Invasive carcinomas originating from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: conspicuity and primary sites of the solid masses on triple-phase dynamic CT imaging

Invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: relationships between mural nodules detected on thin-section contrast-enhanced MDCT and invasive components

PURPOSE

To elucidate the relationships between mural nodules (MNs) and invasive components in patients with invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) on the basis of thin-section contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (CE-MDCT) and pathologic findings.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 28 patients with surgically confirmed invasive IPMN. Two radiologists independently evaluated the thin-section (1-mm section thickness, no overlap) triple-phase CE-MDCT images for MNs, invasive components, and the continuity between them using a five-point scale (confidence scores of 1-3 as negative, 4 and 5 as positive). Kappa statistic was used to evaluate interobserver agreement. The CE-MDCT findings were correlated with pathologic findings.

RESULTS

Interobserver agreement was good or excellent. MNs consisting of tumor cells were recognized in 12 (42.9%) of 28 patients with no discrepancy between the two radiologists. Invasive components were detected in 85.7% and 82.1% in the pancreatic parenchymal phase for radiologist 1 and 2, respectively, and recognized as hypoattenuating areas. Pathologic continuities between MNs and invasive components were confirmed in five (41.7%) of 12 patients with MNs and these were detected on CE-MDCT. When combined seven patients without continuities between MNs and invasive components and 16 patients without MNs, the invasive components pathologically derived from non-nodular low-height papillary epithelium in 23 (82.1%) of 28 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The invasive components derived more often from low-height papillary epithelium without MN appearance on CE-MDCT than from MN. Careful attention should be paid to the existence of an invasive component even in the absence of an enhancing MN.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

What Is the Best Way to Identify Malignant Transformation Within Pancreatic IPMN: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasias (IPMNs) represent 25% of all cystic neoplasms and are precursor lesions for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to identify the best imaging modality for detecting malignant transformation in IPMN, the sensitivity and specificity of risk features on imaging, and the usefulness of tumor markers in serum and cyst fluid to predict malignancy in IPMN.

METHODS

Databases were searched from November 2006 to March 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic techniques/imaging features of suspected malignancy in IPMN using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic (HSROC) approach were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 467 eligible studies were identified, of which 51 studies met the inclusion criteria and 37 of these were incorporated into meta-analyses. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for risk features predictive of malignancy on computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging were 0.809 and 0.762 respectively, and on positron emission tomography were 0.968 and 0.911. Mural nodule, cyst size, and main pancreatic duct dilation found on imaging had pooled sensitivity for prediction of malignancy of 0.690, 0.682, and 0.614, respectively, and specificity of 0.798, 0.574, and 0.687. Raised serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels yielded sensitivity of 0.380 and specificity of 0903. Combining parameters yielded a sensitivity of 0.743 and specificity of 0.906.

CONCLUSIONS

PET holds the most promise in identifying malignant transformation within an IPMN. Combining parameters increases sensitivity and specificity; the presence of mural nodule on imaging was the most sensitive whereas raised serum CA19-9 (>37 KU/l) was the most specific feature predictive of malignancy in IPMNs.

Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography

AIM: To elucidate the role of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography (CE-EUS) in the diagnosis of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (BD-IPMN).

METHODS: A total of 50 patients diagnosed with BD-IPMN by computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) at our institute were included in this study. CE-EUS was performed when mural lesions were detected by EUS. The diagnostic accuracy for identifying mural nodules (MNs) was evaluated by CT, EUS, and EUS combined with CE-EUS. In the patients who underwent resection, the accuracy of measuring MN height with each imaging modality was compared. The cut-off values to diagnose malignant BD-IPMNs based on MN height for each imaging modality were determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS: Fifteen patients were diagnosed with BD-IPMN with MNs and underwent resection. The remaining 35 patients were diagnosed with BD-IPMN without MNs and underwent follow-up monitoring. The pathological findings revealed 14 cases with MNs and one case without. The accuracy for diagnosing MNs was 92% using CT and 72% using EUS; the diagnostic accuracy increased to 98% when EUS and CE-EUS were combined. The accuracy for measuring MN height significantly improved when using CE-EUS compared with using CT or EUS (median measurement error value, CT: 3.3 mm vs CE-EUS: 0.6 mm, P < 0.05; EUS: 2.1 mm vs CE-EUS: 0.6 mm, P < 0.01). A cut-off value of 8.8 mm for MN height as measured by CE-EUS improved the accuracy of diagnosing malignant BD-IPMN to 93%.

CONCLUSION: Using CE-EUS to measure MN height provides a highly accurate method for differentiating benign from malignant BD-IPMN.