Differentiation of pancreatic head ductal adenocarcinoma from inflammatory pancreatic pseudomass by MR cholangio-pancreatography: utility of the duct-interrupted, corona, and attraction signs

Magnetic resonance elastography-derived stiffness: potential imaging biomarker for differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic masses

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to determine the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for pancreatic solid masses, compared with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and serum CA19-9, to establish a threshold for differentiating between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and benign tumors in pancreas.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between July 2021 to January 2023, 75 adult patients confirmed with pancreatic solid tumors were enrolled in this prospective and consecutive study. All patients underwent MRE and DWI examinations that were both performed with a spin echo-EPI sequence. Stiffness maps and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were generated, with MRE-derived mass stiffness and stiffness ratio (computing as the ratio of mass stiffness to the parenchyma stiffness) and DWI-derived ADC values obtained by placing regions of interest over the focal tumors on stiffness and ADC maps. Further analysis of comparing diagnostic performances was assessed by calculating the area under ROC curves.

RESULTS

PDAC had significantly higher tumor stiffness [3.795 (2.879-4.438) kPa vs. 2.359 (2.01-3.507) kPa, P = 0.0003], stiffness ratio [1.939 (1.562-2.511) vs. 1.187 (1.031-1.453), P < 0.0001] and serum CA19-9 level [276 (31.73-1055) vs. 10.45 (7.825-14.15), P < 0.0001] than other pancreatic masses. Mass stiffness, stiffness ratio and serum CA19-9 showed good diagnostic performance for differentiation with AUC of 0.7895, 0.8392 and 0.9136 respectively. The sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value/negative predictive value for differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic tumors with mass stiffness (cutoff, > 2.8211 kPa) and stiffness ratio (cutoff, > 1.5117) were 78.4/66.7/82.9/60% and 77.8/83.3/90.3/65.2% respectively. The combined performance of Mass stiffness, stiffness ratio and serum CA19-9 got an AUC of 0.9758.

CONCLUSION

MRE holds excellent clinical potential in discriminating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from other pancreatic solid masses according to their mechanical properties.

Groove pancreatitis and how to differentiate it from pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Groove pancreatitis is an uncommon type of chronic pancreatitis that affects the space between the head of the pancreas, the second portion of the duodenum, and the common bile duct. The main trigger is chronic alcohol abuse, which eventually leads to leakage of pancreatic juices into the pancreaticoduodenal groove, causing inflammation and fibrosis. The main differential diagnosis is with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is more common than groove pancreatitis. Different imaging techniques make it possible to identify various findings (e.g., duodenal thickening or duodenal and paraduodenal cysts, which are characteristic of groove pancreatitis) that sometimes enable differentiation between groove pancreatitis and other entities, although there are no specific findings for each of them. Sometimes biopsy or surgery is required to establish the definitive diagnosis. The treatment of groove pancreatitis is usually conservative, but in cases in which the symptoms do not improve, interventional procedures (biliary drainage) or surgery (Whipple technique) can be done.

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Diagnostic Errors, Contributing Factors and Solutions

The purpose of this article is to review diagnostic errors in preoperative and post-operative imaging for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), discuss contributing factors, and provide solutions that minimize errors. Accurate radiological staging and restaging of PDAC dictates surgical management and errors can have significant negative effects on patient care, such as missed vessel involvement or metastatic disease that would preclude surgery. Familiarity with these errors and their contributing factors improves diagnostic accuracy and ultimately leads to improved patient outcomes.