Differentiation of focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic carcinoma: assessment by multiphase contrast-enhanced CT

Differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma using CT characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine informational CT findings for distinguishing autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to review their diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

A systematic and detailed literature review was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. Similar descriptors to embody the identical image finding were labeled as a single CT characteristic. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) of each CT characteristic using a bivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 145 various descriptors from 15 studies (including 562 AIP and 869 PDAC patients) were categorized into 16 CT characteristics. According to the pooled DOR, 16 CT characteristics were classified into three groups (suggesting AIP, suggesting PDAC, and not informational). Seven characteristics suggesting AIP were diffuse pancreatic enlargement (DOR, 48), delayed homogeneous enhancement (DOR, 46), capsule-like rim (DOR, 34), multiple pancreatic masses (DOR, 16), renal involvement (DOR, 15), retroperitoneal fibrosis (DOR, 13), and bile duct involvement (DOR, 8). Delayed homogeneous enhancement showed a pooled sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%. The other six characteristics showed relatively low sensitivity (12-63%) but high specificity (93-99%). Four characteristics suggesting PDAC were discrete pancreatic mass (DOR, 23), pancreatic duct cutoff (DOR, 16), upstream main pancreatic duct dilatation (DOR, 8), and upstream parenchymal atrophy (DOR, 7).

CONCLUSION

Eleven CT characteristics were informational to distinguish AIP from PDAC. Diffuse pancreatic enlargement, delayed homogeneous enhancement, and capsule-like rim suggested AIP with the highest DORs, whereas discrete pancreatic mass suggested PDAC. However, pooled sensitivities of informational CT characteristics were moderate.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This meta-analysis underscores eleven distinctive CT characteristics that aid in differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma, potentially preventing misdiagnoses in patients presenting with focal/diffuse pancreatic enlargement.

KEY POINTS

• Diffuse pancreatic enlargement (pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR], 48), delayed homogeneous enhancement (46), and capsule-like rim (34) were CT characteristics suggesting autoimmune pancreatitis. • The CT characteristics suggesting autoimmune pancreatitis, except delayed homogeneous enhancement, had a general tendency to show relatively low sensitivity (12-63%) but high specificity (93-99%). • Discrete pancreatic mass (pooled diagnostic odds ratio, 23) was the CT characteristic suggesting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with the highest pooled DORs.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%-88%; I2  = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%-97%; I2  = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61-30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94-201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75-85%; I2  = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90-96%; I2  = 74.87%); the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86-21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45-113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42-3.83], P  > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions.

Challenges for clinicians treating autoimmune pancreatitis: Current perspectives

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare disease clinically characterized by obstructive jaundice, unintentional weight loss, acute pancreatitis, focal pancreatic mass, and diabetes. AIP is classified into two subtypes - type 1 and type 2 - according to pathological findings, clinical features, and serology test results, but some cases may be defined as type not otherwise in the absence of pathological findings and inflammatory bowel disease. To address the differences in diagnostic criteria by country, standard diagnostic criteria for AIP were proposed in 2011 by an international consensus of expert opinions. Differential diagnosis of AIP from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is important but remains challenging for clinicians. Fortunately, all subtypes of AIP show dramatic response to steroid treatment. This review discusses the current perspectives on the diagnosis and management of AIP in clinical practice.

A CT based radiomics nomogram for differentiation between focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an CT-based radiomics nomogram for the preoperative differentiation of focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Methods

96 patients with focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have been enrolled in the study (32 and 64 cases respectively). All cases have been confirmed by imaging, clinical follow-up and/or pathology. The imaging data were considered as: 70% training cohort and 30% test cohort. Pancreatic lesions have been manually delineated by two radiologists and image segmentation was performed to extract radiomic features from the CT images. Independent-sample T tests and LASSO regression were used for feature selection. The training cohort was classified using a variety of machine learning-based classifiers, and 5-fold cross-validation has been performed. The classification performance was evaluated using the test cohort. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was then used to develop a radiomics nomogram model, containing the CT findings and Rad-Score. Calibration curves have been plotted showing the agreement between the predicted and actual probabilities of the radiomics nomogram model. Different patients have been selected to test and evaluate the model prediction process. Finally, receiver operating characteristic curves and decision curves were plotted, and the radiomics nomogram model was compared with a single model to visually assess its diagnostic ability.

Results

A total of 158 radiomics features were extracted from each image. 7 features were selected to construct the radiomics model, then a variety of classifiers were used for classification and multinomial logistic regression (MLR) was selected to be the optimal classifier. Combining CT findings with radiomics model, a prediction model based on CT findings and radiomics was finally obtained. The nomogram model showed a good sensitivity and specificity with AUCs of 0.87 and 0.83 in training and test cohorts, respectively. The areas under the curve and decision curve analysis showed that the radiomics nomogram model may provide better diagnostic performance than the single model and achieve greater clinical net benefits than the CT finding model and radiomics signature model individually.

Conclusions

The CT image-based radiomics nomogram model can accurately distinguish between focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients and provide additional clinical benefits.

Radiomics based on diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiation between focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the parameters of support vector machine (SVM) using imaging data generated from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) to differentiate between focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (f-AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) when using SVM based on diffusion-weighted imaging.

METHODS

The 2D-ADCmean and texture parameters (16 texture features × [non-filter+17 filters]) were retrospectively segmented by 2 readers in 28 patients with f-AIP and 77 patients with pathologically proven PDAC. The diagnostic accuracy of the SVM model was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Interreader reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

The 2D-ADCmean and 3D-ADCmean were significantly lower in cases of f-AIP (1.10-1.15 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.21-1.23× 10-3 mm2/s, respectively) vs PDAC (1.29-1.33 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.41-1.43 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively), with excellent and good interreader reliability, respectively (ICC = 0.909 and 0.891, respectively). Among the texture parameters, energy with exponential filtering yielded the highest AUC (Reader 1: 74.7%, Reader 2: 81.5%), with fair interreader reliability (ICC = 0.707). The non-linear SVM, a combination of 2D-ADCmean, object volume and exponential-energy showed an AUC value of 96.2% in the testing cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that non-linear SVM using a combination of 2D-ADCmean, object volume, and exponential-energy may assist in differentiating f-AIP from PDAC.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The radiomics based on an apparent diffusion coefficient value may assist in differentiating f-AIP from PDAC.

The effect of CT texture-based analysis using machine learning approaches on radiologists' performance in differentiating focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic duct carcinoma

PURPOSE

To develop a support vector machine (SVM) classifier using CT texture-based analysis in differentiating focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic duct carcinoma (PD), and to assess the radiologists' diagnostic performance with or without SVM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 50 patients (20 patients with focal-type AIP and 30 patients with PD) who underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced CT. Sixty-two CT texture-based features were extracted from 2D images of the arterial and portal phase CTs. We conducted data compression and feature selections using principal component analysis (PCA) and produced the SVM classifier. Four readers participated in this observer performance study and the statistical significance of differences with and without the SVM was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

The SVM performance indicated a high performance in differentiating focal-type AIP and PD (AUC = 0.920). The AUC for all 4 readers increased significantly from 0.827 to 0.911 when using the SVM outputs (p = 0.010). The AUC for inexperienced readers increased significantly from 0.781 to 0.905 when using the SVM outputs (p = 0.310). The AUC for experienced readers increased from 0.875 to 0.912 when using the SVM outputs, however, there was no significant difference (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The use of SVM classifier using CT texture-based features improved the diagnostic performance for differentiating focal-type AIP and PD on CT.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of MRI features for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To identify reliable MRI features for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to summarize their diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify original articles published between January 2006 and July 2021. The pooled diagnostic accuracy, including the diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the identified features, was calculated using a bivariate random effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included, and 92 overlapping descriptors were subsumed under 16 MRI features. Ten features favoring AIP were diffuse enlargement (DOR, 75; 95% CI, 9-594), capsule-like rim (DOR, 52; 95% CI, 20-131), multiple main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures (DOR, 47; 95% CI, 17-129), homogeneous delayed enhancement (DOR, 46; 95% CI, 21-104), low apparent diffusion coefficient value (DOR, 30), speckled enhancement (DOR, 30), multiple pancreatic masses (DOR, 29), tapered narrowing of MPD (DOR, 15), penetrating duct sign (DOR, 14), and delayed enhancement (DOR, 13). Six features favoring PDAC were target type enhancement (DOR, 41; 95% CI, 11-158), discrete pancreatic mass (DOR, 35; 95% CI, 15-80), upstream MPD dilatation (DOR, 13), peripancreatic fat infiltration (DOR, 10), upstream parenchymal atrophy (DOR, 5), and vascular involvement (DOR, 3).

CONCLUSION

This study identified 16 informative MRI features to differentiate AIP from PDAC. Among them, diffuse enlargement, capsule-like rim, multiple MPD strictures, and homogeneous delayed enhancement favored AIP with the highest DORs, whereas discrete mass and target type enhancement favored PDAC.

KEY POINTS

• The MRI features with the highest pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for autoimmune pancreatitis were diffuse enlargement of the pancreas (75), capsule-like rim (52), multiple strictures of the main pancreatic duct (47), and homogeneous delayed enhancement (46). • The MRI features with the highest pooled DORs for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were target type enhancement (41) and discrete pancreatic mass (35).

Diffuse Involvement of Pancreas is not Always Autoimmune Pancreatitis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of diffuse involvement of pancreas and to identify the findings of malignancies using enhancement computed tomography (CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1,0249 patients performed enhancement CT in our hospital over 62 months were investigated and the final study cohort includes 245 patients (170 males, 75 females; mean age, 56.94 ± 12.17 years). The reference standard is the final clinical/pathological diagnosis. The lesion-to-aorta enhancement ratio (LAR) on the pancreatic arterial phase, portal phase and delayed phase (DP) and the traditional CT findings were evaluated. Intergroup comparisons between malignancies and non-malignancies lesions were performed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify findings predicting malignancies.

RESULTS

The prevalence of malignancy was 45.3% (111/245) of diffuse enlargement of pancreas. All benign lesions were autoimmune pancreatitis 54.7% (n = 134). The most common malignant lesion was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 88, 35.9%). Other rare lesions with malignant potential included pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (n = 11, 4.5%), lymphoma (n = 4, 1.6%), metastasis (n = 4, 1.6%), solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (n = 3, 1.2%) and acinar cell carcinoma (n = 1, 0.4%). Residual normal pancreas parenchyma, heterogeneity, short axis (cut-off value, 3.15 cm) and LARDP (cut-off value, 0.75) were independent predictors of malignancies. When the above predictors were combined, a sensitivity of 94.2%, a specificity of 90.8% were attained.

CONCLUSION

Diffuse involvement of the pancreas is rare and is not a specific sign of autoimmune pancreatitis, and it is associated with a wide spectrum of malignant conditions. Dynamic enhancement CT is helpful to identifying malignancies.

American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for IgG4-related disease: an update for radiologists

IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is an immune-mediated, multiorgan, chronic inflammatory disease. The three-step classification criteria proposed in 2019 by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) encompass a wide range of clinical, radiological, serological, and histopathological findings. The ACR/EULAR proposed a three-step classification process, i.e., entry step, exclusion step, and scoring system. Radiologists need to know that the radiological findings observed in the five domains of the lacrimal and salivary glands, chest, pancreas and biliary ducts, kidney, and retroperitoneum are independently weighted with different points in the scoring system. A total score < 20 points indicates that the patient should not be classified as having IgG4-RD; conversely, a total score ≥ 20 points indicates that the patient should be classified as having IgG4-RD. In this review, the 2019 ACR/EULAR classification criteria are discussed, focusing on the interpretation of each radiological item, with the aim of applying them to the diagnosis of IgG4-RD in clinical practice.

CT Radiomics Features in Differentiation of Focal-Type Autoimmune Pancreatitis from Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the radiomics score (rad-score) for differentiating focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (fAIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

This retrospective review included 42 consecutive patients with fAIP diagnosed according to the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria between January 2011 and December 2018. Furthermore, 334 consecutive patients with PDAC confirmed by pathology were also reviewed during the same period. Patients with PDAC and fAIP were matched via propensity score matching (PSM). All patients underwent multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). For each patient, 1409 radiomics features of the portal phase were extracted and reduced using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression algorithm. The portal rad-score performance was assessed based on its discriminative ability.

RESULTS

After PSM, we matched 55 patients with PDAC to 42 patients with fAIP, based on clinical and CT characteristics (e.g., patient age, sex, body mass index, location, size, enhanced mode). A rad-score for discriminating fAIP from PDAC, which contained four CT derived radiomic features, was developed (area under the curve = 0.97). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the radiomics model were 95.24%, 92.73% and 0.94, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The portal rad-score can accurately and noninvasively differentiate fAIP from PDAC.

Application of dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound in distinguishing focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To explore the value of dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) in preoperative differential diagnosis of focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 2016 to March 2020, patients with biopsy and histopathologically confirmed focal-type AIP (n = 9) were retrospectively included. All patients received contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations one week before surgery/biopsy. Dynamic analysis was performed by VueBox® software (Bracco, Italy). Eighteen cases of resection and histopathologically proved PDAC lesions were also included as control group. B mode ultrasound (BMUS) features, CEUS enhancement patterns, time intensity curves (TICs) and CEUS quantitative parameters were obtained and compared between AIP and PDAC lesions.

RESULTS

After injection of ultrasound contrast agents, most focal-type AIP lesions displayed hyper-enhancement (2/9, 22.2%) or iso-enhancement (6/9, 66.7%) during arterial phase of CEUS, while most of PDAC lesions showed hypo-enhancement (88.9%) (P < 0.01). During late phase, most of AIP lesions showed iso-enhancement (8/9, 88.9%), while most of PDAC lesions showed hypo-enhancement (94.4%) (P < 0.001). Compared with PDAC lesions, TICs of AIP lesions showed delayed and higher enhancement. Among all CEUS perfusion parameters, ratio of PE (peak enhancement), WiAUC (wash-in area under the curve), WiR (wash-in rate), WiPI (wash-in perfusion index, WiPI = WiAUC/ rise time), WoAUC (wash-out area under the curve), WiWoAUC (wash-in and wash-out area under the curve) and WoR (wash-out rate) between pancreatic lesion and surrounding normal pancreatic tissue were significantly higher in AIP lesions than PDAC lesions (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

DCE-US with quantitative analysis has the potential to make preoperative differential diagnosis between focal-type AIP and PDAC non-invasively.

Use of MRI signal intensity ratio to differentiate between autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of the lesion-to-erector spinae signal intensity ratio (SIR) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for distinguishing autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MRI data of 21 patients with AIP and 27 patients with PDA were analysed retrospectively, and the signal intensity in pancreatic lesions and erector spinae muscles at the same level on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), arterial phase (AP) imaging, and delayed phase (DP) imaging was measured for calculation of SIRs.

RESULTS

The mean SIRs of the pancreatic lesions and erector spinae from T2WI, AP, and DP images of AIP patients were 0.96, 1.27, and 1.42, respectively, while those of PDA patients were 1.35, 0.80, and 0.91, respectively. The differences in the SIRs between the AIP and PDA groups were statistically significant (p<0.001), with corresponding area under curve (AUC) values of 0.925, 0.906, and 0.961, respectively. The optimal cut-off values for the SIRs on T2WI, AP and DP images were 1.21, 1.01, and 1.08, respectively. SIR values < 1.21 on T2WI, >1.01 on AP imaging, and >1.08 on DP imaging identified AIP with sensitivities of 85.7%, 90.5%, and 90.5%, respectively, and specificities of 81.5%, 74.6%, and 81.5%, respectively. The AUC values for SIRs did not differ significantly between T2WI and DP imaging or AP and DP imaging (Z = 0.778, p=0.436; Z = 1.279, p=0.201).

CONCLUSION

The SIRs of pancreatic lesions and erector spinae on T2WI, AP, and DP images can be used to differentiate AIP from PDA.

Clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound enhancement patterns for differentiating solid pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

To explore the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) enhancement patterns for differentiating solid pancreatic lesions and compare them with conventional ultrasound (US) and enhanced computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

A total of 210 patients with solid pancreatic lesions who had definite pathological or clinical diagnoses were enrolled. Six CEUS enhancement patterns were proposed for solid pancreatic lesions. Two US doctors blindly observed the CEUS patterns of solid pancreatic lesions and the interrater agreement was analyzed. The diagnostic value of CEUS enhancement patterns for differentiating solid pancreatic lesions was evaluated, and the diagnostic accuracy was compared with that of US and enhanced CT.

RESULTS

There was good concordance for six CEUS enhancement patterns of solid pancreatic lesions between the two doctors, with a kappa value of 0.767. Hypo-enhancement (Hypo-E) or centripetal enhancement (Centri-E) as the diagnostic criteria for pancreatic carcinoma had an accuracy of 87.62%; hyper-enhancement (Hyper-E) for neuroendocrine tumors had an accuracy of 92.89%; capsular enhancement with low or uneven enhancement inside the tumor (Capsular-E) for solid pseudopapillary tumors had an accuracy of 97.63%; and iso-enhancement (Iso-E) or iso-enhancement with focal hypo-enhancement (Iso-fhypo-E) for focal pancreatitis had an accuracy of 89.10%. The diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was significantly different from that of US for 210 cases of solid pancreatic lesions (p < 0.05) and was not significantly different from that of enhanced CT for 146 cases of solid pancreatic lesions (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The different enhancement patterns of solid pancreatic lesions on CEUS were clinically valuable for differentiation.

KEY POINTS

• Six CEUS enhancement (E) patterns, including Hyper-E, Iso-E, Iso-fhypo-E, Hypo-E, Centri-E, and Capsular-E, are proposed for the characterization of solid pancreatic lesions. • Using Hypo-E or Centri-E as the diagnostic criteria for pancreatic carcinoma, Hyper-E for neuroendocrine tumors, Capsular-E for solid pseudopapillary tumors, and Iso-E or Iso-fhypo-E for focal pancreatitis on CEUS had relatively high diagnostic accuracy. • The diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was greatly increased over that of US and was not different from that of enhanced CT.

Multifocal autoimmune pancreatitis: A retrospective study in a single tertiary center of 26 patients with a 20-year literature review

BACKGROUND

Multifocal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), sometimes forming multiple pancreatic masses, is frequently misdiagnosed as pancreatic malignancy in routine clinical practice. It is critical to know the imaging features of multifocal-type AIP to prevent misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies evaluating the value of diffusionweighted imaging (DWI), axial fat-suppressed T1 weighted image (T1WI), and dynamic contrast enhanced-computed tomography (DCE-CT) in detecting the lesions of multifocal-type AIP.

AIM

To clarify the exact prevalence and radiological findings of multifocal AIP in our cohorts and compare the sensitivity of DWI, axial fat-suppressed T1WI, and DCE-CT for detecting AIP lesions. We also compared radiological features between multifocal AIP and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with several key imaging landmarks.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with proven multifocal AIP were retrospectively included. Two blinded independent radiologists rated their confidence level in detecting the lesions on a 5-point scale and assessed the diagnostic performance of DWI, axial fat-suppressed T1WI, and DCE-CT. CT and magnetic resonance imaging of multifocal AIP were systematically reviewed for typical imaging findings and compared with the key imaging features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Among 118 patients with AIP, 26 (22.0%) had multiple lesions (56 lesions). Ulcerative colitis was associated with multifocal AIP in 7.7% (2/26) of patients, and Crohn’s disease was present in 15.3% (4/26) of patients. In multifocal AIP, multiple lesions, delayed homogeneous enhancement, multifocal strictures of the main pancreatic duct, capsule-like rim, lower apparent diffusion coefficient values, and elevated serum Ig4 level were observed significantly more frequently than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, whereas the presence of capsule-like rim in multifocal-type AIP was lower in frequency than total AIP. Of these lesions of multifocal AIP, DWI detected 89.3% (50/56) and 82.1% (46/56) by the senior and junior radiologist, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Multifocal AIP is not as rare as previously thought and was seen in 22.0% of our patients. The diagnostic performance of DWI for detecting multifocal AIP was best followed by axial fat-suppressed T1WI and DCE-CT.

Imaging of inflammatory disease of the pancreas

Increasingly acute and chronic pancreatitis (AP and CP) are considered a continuum of a single entity. Nonetheless, if, after flare-up, the pancreas shows no residual inflammation, it is classified as AP. CP is characterised by a long cycle of worsening and waning glandular inflammation without the pancreas ever returning to its baseline structure or function. According to the International Consensus Guidelines on Early Chronic Pancreatitis, pancreatic inflammation must last at least 6 months before it can be labelled CP. The distinction is important because, unlike AP, CP can destroy endocrine and exocrine pancreatic function, emphasising the importance of early diagnosis. As typical AP can be diagnosed by clinical symptoms plus laboratory tests, imaging is usually reserved for those with recurrent, complicated or CP. Imaging typically starts with ultrasound and more frequently with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). MRI and/or MR cholangiopancreatography can be used as a problem-solving tool to confirm indirect signs of pancreatic mass, differentiate between solid and cystic lesions, and to exclude pancreatic duct anomalies, as may occur with recurrent AP, or to visualise early signs of CP. MR cholangiopancreatography has replaced diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, ERCP, and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) remain necessary for transpapillary biliary or pancreatic duct stenting and transgastric cystic fluid drainage or pancreatic tissue sampling, respectively. Finally, positron emission tomography-MRI or positron emission tomography-CT are usually reserved for complicated cases and/or to search for extra pancreatic systemic manifestations. In this article, we discuss a broad spectrum of inflammatory pancreatic disorders and the utility of various modalities in diagnosing acute and chronic pancreatitis.

[Guideline-based diagnosis of pancreatitis]

BACKGROUND

There is currently no S3 guideline that contains statements on the diagnosis and treatment of acute, chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis in a single guideline.

OBJECTIVES

This article presents the most relevant recommendations relating to radiological imaging from the new "S3 guideline for pancreatitis".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The guideline was developed by the DGVS (German Society for Digestive and Metabolic Diseases). After an online-based Delphi survey, the statements were discussed by an interdisciplinary expert team at a 3-day consensus conference and then agreed upon. The level of evidence scheme (version 2) of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine was used.

RESULTS

The new German "S3 guideline pancreatitis" comprises for the first time all entities of pancreatitis, acute, chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis and contains a large number of innovations with regard to diagnostic imaging and therapy. In addition to the evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and therapy, a German-language glossary of the revised Atlanta classification on acute pancreatitis was adopted by consensus of the interdisciplinary guideline expert team. Furthermore, protocol recommendations for the performance of computed tomography (CT) are provided for the first time. In this article we introduce the key recommendations and innovations in the field of diagnostic radiologic imaging for acute, chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, every radiologist should have deep knowledge of the recommended time intervals for radiological imaging in acute pancreatitis and know the German terms for the description of acute pancreatitis; furthermore they should be able to classify the morphologies to the appropriate stages.

Comparison of five-phase computed tomography images of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: Emphasis on cases with atypical images

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

International consensus diagnostic criteria (ICDC) include characteristic images of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP); however, reports on atypical cases are increasing. The aims of this study were to compare CT findings between AIP and pancreatic cancer (PC), and to analyze type 1 AIPs showing atypical images.

METHODS

Five-phase CT images were compared between 80 type 1-AIP lesions and 80 size- and location-matched PCs in the case-control study. Atypical AIPs were diagnosed based on the four ICDC items.

RESULTS

ICDC items were recognized in most AIP lesions; pancreatic enlargement (87.7%), narrowing of the main pancreatic duct (98.8%), delayed enhancement (100%), and no marked upstream-duct dilation (97.5%). CT values of AIPs increased rapidly until the pancreatic phase and decreased afterward, while those of PCs gradually increased until the delayed phase (P < 0.0001). Atypical images were recognized in 14.8% of AIPs, commonly without pancreatic enlargement (18.5 mm) and sometimes mimicking intraductal neoplasms. The CT values and their ratios were different between atypical AIPs and size-matched PCs most significantly in the pancreatic phase, but similar in the delayed phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Ordinary type 1 AIPs can be diagnosed with the ICDC, but atypical AIPs represented a small fraction. "Delayed enhancement" is characteristic to ordinary AIPs, however, "pancreatic-phase enhancement" is more diagnostic for atypical AIPs.

Differentiation between non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and mass-forming pancreatitis using contrast-enhanced computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) showed slight or iso-enhancement in contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), which shared similar imaging findings with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFPs).

PURPOSE

To explore the value of CT imaging features in differentiating the two diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients with histologically proved MFPs (n = 27) or non-hypervascular PNETs (n = 24) were included. Two radiologists reviewed CT imaging findings and clinical features. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify relevant features in differentiating non-hypervascular PNETs and MFPs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to show the performance of the optimal parameters in differentiating non-hypervascular PNETs and MFPs.

RESULTS

A well-defined margin was more common in non-hypervascular PNETs (P < 0.05) than that in MFPs. MFPs often occurred in older people (P < 0.01) and the head-neck of the pancreas compared with non-hypervascular PNETs (P < 0.05). Metastases only presented in non-hypervascular PNETs (P < 0.05). CT values at venous phase and delay phase of MFPs were higher (P = 0.010 and P = 0.029) than those in non-hypervascular PNETs. Logistic analysis showed gender, tumor margin, CT values at venous phase, and tumor components were independent predictors in differentiating the two lesions. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.938 with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 92.6% for combined predicators.

CONCLUSION

Gender, tumor margin, CT values at venous phase, and tumor components were useful predicators in differentiating non-hypervascular PNETs and MFPs.

Focal Autoimmune Pancreatitis: A Simple Flow Chart for a Challenging Diagnosis

Autoimmune pancreatitis is a chronic fibroinflammatory autoimmune mediated disease of the pancreas. Clinically, obstructive painless jaundice and upper abdominal pain are the main symptoms. Focal AIP is characterized by segmental involvement of pancreatic parenchyma and it is often radiologically represented by a pancreatic mass. In these cases, the diagnosis can be very challenging, since it may be easily confused with pancreatic cancer. Therefore, we suggest a combined approach of imaging tests as the diagnostic workup. EUS study combined with CEUS and elastography, if available, increases the accuracy of the method to rule out cancer. Moreover, the lesion should always be sampled under EUS guidance to obtain a cyto/histological diagnosis. The diagnostic workup should also include the use of diagnostic clinical criteria (extrapancreatic lesions, steroid response) and laboratory findings (CA 19.9 and IgG4 evaluations).

Imaging diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a pancreatic phenotype of IgG4-related systemic disease. Since its first description in the literature, characteristic imaging features have gradually become known to many clinicians encompassing various specialties in the past quarter century. CT and MRI have been the workhorses for imaging diagnosis of AIP. Typical features include sausage-like swelling of the focal or entire pancreas, duct-penetrating sign, a capsule-like rim of the affected lesions, and homogeneous delayed enhancement or enhanced duct sign after contrast administration, as well as characteristic combined findings reflecting coexisting pathologies in the other organs as a systemic disease. In this review, recent and future developments in CT and MRI that may help diagnose AIP are discussed, including restricted diffusion and perfusion and increased elasticity measured using MR.

Meta-analysis of CT and MRI for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To systematically determine the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a comparison between the two imaging modalities.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify original articles published between 2009 and 2019 reporting the diagnostic performance of CT and MRI for differentiating AIP from PDAC. The meta-analytic sensitivity and specificity of CT and MRI were calculated, and compared using a bivariate random effects model. Subgroup analysis for differentiating focal AIP from PDAC was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 856 articles screened, 11 eligible articles are remained, i.e., five studies for CT, four for MRI, and two for both. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity of CT were 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-75%) and 99% (95% CI, 88-100%), respectively, while those of MRI were 84% (95% CI, 68-93%) and 97% (95% CI, 87-99%). MRI had a significantly higher meta-analytic summary sensitivity than CT (84% vs. 59%, p = 0.02) but a similar specificity (97% vs. 99%, p = 0.18). In the subgroup analysis for focal AIP, the sensitivity for distinguishing between focal AIP and PDAC was lower than that for the overall analysis. MRI had a higher sensitivity than CT (76% vs. 50%, p = 0.28) but a similar specificity (97% vs. 98%, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

MRI might be clinically more useful to evaluate patients with AIP, particularly for differentiating AIP from PDAC.

KEY POINTS

• MRI had an overall good diagnostic performance to differentiate AIP from PDAC with a meta-analytic summary estimate of 83% for sensitivity and of 97% for specificity. • CT had a very high specificity (99%), but a suboptimal sensitivity (59%) for differentiating AIP from PDAC. • Compared with CT, MRI had a higher sensitivity, but a similar specificity.

Distinguishing pancreatic cancer and autoimmune pancreatitis with in vivo tomoelastography

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively investigate the stiffness and fluidity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) with tomoelastography, and to evaluate its diagnostic performance in distinguishing the two entities.

METHODS

Tomoelastography provided high-resolution maps of shear wave speed (c in m/s) and phase angle (φ in rad), allowing mechanical characterization of the stiffness and fluidity properties of the pancreas. Forty patients with untreated PDAC and 33 patients with untreated AIP who underwent diagnostic pancreatic MRI at 3-T together with multifrequency MR elastography and tomoelastography data processing were prospectively enrolled. Ten healthy volunteers served as controls. Two radiologists and a technician measured pancreatic stiffness and fluidity independently. The two radiologists also independently evaluated the patients' conventional MR sequences using the following diagnostic score: 1, definitely PDAC; 2, probably PDAC; 3, indeterminate; 4, probably AIP; and 5, definitely AIP. Interobserver agreement was assessed. Stiffness and fluidity of PDAC, AIP, and healthy pancreas, as well as diagnostic performance of tomoelastography and conventional MRI, were compared.

RESULTS

AIP showed significantly lower stiffness and fluidity than PDAC and significantly higher stiffness and fluidity than healthy pancreas. Pancreatic fluidity was not influenced by secondary obstructive changes. The intraclass correlation coefficient for pancreatic stiffness and fluidity by the 3 readers was near-perfect (0.951-0.979, all p < 0.001). Both stiffness and fluidity allowed distinguishing PDAC from AIP. AUCs were 0.906 for stiffness, 0.872 for fluidity, and 0.842 for conventional MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic stiffness and fluidity both allow differentiation of PDAC and AIP with high accuracy.

KEY POINTS

• AIP showed significantly lower stiffness and fluidity than PDAC and significantly higher stiffness and fluidity than healthy pancreas. • Both stiffness and fluidity allowed distinguishing PDAC from AIP. • Pancreatic fluidity could distinguish malignancy from non-malignant secondary obstructive changes.

Differentiation of Focal-Type Autoimmune Pancreatitis From Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Using Radiomics Based on Multiphasic Computed Tomography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop a radiomics model for a differential diagnosis of focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 96 patients, 45 with AIP and 51 with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, were retrospectively evaluated. All patients underwent pretreatment abdominal computed tomography imaging acquired at noncontrast, arterial, and venous phases. Furthermore, 1160 radiomics features were extracted from each phasic image to build radiomics models. The performance of radiomics model was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The results of radiomics model were also compared with those of radiologists' visual assessments.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the optimal radiomics model were 93.3%, 96.1%, and 94.8%, respectively. They were higher than those of the radiologists' assessments with sensitivity of 57.78% and 73.33%, specificity of 88.24% and 90.20%, and accuracy of 75.00% and 81.25%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Radiomics is helpful for a differential diagnosis of AIP in clinical practice as a noninvasive and quantitative method.

European Guideline on IgG4-related digestive disease - UEG and SGF evidence-based recommendations

The overall objective of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related digestive disease in adults and children. IgG4-related digestive disease can be diagnosed only with a comprehensive work-up that includes histology, organ morphology at imaging, serology, search for other organ involvement, and response to glucocorticoid treatment. Indications for treatment are symptomatic patients with obstructive jaundice, abdominal pain, posterior pancreatic pain, and involvement of extra-pancreatic digestive organs, including IgG4-related cholangitis. Treatment with glucocorticoids should be weight-based and initiated at a dose of 0.6-0.8 mg/kg body weight/day orally (typical starting dose 30-40 mg/day prednisone equivalent) for 1 month to induce remission and then be tapered within two additional months. Response to initial treatment should be assessed at week 2-4 with clinical, biochemical and morphological markers. Maintenance treatment with glucocorticoids should be considered in multi-organ disease or history of relapse. If there is no change in disease activity and burden within 3 months, the diagnosis should be reconsidered. If the disease relapsed during the 3 months of treatment, immunosuppressive drugs should be added.

Inflammatory mimickers of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma can be a difficult imaging diagnosis early in its course given its subtle imaging findings such as focal pancreatic duct dilatation, abrupt duct cut-off, and encasement of vasculature. A variety of pancreatitidies have imaging findings that mimic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and lead to mass formation making diagnosis even more difficult on imaging alone. These conditions include acute focal pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and paraduodenal ("groove") pancreatitis. This review will focus on imaging findings that can help differentiate these inflammatory processes from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Differentiation of focal autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is an inflammatory process of the pancreas that occurs most commonly in elderly males and clinically can mimic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and present with jaundice, weight loss, and abdominal pain. Mass-forming lesions in the pancreas are seen in the focal form of AIP and both clinical and imaging findings can overlap those of pancreatic cancer. The accurate distinction of AIP from pancreatic cancer is of utmost importance as it means avoiding unnecessary surgery in AIP cases or inaccurate steroid treatment in patients with pancreatic cancer. Imaging concomitantly with serological examinations (IgG4 and Ca 19-9) plays an important role in the distinction between these entities. Characteristic extra-pancreatic manifestations as well as favorable good response to treatment with steroids are characteristic of AIP. This paper will review current diagnostic parameters useful in differentiating between focal AIP and pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Diagnostic imaging guide for autoimmune pancreatitis

The International Consensus Diagnosis Criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) has been published internationally for the diagnosis of AIP. However, since the revisions in 2006 and 2011, the Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Autoimmune Pancreatitis 2018 have been published. The criteria were revised based the Clinical Diagnostic Criteria 2011, and included descriptions of characteristic imaging findings such as (1) pancreatic enlargement and (2) distinctive narrowing of the main pancreatic duct. In addition, pancreatic duct images obtained by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography as well as conventional endoscopic retrograde pancreatography were newly adopted. The guideline explains some characteristic imaging findings, but does not contain descriptions of the imaging methods, such as detailed imaging parameters and optimal timings of dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. It is a matter of concern that imaging methods can vary from hospital to hospital. Although other characteristic findings have been reported, these findings were not described in the guideline. The present paper describes the imaging methods for obtaining optimal images and the characteristic imaging findings with the aim of standardizing image quality and improving diagnostic accuracy when radiologists diagnose AIP in actual clinical settings.

A feasible CT feature to differentiate focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether the relative computed tomography (CT) value (rCT) of adjacent pancreatic parenchyma can distinguish focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (fAIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

A total of 13 patients with fAIP and 20 patients with PDAC were included in this study. The rCT was calculated as the ratio of the CT value of adjacent pancreatic parenchyma to that of muscle. The diagnostic performance of rCT for discriminating fAIP from PDAC was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

Both fAIP and PDAC presented hyper-fibrosis histologically and delayed enhancement on CT examination. Moreover, the pancreatic parenchyma of fAIP presented serious inflammation. The mean rCT of the parenchyma was significantly lower in fAIP than in PDAC in all phases. The best diagnostic performance of the rCT value was found in the pancreatic phase, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.912, while the areas under the ROC curve of the portal and delayed phases were 0.812 and 0.754, respectively. The optimal cut-off value for distinguishing fAIP from PDAC was 1.62 in the pancreatic phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The rCT of the pancreatic parenchyma during the pancreatic phase may be a feasible CT feature for differentiating fAIP from PDAC.

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.

Differentiating focal autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: contrast-enhanced MRI with special emphasis on the arterial phase

OBJECTIVES

To compare focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) using contrast-enhanced MR imaging (CE-MRI), and to assess diagnostic performance of the lesion contrast at arterial phase (AP) (Contrast_AP) for differentiating between the two diseases.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients with focal-type AIP and 72 patients with PDA were included. All included patients underwent CE-MRI with triple phases. The signal intensity (SI) of the mass and normal pancreas was measured at each phase, and the lesion contrast (SI_pancreas/SI_mass) was compared between AIP and PDA groups. The sensitivity and specificity of Contrast_AP using an optimal cutoff point were compared with those of key imaging features specific to AIP and PDA.

RESULTS

The lesion contrast differed significantly between AIP and PDA groups at all phases of CE-MRI; the maximum difference was observed at AP. For AIP, the sensitivity (94.4%) and specificity (87.5%) of Contrast_AP (cutoff ≤ 1.41) were comparable or significantly higher than those of all key imaging features (sensitivity, 38.9-88.9%; specificity, 48.6-95.8%), except for the halo sign. For PDA, the sensitivity (87.5%) and specificity (94.4%) of Contrast_AP (cutoff > 1.41) were comparable or significantly higher than those of all key imaging features (sensitivity, 40.3-68.1%; specificity, 72.2-94.4%), except for the discrete mass.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative analysis of the lesion contrast using CE-MRI, particularly at AP, was helpful to differentiate focal-type AIP from PDA. The diagnostic performance of Contrast_AP was mostly comparable or higher than those of the key imaging features.

KEY POINTS

• Diagnosis of focal-type AIP vs. PDA using imaging techniques is extremely challenging. • Lesion contrast in the arterial-phase MRI differs significantly between focal-type AIP and PDA. • Quantitative analysis of lesion contrast using CE-MRI, particularly at the arterial phase, is helpful to differentiate focal-type AIP from PDA.

Small pancreatic ductal carcinomas on triple-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography: enhanced rims and the pathologic correlation

PURPOSE

To reveal the prevalence of small (≤ 20 mm) pancreatic ductal carcinomas with enhanced rims on triple-phase contrast-enhanced CT and correlate the CT images with the pathologic findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2005 and April 2016, 45 patients underwent preoperative triple-phase contrast-enhanced CT and were pathologically diagnosed with small pancreatic ductal carcinoma. CT images were independently reviewed by two radiologists. The attenuation values of the enhanced rims, internal areas of the tumors, and surrounding pancreatic parenchyma were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. These areas were also correlated with the pathologic findings. Tumor invasiveness was compared between the tumors with and without enhanced rims using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Enhanced rims were identified in 18 tumors (40%) by consensus between the two reviewers. The enhanced rims showed significantly higher mean attenuation values compared with the internal areas of the tumors (p < 0.001) and surrounding pancreatic parenchyma (p < 0.0086), and were most clearly visualized on equilibrium phase. The enhanced rims pathologically reflected the abundant fibrotic stroma with cancer cells in all tumors. There was no statistically significant difference in tumor invasiveness between the tumors with and without enhanced rims (anterior peripancreatic invasion, p = 0.137; posterior peripancreatic invasion, p = 0.758; portal vein invasion, p = 0.639; and lymph node metastases, p = 0.359).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced rims were detected at a rate of 40% in small pancreatic ductal carcinomas and could be an important finding for diagnosis on CT images, but did not suggest a less aggressive nature.

Comparison of diagnostic performance between CT and MRI in differentiating non-diffuse-type autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To intraindividually compare the diagnostic performance of CT and MRI in differentiating non-diffuse-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA).

METHODS

Sixty-one patients with non-diffuse-type AIP and 122 patients with PDA, who underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI with MR pancreatography, were included. Two blinded radiologists independently rated their confidence in differentiating the two diseases on a 5-point scale, and the diagnostic performances of CT and MRI were compared. The presence of key imaging features to differentiate AIP and PDA were compared between CT and MRI.

RESULTS

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater on MRI (0.993-0.995) than on CT (0.953-0.976) for both raters (p≤0.035). The sensitivities of MRI were higher than those of CT for the diagnosis of AIP (88.5-90.2% vs. 77-80.3%, p≤0.07) and PDA (97.5-99.2% vs. 91.8-94.3%, p≤0.031) for both raters, although the difference for AIP was statistically marginal (p=0.07) for rater 1. In AIP, multiple pancreatic masses, delayed homogeneous enhancement of the pancreatic mass, and multiple main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures were observed significantly more frequently using MRI than CT (p≤0.008). In PDA, discrete pancreatic mass and MPD stricture were observed significantly more frequently using MRI than CT (p≤0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic performance of MRI is better for differentiating non-diffuse-type AIP from PDA, which is due to the superiority of MRI over CT in demonstrating the key distinguishing features of both diseases.

KEY POINTS

• Imaging differential diagnosis of non-diffuse-type AIP and PDA is challenging. • MRI has better diagnostic performance than CT in differentiating non-diffuse-type AIP from PDA. • MRI is superior to CT in demonstrating key distinguishing features of non-diffuse-type AIP and PDA.

Multiple solid pancreatic lesions: Prevalence and features of non-malignancies on dynamic enhanced CT

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of multiple solid pancreatic lesions on dynamic enhanced CT performed for suspected pancreatic diseases, and to identify CT features of non-malignancies.

METHODS

We investigated 8096 consecutive patients who underwent dynamic enhanced CT pancreas protocol at a tertiary center over 40 months. The final clinical /pathological diagnosis served as reference standard. The diagnostic accuracy of dynamic enhanced CT for non-malignancies was calculated. A univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to identify features that predict non-malignancies.

RESULTS

Multiple solid pancreatic lesions were identified in 121 patients. The prevalence of non-malignancies was 19.8% (24/121). The most common non-malignancy was autoimmune pancreatitis (n = 21; 17.4%). Common lesions with malignant potential included neuroendocrine neoplasia (n = 62; 51.2%), ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 15; 12.4%), metastasis (n = 9; 7.4%), and lymphoma (n = 7; 5.8%). Dynamic enhanced CT had a sensitivity of 79.2% and a specificity of 92.8% for diagnosing non-malignancies. Elevated serum IgG4 level (p < 0.001), hypo-enhancement in arterial phase (p = 0.001), hyper-enhancement in equilibrium phase (p = 0.009) and location in both proximal and distal pancreas (p = 0.036) were predictors of non-malignancies, whereas pancreatic duct morphology and vascular invasion status were not.

CONCLUSION

Multiple solid pancreatic lesions were rare, with a wide spectrum. Dynamic enhanced CT provides clues for identifying non-malignancies.

Abdominal manifestations of IgG4-related disease: a pictorial review

In the last decade, autoimmune pancreatitis has become recognised as part of a wider spectrum of IgG4-related disease, typically associated with elevated serum IgG4 levels and demonstrating a response to corticosteroid therapy. Radiologically, there is imaging overlap with other benign and neoplastic conditions. This pictorial review discusses the intra-abdominal manifestations of this disease on cross-sectional imaging before and after steroid treatment and the main radiological features which help to distinguish it from other key differentials.

TEACHING POINTS

• Autoimmune pancreatitis is part of a spectrum of IgG4-related disease. • Diagnosis is based on raised serum IgG4, clinical, radiological and histopathological findings. • Cross-sectional imaging can demonstrate the typical findings of abdominal IgG4-related disease. • Cross-sectional imaging can be used to monitor response to corticosteroid treatment.

Differentiation of pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging: The value of contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted imaging

Pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (PNEC) is often misdiagnosed as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This retrospective study differentiated PNEC from PDAC using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including contrast-enhanced (CE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Clinical data and MRI findings, including the T1/T2 signal, tumor boundary, size, enhancement degree, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), were compared between 37 PDACs and 13 PNECs. Boundaries were more poorly defined in PDAC than PNEC (97.3% vs. 61.5%, p<0.01). Hyper-/isointensity was more common in PNEC than PDAC at the arterial (38.5% vs. 0.0), portal (46.2% vs. 2.7%) and delayed phases (46.2% vs. 5.4%) (all p<0.01). Lymph node metastasis (97.3% vs. 61.5%, p<0.01) and local invasion/distant metastasis (86.5% vs. 46.2%, p<0.01) were more common in PDAC than PNEC. Enhancement degree via CE-MRI was higher in PNEC than PDAC at the arterial and portal phases (p<0.01). PNEC ADC values were lower than those of normal pancreatic parenchyma (p<0.01) and PDAC (p<0.01). Arterial and portal phase signal intensity ratios and ADC values showed the largest areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve and good sensitivities (92.1%–97.2%) and specificities (76.9%–92.3%) for differentiating PNEC from PDAC. Thus the enhancement degree at the arterial and portal phases and the ADC values may be useful for differentiating PNEC from PDAC using MRI.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Can Be Used to Rule Out Malignancy in Autoimmune Pancreatitis Patients

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review the suitability of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for ruling out malignancy in autoimmune pancreatitis patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 40 autoimmune pancreatitis patients (type 1:37 patients; type 2: two patients; possible autoimmune pancreatitis: one patient) who received EUS-FNA. Among the 40 autoimmune pancreatitis patients, 34 were not histopathologically diagnosed with autoimmune pancreatitis by EUS-FNA, and they were followed up for more than 6 months in our hospital. Moreover, 14 pancreatic cancer patients who were not diagnosed by EUS-FNA were selected as a control group. These 14 patients constituted 3.9% of the 360 pancreatic cancer patients who received EUS-FNA. We evaluated the prognoses of the 34 autoimmune pancreatitis patients and the clinical differences between these 34 autoimmune pancreatitis patients and the 14 pancreatic cancer patients.

RESULTS

All 34 autoimmune pancreatitis patients showed reduced pancreatic swelling. The main pancreatic duct dilation ( > 3 mm), the diameter of the main pancreatic duct, the capsule-like rim sign, and serum CA19-9 levels were significantly different between the autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer patients (2.9% versus 69.2%, P < .01; 1.7 ± 1.6 mm versus 6.8 ± 5.0 mm, P < .01; 79.4% versus 0%, P < .01; 41.4 ± 79.0 U/mL versus 2079.1 ± 275.3 U/mL, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all pancreatic cancers can be diagnosed by EUS-FNA. Furthermore, other clinical characteristics of pancreatic cancer undiagnosed by EUS-FNA were different from autoimmune pancreatitis undiagnosed by EUS-FNA. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided FNA can be used to rule out malignancy in autoimmune pancreatitis patients.

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.

Differentiation of pancreatic carcinoma and mass-forming focal pancreatitis: qualitative and quantitative assessment by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI combined with diffusion-weighted imaging

Differentiation between pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and mass-forming focal pancreatitis (FP) is invariably difficult. For the differential diagnosis, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in PC and FP in the present study. This study included 32 PC and 18 FP patients with histological confirmation who underwent DCE-MRI and DWI. The time-signal intensity curve (TIC) of PC and FP were classified into 5 types according to the time of reaching the peak, namely, type I, II, III, IV, and V, respectively, and two subtypes, namely, subtype-a (washout type) and subtype-b (plateau type) according to the part of the TIC profile after the peak. Moreover, the mean and relative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value between PC and FP on DWI were compared. The type V TIC was only recognized in PC group (P < 0.01). Type IV b were more frequently observed in PC (P = 0.036), while type- IIa (P < 0.01), type- Ia (P = 0.037) in FP. We also found a significant difference in the mean and relative ADC value between PC and FP. The combined image set of DCE-MRI and DWI yielded an excellent sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (96.9%, 94.4%, and 96.0%). The TIC of DCE-MRI and ADC value of DWI for pancreatic mass were found to provide reliable information in differentiating PC from FP, and the combination of DCE-MRI and DWI can achieve a higher sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy.

Differentiation of mass-forming focal pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: value of characterizing dynamic enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced MR images by adding signal intensity color mapping

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the value of dynamic enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced MR images by adding signal intensity colour mapping (SICM) to differentiate mass-forming focal pancreatitis (MFFP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Forty-one clinicopathologically proven MFFPs and 144 surgically confirmed PDACs were enrolled. Laboratory and MR imaging parameters were used to differentiate MFFP from PDAC. In particular, enhancement patterns on MR images adding SICM were evaluated. By using classification tree analysis (CTA), we determined the predictors for the differentiation of MFFP from PDAC.

RESULTS

In the CTA, with all parameters except enhancement pattern on SICM images, ductal obstruction grade and T1 hypointensity grade of the pancreatic lesion were the first and second splitting predictor for differentiation of MFFP from PDAC, in order. By adding an enhancement pattern on the SICM images to CTA, the enhancement pattern was the only splitting predictor to differentiate MFFP from PDAC. The CTA model including enhancement pattern on SICM images has sensitivity of 78.0 %, specificity of 99.3 %, and accuracy of 94.6 % for differentiating MFFP from PDAC.

CONCLUSION

The characterization of enhancement pattern for pancreatic lesions on contrast-enhanced MR images adding SICM would be helpful to differentiate MFFP from PDAC.

KEY POINTS

• SICM was useful to characterize enhancement pattern. • Enhancement pattern on SICM was the only splitting predictor on CTA. • This model may be useful for differentiating MFFP from PDAC.

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography of Pancreatic Carcinoma: Correlation with Pathologic Findings

We concluded that contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has clinical value in identifying the pathologic changes of pancreatic carcinomas. Forty-three patients diagnosed with pancreatic carcinoma through surgery were retrospectively investigated. CEUS examinations were performed on all patients before surgery. Enhancement patterns on CEUS were observed. Time-intensity curves of CEUS were generated for the regions of interest in the pancreas, and quantitative parameters were obtained. Resected cancer specimens were stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histologic analysis, and the microvascular density (MVD) of the specimens was determined by CD34 immunohistochemical staining. Enhancement patterns of CEUS were compared with histopathologic findings in pancreatic carcinomas. Correlations between time-intensity curve parameters and microvascular density were analyzed. Twenty cases manifested centripetal enhancement, and 23 cases, global enhancement. The amount of tumor necrosis or mucus in the centripetally enhanced pancreatic carcinomas was greater than that in the globally enhanced pancreatic carcinomas (p = 0.027). Thirty-eight of 43 (88.4%) pancreatic carcinomas manifested hypo-enhancement with a maximum intensity (IMAX) <90%. Contrast arrival time in pancreatic carcinoma was longer than that in adjacent pancreatic tissue (p < 0.05). IMAX was positively correlated with microvascular density (r = 0.577, p < 0.05). We concluded that CEUS manifestations could reflect the histologic changes of pancreatic carcinomas and CEUS can be used to evaluate blood perfusion of tumors, as IMAX is positively correlated with microvascular density.

Recent developments in steroid-responsive pancreatitides (autoimmune pancreatitis)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are two distinct steroid responsive chronic fibro-inflammatory diseases of the pancreas, called type 1 and type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). We review recent progress in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

It has recently been suggested that the term AIP be used to describe type 1 AIP and the term idiopathic duct-centric chronic pancreatitis (IDCP) be used for type 2 AIP. Clinical features and long-term outcomes of AIP and IDCP are well characterized and prognosis of both diseases is excellent. Diagnostic strategies tailored to regional practice patterns have emerged with the application of International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for AIP. Although corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment, management of relapses and strategies for preventing multiple relapses are better understood, including the role of maintenance therapy and B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab. Association studies with malignancies have yielded conflicting results regarding risk of cancer in AIP.

SUMMARY

The treatment, follow-up guidelines and associations continue to evolve with our increasing experience with both AIP and IDCP. In AIP, rituximab can be used for both induction and maintenance of remission. IDCP responds to steroids without need for maintenance therapy. Both AIP and IDCP have excellent prognosis.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors containing areas of iso- or hypoattenuation in dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography: Spectrum of imaging findings and pathological grading

PURPOSE

To evaluate dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) features of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) containing areas of iso- or hypoattenuation and the relationship with pathological grading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2006 and March 2014, 61 PNETs in 58 consecutive patients (29 male, 29 female; median-age 55 years), which were surgically diagnosed, underwent preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced CT. PNETs were classified based on contrast enhancement patterns in the pancreatic phase: iso/hypo-PNETs were defined as tumors containing areas of iso- or hypoattenuation except for cystic components, and hyper-PNETs were tumors showing hyperattenuation over the whole area. CT findings and contrast-enhancement patterns of the tumors were evaluated retrospectively by two radiologists and compared with the pathological grading.

RESULTS

Iso/hypo-PNETs comprised 26 tumors, and hyper-PNETs comprised 35 tumors. Not only hyper-PNETs but also most iso/hypo-PNETs showed peak enhancement in the pancreatic phase and a washout from the portal venous phase to the delayed phase. Iso/hypo-PNETs showed larger tumor size than the hyper-PNETs (mean, 3.7 cm vs. 1.6 cm; P<0.001), and were significantly correlated with unclear tumor margins (n=4 vs. n=0; P=0.029), the existence of cystic components (n=10 vs. n=3; P=0.006), intratumoral blood vessels in the early arterial phase (n=13 vs. n=3; P<0.001), and a smooth rim enhancement in the delayed phase (n=12 vs. n=6; P=0.019). Iso/hypo-PNETs also showed significantly higher pathological grading (WHO 2010 classification; iso/hypo, G1=14, G2=11, G3=1; hyper, G1=34, G2=1; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

PNETs containing iso/hypo-areas showed a rapid enhancement pattern as well as hyper-PNETs, various radiological features and higher malignant potential.