Echo-enhanced ultrasound--a new imaging modality for the differentiation of pancreatic lesions

Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions--a comparison of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced CT

OBJECTIVE

To explore the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) by comparison with conventional ultrasound (US) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in solid pancreatic lesions.

METHOD

Ninety patients with solid pancreatic focal lesions were enrolled, including 36 cases of pancreatic carcinoma, 28 cases of pancreatitis, 6 cases of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, 12 cases of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas, 6 cases of pancreatic metastases, 1 case of cavernous hemolymphangioma and 1 case of lymphoma. US and CEUS were applied respectively for the diagnosis of a total of 90 cases of solid pancreatic lesions. The diagnostic results were scored on a 5-point scale. Results of CEUS were compared with CECT.

RESULTS

(1) 3-score cases (undetermined) diagnosed by CEUS were obviously fewer than that of US, while the number of 1-score (definitely benign) and 5-score (definitely malignant) cases diagnosed by CEUS was significantly more than that of US. There was a significant difference in the distribution of final scores using the two methods (p<0.001). The overall diagnostic accuracies of the 90 cases for CEUS and US were 83.33% and 44.44%, respectively, which indicated an obvious advantage for CEUS (p<0.001). (2) The diagnostic consistency among three ultrasound doctors: the kappa values calculated for US were 0.537, 0.444 and 0.525, compared with 0.748, 0.645 and 0.795 for CEUS. The interobserver agreement for CEUS was higher than that for US. (3) The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma with CEUS and CECT were 91.7% and 97.2%, 87.0% and 88.9%, and 88.9% and 92.2%, respectively, while for the diagnosis of pancreatitis, the corresponding indices were 82.1% and 67.9%, 91.9% and 100%, and 88.9% and 90%, respectively, showing no significant differences (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

CEUS has obvious superiority over conventional US in the general diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions and in the diagnostic consistency among doctors. The performances of CEUS are similar to that of CECT in the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma and focal pancreatitis.

Quantitative perfusion analysis of transabdominal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of pancreatic masses and carcinomas

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Preoperative differential diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and focal masses in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) can be challenging. There are fine differences in the vascularization of these lesions; ultrasound contrast agents can aid in their differentiation. We evaluated the value of software-aided quantitative analysis of transabdominal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for differential diagnosis of PDAC vs focal masses.

METHODS

Sixty patients for whom it was not possible to differentiate between an inflammatory focal lesion of the pancreas and a pancreatic carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with a second-generation contrast agent. Time-intensity curves were obtained for all exams in 2 regions of interest within the lesion and within the normal pancreatic tissue. Images were processed using Axius ACQ software; the following parameters were obtained: maximum intensity, arrival time, time-to-peak, and area under the curve. Absolute values and differences between the lesion and the normal tissue were evaluated.

RESULTS

Histology analysis revealed 45 PDACs and 15 inflammatory masses in patients with CP. Time-dependent parameters (arrival time and time to peak) were significantly longer in PDACs compared to focal masses. Although markedly lower than in healthy pancreata, the maximum intensity and area under the curve parameters were not significantly different between PDACs and focal lesions in patients with CP.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases of CP, PDAC and focal masses exhibit different perfusion patterns at a capillary level that can be visualized using the small microbubbles of ultrasound contrast agents. Contrast quantification software supplements a subjective visual assessment with objective criteria to facilitate the differential diagnosis of focal lesions in pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis.

Value of ultrasound examination in differential diagnosis of pancreatic lymphoma and pancreatic cancer

AIM: To investigate the value of clinical manifestations and ultrasound examination in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic lymphoma and pancreatic cancer.

METHODS: The clinical and ultrasonic characteristics of 12 cases of pancreatic lymphoma and 30 cases of pancreatic cancer were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found in the course of disease, back pain, jaundice, carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) and CA19-9 increase, palpable abdominal lump, superficial lymph node enlargement, fever and night sweats, lesion size, bile duct expansion, pancreatic duct expansion, vascular involvement, retroperitoneal (below the renal vein level) lymph node enlargement, and intrahepatic metastasis between pancreatic lymphoma and pancreatic cancer. There were no significant differences in age of onset, gender ratio, weight loss, nausea and vomiting, lesion position, the echo of the lesion, and the blood flow of the lesion.

CONCLUSION: Pancreatic lymphoma should be considered for patients with long lasting symptoms, superficial lymph node enlargement, palpable abdominal lump, fever and night sweats, relatively large lesions, and retroperitoneal (below the level of the renal vein) lymph node enlargement. A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should be considered more likely in the patients with relatively short disease course, jaundice, back pain, CEA and CA19-9 increase, relatively small lesions, bile duct expansion, obvious pancreatic duct expansion, peripheral vascular wrapping and involvement, or intrahepatic metastases.

Pancreatic imaging: current and emerging technologies

This review discusses the current imaging modalities for the diagnosis and staging of solid and cystic pancreatic lesions and for the assessment of acute and chronic pancreatitis, and the future role of emerging technologies in the management of pancreatic diseases. Multidetector row spiral computed tomography is superior to conventional single-detector row spiral computed tomography in the detection and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Positron emission tomography is a sensitive but relatively nonspecific diagnostic modality. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography fusion may improve the staging accuracy for pancreatic cancer. Echo-enhanced ultrasound may have an emerging role in evaluating pancreatic masses. Endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration for cytology is the single best method for diagnosis and staging of nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer with a high accuracy for determining tumor resectability. In acute pancreatitis, a modification of the standard computed tomography severity index, which places greater emphasis on extrapancreatic complications, has shown superior correlation with various patient outcome measures. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is still the test of choice for morphological evaluation of chronic pancreatitis, whereas magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography offers a noninvasive alternative in selected patients. Endoscopic ultrasound can be useful for detecting early chronic pancreatitis. Secretin-stimulated imaging techniques may eventually provide a noninvasive method of reliably assessing pancreatic exocrine function.