seen in 23%, and the splenic vein is encased by tumor in 15%, with portal vein infiltration in 4%.

Complete occlusion of the splenic vein is seen in 34%, and complete occlusion of the superior mesenteric vein is seen in 10%. Pancreatic carcinoma can be distinguished from pancreatitis. The demonstration of hypervascularity with the typical beaded changes of alternating narrowing with dilatation of internal pancreatic vessels is a feature of pancreatitis.

The mesenteric circulation has been evaluated by using MRA and compared with conventional angiography. Excellent agreement was seen between MRA and conventional angiography. Gadolinium-enhanced MRA is useful in the evaluation of proximal mesenteric arteries and in the evaluation of portal hypertension. Conventional angiography is needed for the evaluation of intrahepatic arteries and branches of the superior mesenteric artery.

Pancreatic carcinoma is a hypovascular lesion; therefore, angiography has rightly been replaced as the method of choice for evaluation of pancreatic parenchymal disease.

Helical CT angiography shows useful information about the peripancreatic vessels in patients with pancreatic carcinoma. In a study of 84 patients, the negative predictive value of a resectable tumor was 96% for helical CT angiography and axial helical CT, compared with 70% for helical CT alone. The addition of helical CT angiography improves the radiologist’s ability to predict the resectability of pancreatic tumors.

Angiography has an accuracy of only 70% in making a specific diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma.

Simoes PK, Olson SH, Saldia A, Kurtz RC. Epidemiology of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Chin Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun. 6 (3):24. [Medline].

National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Pancreatic Cancer. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Available at https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/urinb.html. June 28, 2017; Accessed: February 27, 2018.

Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Aug. 15 (8):1028-1061. [Medline].

[Guideline] US Preventive Services Task Force. Clinical Summary: Pancreatic Cancer: Screening. Available at http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/ClinicalSummaryFinal/pancreatic-cancer-screening.. April 2004; Accessed: February 27, 2018.

[Guideline] Academy of Family Physicians. Leakwood KS. Summary of Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services. Academy of Family Physicians; November 2015.

Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban RH, et al. International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut. 2013 Mar. 62 (3):339-47. [Medline].

Kulkarni NM, Hough DM, Tolat PP, Soloff EV, Kambadakone AR. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: cross-sectional imaging techniques. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Nov 11. [Medline].

Toft J, Hadden WJ, Laurence JM, Lam V, Yuen L, Janssen A, et al. Imaging modalities in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Radiol. 2017 Jul. 92:17-23. [Medline].

Treadwell JR, Zafar HM, Mitchell MD, Tipton K, Teitelbaum U, Jue J. Imaging Tests for the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Meta-Analysis. Pancreas. 2016 Jul. 45 (6):789-95. [Medline].

Pietryga JA, Morgan DE. Imaging preoperatively for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015 Aug. 6 (4):343-57. [Medline].

Klauss M, Stiller W, Pahn G, Fritz F, Kieser M, Werner J, et al. Dual-energy perfusion-CT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Feb. 82(2):208-14. [Medline].

Tapfer A, Braren R, Bech M, Willner M, Zanette I, Weitkamp T, et al. phase-contrast CT of a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma mouse model. PLoS One. 2013. 8(3):e58439. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Cipolletta L, Bianco MA, Rotondano G. Pancreatic head mass: what can be done? Diagnosis: ERCP and EUS. JOP. 2000 Sep. 1(3 Suppl):108-10. [Medline].

Yang MJ, Li S, Liu YG, Jiao N, Gong JS. Common and unusual CT and MRI manifestations of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a pictorial review. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2013 Apr. 3(2):113-20. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Arcidiacono PG. Re-defining the role of EUS in pancreatic adenocarcinoma in 2017. Endosc Ultrasound. 2017 Dec. 6 (Suppl 3):S57. [Medline].

Kamisawa T, Takuma K, Anjiki H, Egawa N, Hata T, Kurata M, et al. Differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer by diffusion-weighted MRI. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Aug. 105(8):1870-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Zaheer A, Singh VK, Akshintala VS, Kawamoto S, Tsai SD, Gage KL, et al. Differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma using dual-phase computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014 Jan-Feb. 38(1):146-52. [Medline].

Takakura K, Sumiyama K, Munakata K, Ashida H, Arihiro S, Kakutani H, et al. Clinical usefulness of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for detection of pancreatic cancer: comparison with enhanced multidetector-row CT. Abdom Imaging. 2011 Aug. 36(4):457-62. [Medline].

Granata V, Fusco R, Catalano O, Setola SV, de Lutio di Castelguidone E, Piccirillo M, et al. Multidetector computer tomography in the pancreatic adenocarcinoma assessment: an update. Infect Agent Cancer. 2016. 11:57. [Medline].

Sato M, Okumura T, Kaito K, Kiyoshima M, Asato Y, Uchiumi K, et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of pancreatic metastases from lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2009 Jan. 23(1):49-57. [Medline].

Grenacher L, Klauß M. [Computed tomography of pancreatic tumors.]. Radiologe. 2009 Feb. 49(2):107-123. [Medline].

Horwhat JD, Gerke H, Acosta RD, Pavey DA, Jowell PS. Focal or diffuse “fullness” of the pancreas on CT. Usually benign, but EUS plus/minus FNA is warranted to identify malignancy. JOP. 2009 Jan 8. 10(1):37-42. [Medline].

Freeny PC, Marks WM, Ryan JA, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and staging with dynamic CT. Radiology. 1988 Jan. 166(1 Pt 1):125-33. [Medline].

Karasawa E, Goldberg HI, Moss AA, et al. CT pancreatogram in carcinoma of the pancreas and chronic pancreatitis. Radiology. 1983 Aug. 148(2):489-93. [Medline].

Kreel L, Haertel M, Katz D. Computed tomography of the normal pancreas. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1977 Jul. 1(3):290-9. [Medline].

Nishiharu T, Yamashita Y, Abe Y. Local extension of pancreatic carcinoma: assessment with thin-section helical CT versus with breath-hold fast MR imaging–ROC analysis. Radiology. 1999 Aug. 212(2):445-52. [Medline].

Raptopoulos V, Steer ML, Sheiman RG, et al. The use of helical CT and CT angiography to predict vascular involvement from pancreatic cancer: correlation with findings at surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Apr. 168(4):971-7. [Medline].

Macari M, Spieler B, Kim D, Graser A, Megibow AJ, Babb J, et al. Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Jan. 194(1):W27-32. [Medline].

Raman SP, Reddy S, Weiss MJ, Manos LL, Cameron JL, Zheng L, et al. Impact of the time interval between MDCT imaging and surgery on the accuracy of identifying metastatic disease in patients with pancreatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jan. 204(1):W37-42. [Medline].

Adamek HE, Albert J, Breer H, et al. Pancreatic cancer detection with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective controlled study. Lancet. 2000 Jul 15. 356(9225):190-3. [Medline].

Jenkins JP, Braganza JM, Hickey DS, et al. Quantitative tissue characterisation in pancreatic disease using magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol. 1987 Apr. 60(712):333-41. [Medline].

Sheridan MB, Ward J, Guthrie JA. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dual-phase helical CT in the preoperative assessment of suspected pancreatic cancer: a comparative study with receiver operating characteristic analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Sep. 173(3):583-90. [Medline].

Spencer JA, Ward J, Guthrie JA, et al. Assessment of resectability of pancreatic cancer with dynamic contrast- enhanced MR imaging: technique, surgical correlation and patient outcome. Eur Radiol. 1998. 8(1):23-9. [Medline].

Shin LK, Brant-Zawadzki G, Kamaya A, Jeffrey RB. Intraoperative ultrasound of the pancreas. Ultrasound Q. 2009 Mar. 25(1):39-48; quiz 48. [Medline].

Tawada K, Yamaguchi T, Kobayashi A, Ishihara T, Sudo K, Nakamura K, et al. Changes in tumor vascularity depicted by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography as a predictor of chemotherapeutic effect in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2009 Jan. 38(1):30-5. [Medline].

Franke C, Klapdor R, Meyerhoff K, et al. 18-FDG positron emission tomography of the pancreas: diagnostic benefit in the follow-up of pancreatic carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 1999 Jul-Aug. 19(4A):2437-42. [Medline].

Zimny M, Bares R, Fass J, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma: a report of 106 cases. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997 Jun. 24(6):678-82. [Medline].

Rayamajhi S, Balachandran A, Katz M, Reddy A, Rohren E, Bhosale P. Utility of (18) F-FDG PET/CT and CECT in conjunction with serum CA 19-9 for detecting recurrent pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Sep 12. [Medline].

Berberat P, Friess H, Kashiwagi M, et al. Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer by positron emission tomography. World J Surg. 1999 Sep. 23(9):882-7. [Medline].

Delbeke D, Rose DM, Chapman WC, et al. Optimal interpretation of FDG PET in the diagnosis, staging and management of pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1999 Nov. 40(11):1784-91. [Medline].

Keogan MT, Tyler D, Clark L, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma: role of FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Dec. 171(6):1565-70. [Medline].

Ernst O, Asnar V, Sergent G, et al. Comparing contrast-enhanced breath-hold MR angiography and conventional angiography in the evaluation of mesenteric circulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Feb. 174(2):433-9. [Medline].

Mahesh Kumar Neelala Anand, MBBS, DNB, FRCR Consultant Interventional Radiologist, Department of Radiology, Mediclinic Middle East Hospitals, UAE; Previous Consultant Interventional Radiologist and Clinical Director of Radiology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, UK

Mahesh Kumar Neelala Anand, MBBS, DNB, FRCR is a member of the following medical societies: British Society of Gastroenterology, British Society of Interventional Radiology, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology, Indian Radiological and Imaging Association, Radiological Society of North America, Royal College of Radiologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Colm Boylan, MBBCh, MRCP, FRCR Assistant Professor of Radiology, McMaster University School of Medicine; Staff Radiologist, St Joseph’s Hospital, Canada

Colm Boylan, MBBCh, MRCP, FRCR is a member of the following medical societies: Royal College of Radiologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Narainder Gupta, MD, DRM, MSc, FRCR Associate Professor of Clinical Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

Narainder Gupta, MD, DRM, MSc, FRCR is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Thoracic Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Bernard D Coombs, MB, ChB, PhD Consulting Staff, Department of Specialist Rehabilitation Services, Hutt Valley District Health Board, New Zealand

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Udo P Schmiedl, MD, PhD Clinical Professor, Department of Radiology, University of Washington; Consulting Staff, Swedish Medical Center, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle Radiologists

Udo P Schmiedl, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

John Karani, MBBS, FRCR Clinical Director of Radiology and Consultant Radiologist, Department of Radiology, King’s College Hospital, UK

John Karani, MBBS, FRCR is a member of the following medical societies: British Institute of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Royal College of Radiologists, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology, British Society of Interventional Radiology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Zahir Amin, MD, MBBS, MRCP, FRCR Consulting Staff, Department of Imaging, University College Hospital, UK

Zahir Amin, MD, MBBS, MRCP, FRCR is a member of the following medical societies: British Institute of Radiology, British Medical Association, Royal College of Radiologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Imaging 

Research & References of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Imaging |A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source

Leave a Reply