Macrocystic pancreatic lesions: differentiation of benign from premalignant and malignant cysts by CT. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:122-128. [PMID: 18448299 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.03.012]

Differentiating benign from malignant pancreatic cysts on computed tomography

•

CT can distinguish between benign and premalignant or malignant pancreatic cysts.

•

Solid component and septation were the only CT features that could differentiate benign from malignant cysts.

•

Cyst wall enhancements on CT were more commonly observed in premalignant or malignant cysts than in benign cysts.

•

CT is a necessary diagnostic modality to preoperatively detect and characterize pancreatic lesions.

Purpose

It is important to identify features on computed tomography (CT) that can distinguish between benign and premalignant or malignant pancreatic cysts to avoid unnecessary surgeries. This study investigated the preoperative diagnostic evaluation of cystic pancreatic lesions to determine how advanced imaging and clinical factors should guide management.

Methods

In total, 53 patients with 27 benign and 26 premalignant or malignant cysts were enrolled. CT features of the cysts were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

On univariate analysis, a solid component (p < 0.01), septation (p < 0.01), location (p < 0.01), border (p < 0.01), wall enhancement (p = 0.01), lesion margins (p < 0.01), pancreatic atrophy (p = 0.04), and a cystic wall (p < 0.01) were all significantly different between benign and premalignant or malignant cysts. On multivariate analysis, only a solid component (p < 0.01) and septation (p < 0.01) were significant.

Conclusion

A thin cystic wall, uniform homogeneity, a clear border, the presence of septation, pancreatic atrophy, and the absence of both wall enhancements and solid components were more frequently seen in benign cysts. A thick wall, lack of homogeneity, the presence of wall enhancements and solid components, absence of septation, only a small degree of pancreatic atrophy, and unclear borders were more frequent among premalignant or malignant cysts. The only CT features to differentiate benign from premalignant or malignant cysts were a solid component and septation.

Radiological Workup of Cystic Neoplasms of the Pancreas

Pancreatic cystic lesions are being detected with increasing frequency because of increased use and improved quality of cross-sectional imaging techniques. Pancreatic cystic lesions encompass non-neoplastic lesions (such as pancreatitis-related collections) and neoplastic tumors. Common cystic pancreatic neoplasms include serous cystadenomas, mucinous cystic neoplasms, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and solid pseudopapillary tumors. These cystic pancreatic neoplasms may have typical morphology, but at times show overlapping imaging features on cross-sectional examinations. This article reviews the classical and atypical imaging features of commonly encountered cystic pancreatic neoplasms and presents the limitations of current cross-sectional imaging techniques in accurately classifying pancreatic cystic lesions.

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.

Incidental pancreatic cystic neoplasms in an asymptomatic healthy population of 21,745 individuals: Large-scale, single-center cohort study

Although incidental pancreatic cystic neoplasms are being diagnosed with increasing frequency, little is known about the accurate prevalence of pancreatic cysts in the general population. The aims of this study were to evaluate the crude prevalence rate of pancreatic cystic neoplasms in asymptomatic healthy adults, and calculate the age- and sex-adjusted nationwide prevalence rate.A total of 21,745 asymptomatic individuals who underwent abdominal computed tomography (CT) as a health screening examination were enrolled between 2003 and 2013 at the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center. Nationwide population data of 2010 were collected from the National Statistical Office, Korea.Incidental pancreatic cystic neoplasms were found in 457 individuals whose mean age was 58.7 years. The types of neoplasms were reviewed by 2 separate designated radiologists and the final diagnosis was made as follows: intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: 376 (82%), serous cystic neoplasm: 19 (4%), mucinous cystic neoplasm: 7 (2%), and indeterminate cysts: 55 (12%). Eight cases underwent operation. The crude prevalence rate was 2.1% and the age- and sex-adjusted expected nationwide prevalence was 2.2%. The prevalence increased with age.Here, we reported the first large-scale study among the healthy population to find out the prevalence rate of pancreatic cystic neoplasms; the age- and sex-adjusted prevalence was 2.2%, and increased with age. Further investigations regarding the clinical implications of incidental pancreatic neoplasms are necessary.

Imaging pitfalls of pancreatic serous cystic neoplasm and its potential mimickers

The aim of this article is to clarify diagnostic pitfalls of pancreatic serous cystic neoplasm (SCN) that may result in erroneous characterization. Usual and unusual imaging findings of SCN as well as potential SCN mimickers are presented. The diagnostic key of SCN is to look for a cluster of microcysts (honeycomb pattern), which may not be always found in the center. Fibrosis in SCN may be mistaken for a mural nodule of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). The absence of cyst wall enhancement may be helpful to distinguish SCN from mucinous cystic neoplasm. However, oligocystic SCN and branch duct type IPMN may morphologically overlap. In addition, solid serous adenoma, an extremely rare variant of SCN, is difficult to distinguish from neuroendocrine tumor.

Diagnosis and management of cystic pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to outline the management guidelines for the care of patients with cystic pancreatic lesions.

CONCLUSION

The guidelines are as follows: Annual imaging surveillance is generally sufficient for benign serous cystadenomas smaller than 4 cm and for asymptomatic lesions. Asymptomatic thin-walled unilocular cystic lesions smaller than 3 cm or side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms should be followed up with CT or MRI at 6 and 12 months interval after detection. Cystic lesions with more complex features or with growth rates greater than 1 cm/year should be followed more closely or recommended for resection if the patient's condition allows surgery. Symptomatic cystic lesions, neoplasms with high malignant potential, and lesions larger than 3 cm should be referred for surgical evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy can be used preoperatively to assess the risk of malignancy.

Part 2: CT characterisation of pancreatic neoplasm: tumour mimics

There are numerous pancreatic and peripancreatic conditions that can mimic pancreatic neoplasms. Many of these can be confidently diagnosed on computed tomography (CT), while others will require further imaging. Knowledge of these tumour mimics is important to avoid misclassification of benign conditions as malignant and to avoid unnecessary surgery. Mimics can be grouped as parenchymal, vascular, biliary and peripancreatic. These are discussed and illustrated in this review.

Management of mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas

The purpose of this study was to investigate the actual management of mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of the pancreas. A systematic review was performed in December 2009 by consulting PubMed MEDLINE for publications and matching the key words “pancreatic mucinous cystic neoplasm”, “pancreatic mucinous cystic tumour”, “pancreatic mucinous cystic mass”, “pancreatic cyst”, and “pancreatic cystic neoplasm” to identify English language articles describing the diagnosis and treatment of the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas. In total, 16 322 references ranging from January 1969 to December 2009 were analysed and 77 articles were identified. No articles published before 1996 were selected because MCNs were not previously considered to be a completely autonomous disease. Definition, epidemiology, anatomopathological findings, clinical presentation, preoperative evaluation, treatment and prognosis were reviewed. MCNs are pancreatic mucin-producing cysts with a distinctive ovarian-type stroma localized in the body-tail of the gland and occurring in middle-aged females. The majority of MCNs are slow growing and asymptomatic. The prevalence of invasive carcinoma varies between 6% and 55%. Preoperative diagnosis depends on a combination of clinical features, tumor markers, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasound with cyst fluid analysis, and positron emission tomography-CT. Surgery is indicated for all MCNs.

Multiple recurrent pancreatic cysts with associated pancreatic inflammation and atrophy in a cat

Previous reports of true pancreatic cysts in cats have suggested that pancreatic cysts in cats are benign incidental findings. This case report describes the progressive clinical course and diagnostic findings in a cat with multiple recurrent pancreatic cysts. The presenting clinical signs included diarrhea, intermittent vomiting, polyphagia, and marked weight loss. Pancreatic cysts were identified via abdominal ultrasound and computed tomography (CT). An exploratory celiotomy and lesion histopathology confirmed multiple true pancreatic cysts of unknown etiology. One month after surgery the cat presented for lethargy and decreased appetite. Clinical re-evaluation was diagnostic for diabetes mellitus and an abdominal ultrasound confirmed recurrence of the pancreatic cysts. The recurrent nature of the pancreatic cysts and the concurrent development of diabetes mellitus were suggestive of progressive loss of pancreatic function or insulin resistance. This is the first described case of multiple recurring pancreatic cysts in a cat associated with pancreatic inflammation, atrophy and endocrine dysfunction.

Pancreatic cystic lesions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pancreatic cystic neoplasms are increasingly identified and their management remains uncertain. Recent studies demonstrate an evolving clinical approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

The vast majority of asymptomatic pancreatic cysts without concerning clinical or imaging features can be observed without surgery. Clinical predictors for malignancy at surgery include male sex, age above 50 years, weight loss, and high cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), but these factors are insufficient for patient selection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration with cyst fluid analysis for risk stratification and selective resection appears the most cost-effective approach. In addition to CEA, DNA analysis, differential protein expression, and proteomic studies of cyst fluid may be helpful in differentiating cystic lesions in selected patients. EUS-guided ethanol lavage of cysts resulted in regression; this method may have a role in treatment in the future. More future research investigating the safety of this procedure, technique modifications, and choice of agent is needed.

SUMMARY

The approach to incidentally discover pancreatic cystic lesions is challenging due to the difficulty in preoperative definitive lesion characterization. Recently developed diagnostic and treatment strategies show promise for improved patient outcomes.