Diagnostic evaluation of solid pancreatic masses

Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy

PURPOSE

The main objective of the present study is to compare the safety, technical success and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus ultrasound-guided percutaneous core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study that involved all patients with a solid pancreatic lesion who underwent EUS-FNA or US-CNB between November 2019 and February 2021. Of all patients, 69 (84.1%) had inoperable malignancy, whereas 13 (15.9%) had chronic pancreatitis. Resectability status was ascertained by computed tomography. All core needle biopsies were performed by the same interventional radiologist via ultrasound guidance with an 18-gauge semi-automatic tru-cut needle. All EUS-FNA procedures were performed by the same gastroenterologist with a 27-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Technical success is defined as if the region of interest is reached and specimen taken from the pancreatic lesion. Diagnostic yield is defined as the procurement of sufficient tissue for pathological examination.

RESULTS

Overall, 52 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 9.8 years) who underwent EUS-FNA and 30 patients (60.1 ± 12.1 years) who underwent US-CNB were included. Solid lesions were most commonly (61.5% in EUS-FNA and 50.0% in US-CNB groups) located in pancreatic head in both groups. Mean size of the lesions was comparable in both groups as well. The technical success was 100% in both groups. In 12 (14.6%) patients, pathology results revealed inadequate sampling (11 × in the EUS-FNA and 1 × in the US-CNB group). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher in US-CNB group than in EUS-FNA group (96.7% vs. 78.8%, respectively, p = 0.048). Of 11 patients in the EUS-FNA with inadequate sampling, pancreatic lesions were located in the pancreatic head in 7 (63.6%). No major complications were observed in neither of the groups. As a minor complication, one case of slight abdominal pain was detected in the EUS-FNA group.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the present study, both US-CNB and EUS-FNA appeared safe; however, diagnostic yield in the US-CNB group was significantly higher.

Pancreatic cancer, autoimmune or chronic pancreatitis, beyond tissue diagnosis: Collateral imaging and clinical characteristics may differentiate them

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal malignancies and is developing into the 2^nd leading cause of cancer-related death. Often, the clinical and radiological presentation of PDAC may be mirrored by other inflammatory pancreatic masses, such as autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and mass-forming chronic pancreatitis (MFCP), making its diagnosis challenging. Differentiating AIP and MFCP from PDAC is vital due to significant therapeutic and prognostic implications. Current diagnostic criteria and tools allow the precise differentiation of benign from malignant masses; however, the diagnostic accuracy is imperfect. Major pancreatic resections have been performed in AIP cases under initial suspicion of PDAC after a diagnostic approach failed to provide an accurate diagnosis. It is not unusual that after a thorough diagnostic evaluation, the clinician is confronted with a pancreatic mass with uncertain diagnosis. In those cases, a re-evaluation must be entertained, preferably by an experienced multispecialty team including radiologists, pathologists, gastroenterologists, and surgeons, looking for disease-specific clinical, imaging, and histological hallmarks or collateral evidence that could favor a specific diagnosis. Our aim is to describe current diagnostic limitations that hinder our ability to reach an accurate diagnosis among AIP, PDAC, and MFCP and to highlight those disease-specific clinical, radiological, serological, and histological characteristics that could support the presence of any of these three disorders when facing a pancreatic mass with uncertain diagnosis after an initial diagnostic approach has been unsuccessful.

Bile-volatile organic compounds in the diagnostics of pancreatic cancer and biliary obstruction: A prospective proof-of-concept study

OBJECTIVES

Detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from bodily fluids with field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) and related methods has been studied in various settings. Preliminary results suggest that it is possible to detect prostate, colorectal, ovarian and pancreatic cancer from urine samples. In this study, our primary aim was to differentiate pancreatic cancer from pancreatitis and benign tumours of the pancreas by using bile samples obtained during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Secondarily, we aimed to differentiate all pancreatic region malignancies from all other kinds of benign causes of biliary obstruction.

METHODS

A bile sample was successfully aspirated from 94 patients during ERCP in Tampere University Hospital. Hospital and patient records were prospectively followed up for at least two years after ERCP. Bile samples were analysed using a Lonestar chemical analyser (Owlstone, UK) using an ATLAS sampling system and a split-flow box. Diagnoses and corresponding data from the analyses were matched and divided into two subcategories for comparison. Statistical analysis was performed using linear discriminant analysis, support vector machines, and 5-fold cross-validation.

RESULTS

Pancreatic cancers (n=8) were differentiated from benign pancreatic lesions (n=9) with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 77.8%, and correct rate of 88%. All pancreatic region cancers (n=19) were differentiated from all other kinds of benign causes of biliary obstruction (n=75) with corresponding values of 21.1%, 94.7%, and 80.7%. The sample size was too small to try to differentiate pancreatic cancers from adjacent cancers.

CONCLUSION

Analysing bile VOCs using FAIMS shows promising capability in detecting pancreatic cancer and other cancers in the pancreatic area.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: imaging techniques for diagnosis and management

Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of death from cancer but only a minority of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas are eligible for curative resection. The increasing role of neoadjuvant therapy provides hope of improving outcomes. However, progress is also reliant on advances in imaging that can identify disease earlier and accurately assess treatment response. Computed tomography remains the cornerstone in evaluation of resectability, offering excellent spatial resolution. However, in high-risk patients, additional magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography-computed tomography may further guide treatment decisions. Conventional computed tomography can be limited in its ability to determine disease response after neoadjuvant therapy. Dual-energy computed tomography and computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging perfusion studies emerging as potentially better alternatives. Combined with pioneering advances in radiomic analysis, these modalities also show promise in analysing tumour heterogeneity and thereby more accurately predicting outcomes. This article reviews these imaging techniques.

Targeted transcriptome and KRAS mutation analysis improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA biopsies in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) carries a poor prognosis, and current diagnostic tests have suboptimal sensitivity. Incorporating standard cytology with targeted transcriptomic and mutation analysis may improve the accuracy of diagnostic biopsies, thus reducing the burden of repeat procedures and delays to treatment initiation.

METHODS

We reviewed the accuracy of 308 EUS-FNA PDAC biopsies using a large multicenter clinical and biospecimen database, then performed RNA sequencing on 134 EUS-FNA biopsies spanning all stages of disease. We identified a transcriptomic diagnostic gene signature which was validated using external datasets and 60 further diagnostic EUS-FNAs. KRAS ddPCR analysis was performed and correlated with signature gene expression.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of EUS-FNA cytology in diagnosing solid pancreatic masses in our retrospective cohort (n=308) was 78.6% (95% CI 73.2 to 83.2%). KRAS mutation analysis and our custom transcriptomic signature significantly improved upon the diagnostic accuracy of standard cytology to 91.3% in external validation sets and 91.6% in our validation cohort (n=60). Exploratory ddPCR analysis of KRAS mutant allele fraction (MAF%) correlated with signature performance and may represent a novel surrogate marker of tumour cellularity in EUS-FNA biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support EUS-FNA biopsies as a feasible tissue source for integrated genomic and transcriptomic analysis of PDAC across all tumour stages, including cases with non-diagnostic cytology. Our transcriptome-derived genetic signature in combination with tissue KRAS mutation analysis significantly improves upon the diagnostic accuracy of current standard procedures, and has potential clinical utility in improving the speed and accuracy of diagnosis for patients presenting with PDAC.

Preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomographic characterisation of pancreatic cystic lesions: A prospective study

Background

Characterisation of pancreatic cystic lesions has a direct role in their management and computed tomography is the mainstay of investigation for diagnosing and characterising them.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in preoperative characterisation of pancreatic cystic lesions with histopathology as the reference standard.

Method

A total of 38 patients with cystic pancreatic lesions diagnosed after clinical, laboratory and sonographic evaluation, irrespective of age, were preoperatively evaluated with CECT. Images were reviewed for the general characteristics of the lesions on pre-contrast and portal venous phase images and overall diagnostic accuracy calculated. Imaging findings were compared with histopathology, or cytology and/or intra-operative findings.

Results

Serous cystadenoma (SCA) was the most common cystic pancreatic lesion found in 31.6% of patients followed by mucinous cystadenoma (MCA) (26.3%), solid pseudo-papillary tumour (SPT) (21.1%) and intra-ductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) (10.5%). Three patients (7.9%) had simple cysts and one patient (2.6%) had a lymphangioma. The diagnostic accuracy of CECT for pancreatic cystic lesions was found to be 72.5.

Conclusion

The diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) was high for SCA, IPMN and pancreatic cysts, and low for MCA and SPT. Combination of a multiloculated cystic lesion with locule size of less than 20 mm, septal enhancement with relative lack of wall enhancement, central scar and lobulated outline are highly specific for SCA. Unilocular or macro-cystic pattern with locule size of more than 20 mm, female gender and wall enhancement with smooth external contour are pointers towards MCA. Solid cystic pancreatic head lesions in young females may be suggestive of SPT. A dilated main pancreatic duct in a cystic lesion with internal septations may point towards IPMN. Fluid attenuation lesions with imperceptible non-enhancing wall indicate pancreatic cysts. Lastly, pseudocysts and neuroendocrine tumours with cystic components are great mimickers of pancreatic cystic lesions, and a history of pancreatitis and hormonal profile of patients should always be sought.

Differentiation of atypical non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using CT based radiomics

PURPOSE

To develop and validate an effective model to differentiate NF-pNET from PDAC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between July 2014 and December 2017, 147 patients (80 patients with PDAC and 67 patients with atypical NF-pNET) with pathology results and enhanced CT were consecutively enrolled and chronologically divided into primary and validation cohorts. Three models were built to differentiate atypical NF-pNET from PDAC, including a model based on radiomic signature alone, one based on clinicoradiological features alone and one that integrated the two. The diagnostic performance of the three models was estimated and compared with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the validation cohort. A nomogram was used to represent the model with the best performance, and the associated calibration was also assessed.

RESULTS

In the validation cohort, the AUC for differential diagnosis was 0.884 with the integrated model, which was significantly improved over that of the model based on clinicoradiological features (AUC = 0.775, p value = 0.004) and was comparable to that of the model based on the radiomic signature (AUC = 0.873, p value = 0.512). The nomogram representing the integrated model achieved good discrimination performances in both the primary and validation cohorts, with C-indices of 0.960 and 0.884, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The integrated model outperformed the model based on clinicoradiological features alone and was comparable to the model based on the radiomic signature alone with respect to the differential diagnosis of atypical NF-pNET and PDAC. The nomogram achieved an optimal preoperative, noninvasive differential diagnosis between atypical pNET and PDAC, which can better inform therapeutic choice in clinical practice.

Differentiation of benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses using magnetic resonance elastography with spin-echo echo planar imaging and three-dimensional inversion reconstruction: a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performance of MR elastography (MRE) and compare it with serum CA19-9 in differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic masses, with emphasis on differentiating between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP).

METHODS

We performed a prospective, consecutive, 24-month study in 85 patients with solid pancreatic masses confirmed by histopathologic examinations. The mass stiffness and stiffness ratio (calculated as the ratio of mass stiffness to the parenchymal stiffness) were assessed. The diagnostic accuracy was analysed by calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

The final diagnosis included 54 malignant tumours (43 patients with PDAC) and 31 benign masses (24 patients with MFP). The stiffness ratio showed better diagnostic performance than the mass stiffness and serum CA19-9 for the differentiation between malignant and benign masses (AUC: 0.912 vs. 0.845 vs. 0.702; P = 0.026, P < 0.001) and, specifically, between PDAC and MFP (AUC: 0.955 vs. 0.882 vs. 0.745; P = 0.026, P = 0.003). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of stiffness ratio for the differentiation of PDAC and MFP were all higher than 0.9.

CONCLUSIONS

MRE presents an effective and quantitative strategy for non-invasive differentiation between PDAC and MFP based on their mechanical properties.

KEY POINTS

• 3D MRE is useful for calculating stiffness of solid pancreatic tumours. • Stiffness ratio outperformed stiffness and CA19-9 for differentiating PDAC from MFP. • Incorporation of 3D MRE into a standard MRI protocol is recommended.

The value of liver magnetic resonance imaging in patients with findings of resectable pancreatic cancer on computed tomography

INTRODUCTION

Accurate staging of patients with pancreatic cancer is important to avoid unnecessary operations. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the impact of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging on preoperative staging of liver in patients with findings of resectable pancreatic cancer on computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

All patients who presented to a tertiary referral centre with pancreatic cancer between April 2012 and December 2013 were included in the study. Patients with findings of resectable disease on CT underwent further liver diffusion-weighted MR imaging, using a hepatocyte-specific contrast agent.

RESULTS

A total of 583 patients with pancreatic cancer were referred. 69 (11.8%) had resectable disease on CT. Of these 69 patients, 16 (23.2%) had liver metastases on MR imaging, while 6 (8.7%) had indeterminate lesions. Of the 16 patients with positive MR imaging findings of liver metastases, 11 died of pancreatic cancer, with a mean survival time of nine months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.22-14.05). The mean survival time of the 47 patients with negative MR imaging findings was 16 months (95% CI 14.33-18.10; p = 0.001). Subsequently, 22 of these patients underwent surgery, and only 1 (4.5%) patient was found to have liver metastasis at surgery.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study indicate that MR imaging improves the staging of disease in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.

[Ductal adenocarcinoma and unusual differential diagnosis]

Ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma is by far the most common solid tumor of the pancreas. It has a very poor prognosis, especially in the more advanced stages which are no longer locally confined. Due to mostly unspecific symptoms, imaging is key in the diagnostic process. Because of the widespread use of imaging techniques, incidental findings are to a greater extent discovered in the pancreas, which subsequently entail further work-up. Ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma can be mimicked by a large number of different lesions, such as anatomical variants, peripancreatic structures and tumors, rarer primary solid pancreatic tumors, cystic tumors, metastases or different variants of pancreatitis. Additionally, a number of precursor lesions can be differentiated. The correct classification is thus important as an early diagnosis of ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma is relevant for the prognosis and because the possibly avoidable treatment is very invasive. All major imaging techniques are principally suitable for pancreatic imaging. In addition to sonography of the abdomen, usually the baseline diagnostic tool, computed tomography (CT) with its superior spatial resolution, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with its good soft tissue differentiation capabilities, possibly in combination with MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endosonography with its extraordinary spatial resolution, conceivably with additional endoscopic retrograde CP or the option of direct biopsy and finally positron emission tomography CT (PET-CT) as a molecular imaging tool are all particularly useful modalities. The various techniques all have its advantages and disadvantages; depending on the individual situation they may need to be combined.

Imaging preoperatively for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal malignancy which is increasing in incidence and mortality. The fourth leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer death by 2020. Patients with pancreatic cancer have an abysmal 5-year survival of 6%, and 90% of these patients eventually die from the disease. This is in large part due to the commonly advanced stage of disease at the time of diagnosis. Currently, the only potentially curative therapy for pancreatic carcinoma is complete surgical resection. Patients who undergo incomplete resection with residual disease have similar survival rates to those patients with metastatic disease and should be spared this relatively morbid surgery. Thus, the key to impacting prognosis is the detection of smaller and earlier stage lesions, and the key to optimal management is accurately determining which patients have potentially resectable surgery and which patients would not benefit from surgery. Cross-sectional imaging plays an essential role in both the diagnosis and appropriate staging of pancreatic carcinoma. The diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is performed with cross-sectional imaging. Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) is the most commonly used, best-validated imaging modality for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Modern contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been demonstrated to be equivalent to MDCT in detection and staging of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is very sensitive for detecting pancreatic masses; however, due to limitations in adequate overall abdominal staging, it is generally used in addition to or after MDCT. Transabdominal ultrasound and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) have limited roles in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Preoperative imaging is used to characterize patients as having resectable disease, borderline resectable disease, locally advanced disease (unresectable) and metastatic disease (unresectable). As the definitions of borderline resectable and unresectable may vary from institution to institution and within institutions, it is essential to accurately assess and describe the factors relevant to staging including: local extent of tumor, vascular involvement, lymph node involvement and distant metastatic disease. To facilitate this, standardized reporting templates for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have been created and published. Structured reporting for pancreatic cancer has been reported to provide superior evaluation of pancreatic cancer, facilitate surgical planning, and increase surgeons' confidence about tumor resectability.