The differences in imaging features of malignant and benign branch duct type of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Tumor

Predictors of malignancy in main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The International Consensus Guidelines updated in 2017 recommended surgery to all main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (MD-IPMNs) with the main pancreatic duct (MPD) of 10 mm or more and those with mural nodules regardless of size. The aim of the present study was to identify predictors of malignancy in MD-IPMN among preoperative factors including MPD and mural nodule size.

METHODS

Twenty-six benign MD-IPMNs (7 resected and 19 nonresected) and 32 malignant MD-IPMNs (31 resected and 1 nonresected) were included in the study. MRCP, CT, EUS, and cytology were performed using pancreatic juice collected by endoscopic retrograde pancrestography (ERP). Resected IPMNs were classified as benign or malignant by histologic examination and nonresected MD-IPMNs by imaging, cytology, and observation. Cutoff values of candidate parameters were determined by receiver operating characteristic curves. Univariate and multivariate analyses by regression model were performed.

RESULTS

MPD and mural nodule size and cytology results differed significantly between benign and malignant groups. Cutoff values of MPD and mural nodule sizes were 15 mm and 10 mm with areas under the curve of .66 and .86, respectively. Mural nodules of 10 mm or more (odds ratio, 8.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-61.2; P = .038) and positive cytology (odds ratio, 42.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.10-439; P = .002) were shown to be independent predictors of malignancy by multivariate analysis. When MD-IPMNs with either predictor were diagnosed to be malignant, sensitivities, specificities, and overall accuracy for malignancy were 94%, 85%, and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mural nodules of 10 mm or more and positive cytology were independent predictors of malignancy in MD-IPMN.

Systematic review, meta-analysis, and a high-volume center experience supporting the new role of mural nodules proposed by the updated 2017 international guidelines on IPMN of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

Mural nodules (MNs) have a predominant role in the 2016 revision of the international guidelines on intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreas. The aim of this study was to evaluate MNs as predictors of invasive cancer (iCa) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in IPMNs and to investigate the role of MN size in risk prediction.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on selected studies were conducted. The random effect model was adopted, and the pooled SMD (standardized mean difference) obtained. The surgical series of IPMNs at a single high-volume institution was reviewed.

RESULTS

This review included 70 studies and 2297 resected IPMNs. MNs have a positive predictive value for malignancy of 62.2%. The meta-analysis suggested that MN size has a considerable effect on predicting IPMNs with both iCa or HGD with a mean SMD of 0.79. All studies included in the meta-analysis used contrast-enhanced endosonography (CE-EUS) to assess MNs. Due to the heterogeneity of the proposed thresholds, no reliable MN size cut-off was identified. Of 317 IPMNs resected at our institution, 102 (32.1%) had a preoperative diagnosis of MN. Multivariate analysis showed that MN is the only independent predictor of iCa and HGD for all types of IPMNs.

CONCLUSION

MNs are reliable predictors of iCa and HGD in IPMNs as proposed by the 2016 IAP guidelines. CE-EUS seems to be the best tool for characterizing size and has the best accuracy for predicting malignancy. Further studies should determine potential MN dimensional cut-offs.

Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion restriction in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas in comparison with "high-risk stigmata" of the 2012 international consensus guidelines for prediction of the malignancy and invasiveness

Background It is debated whether diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), which is widely used for detection and characterization of various malignant tumors, is comparable with high-risk stigmata of 2012 international consensus guidelines (ICG) for diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion restriction in IPMNs for prediction of malignancy and invasiveness in comparison with high-risk stigmata of 2012 ICG. Material and Methods This retrospective study was institutional review board approved and informed consent was waived. A total of 132 patients with surgically proven IPMNs (49 malignant, 83 benign) who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and DWI with a b-value of 0, 100, and 800 s/mm² using a 3.0 T MR system were included. Two radiologists independently evaluated imaging parameters of high-risk stigmata and worrisome features of 2012 ICG and diffusion restriction in IPMNs. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses and McNemar's test were used for statistical analysis. Results The presence of diffusion restriction in IPMNs was the only independent imaging parameter for prediction of malignancy (odds ratio [OR], 11.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.60-39.87; P < 0.001) and invasiveness (OR, 17.92; 95% CI, 3.91-82.03; P < 0.001) on multivariate analysis. The diagnostic accuracy and specificity of diffusion restriction were significantly improved compared to high-risk stigmata of 2012 ICG to prediction of malignant ( P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively) or invasive IPMNs ( P = 0.009 and P = 0.015, respectively). Conclusion The diffusion restriction in IPMNs could be considered as another high-risk stigma of malignancy and predictor for invasiveness.

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.

What Is the Best Way to Identify Malignant Transformation Within Pancreatic IPMN: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasias (IPMNs) represent 25% of all cystic neoplasms and are precursor lesions for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to identify the best imaging modality for detecting malignant transformation in IPMN, the sensitivity and specificity of risk features on imaging, and the usefulness of tumor markers in serum and cyst fluid to predict malignancy in IPMN.

METHODS

Databases were searched from November 2006 to March 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic techniques/imaging features of suspected malignancy in IPMN using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic (HSROC) approach were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 467 eligible studies were identified, of which 51 studies met the inclusion criteria and 37 of these were incorporated into meta-analyses. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for risk features predictive of malignancy on computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging were 0.809 and 0.762 respectively, and on positron emission tomography were 0.968 and 0.911. Mural nodule, cyst size, and main pancreatic duct dilation found on imaging had pooled sensitivity for prediction of malignancy of 0.690, 0.682, and 0.614, respectively, and specificity of 0.798, 0.574, and 0.687. Raised serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels yielded sensitivity of 0.380 and specificity of 0903. Combining parameters yielded a sensitivity of 0.743 and specificity of 0.906.

CONCLUSIONS

PET holds the most promise in identifying malignant transformation within an IPMN. Combining parameters increases sensitivity and specificity; the presence of mural nodule on imaging was the most sensitive whereas raised serum CA19-9 (>37 KU/l) was the most specific feature predictive of malignancy in IPMNs.

A large mural nodule in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous adenoma of the pancreas: a case report

Indications for resection of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) remain controversial because of their low tendency to be malignant. Surgical resection should be recommended if any factors indicating malignancy are present. However, preoperative differentiation between benign and malignant tumors is very difficult, especially in cases of branch duct IPMNs. We herein report a case of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous adenoma (IPMA) of the pancreas with a large mural nodule of 25 mm. A 74-year-old woman was admitted for examination and treatment for a cystic tumor in the head of the pancreas. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and computed tomography showed a cystic lesion, 50 mm in diameter, with an irregular mural nodule in the pancreatic head. Endoscopic ultrasonography demonstrated a multicystic tumor connected with the main pancreatic duct (MPD). The mural nodule had a diameter of 18 mm, and the MPD had a slight dilation of 6 mm. These findings suggested a high potential for malignancy. The patient underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymph node dissection. The excised pancreas showed multiple cysts located in the branch pancreatic duct with a maximum diameter of 75 mm. The mural nodule had a maximum diameter of 25 mm. The tumor was diagnosed as an IPMA by pathological examination. After operation, the patient was discharged without any complications. Two years after resection, the patient remains in remission with no evidence of tumor recurrence.

Multifocal branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the pancreas: magnetic resonance (MR) imaging pattern and evolution over time

PURPOSE

The aim of our study was to follow the evolution over time of multifocal intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreatic duct side branches by means of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 155 patients with multifocal IPMN of the side branches were examined with MRI and MR cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP). Inclusion criteria were patients with ≥2 dilated side branches involving any site of the parenchyma; presence of communication with the main pancreatic duct and previous investigations by MRI/MRCP within at least six months. Median follow-up was 25.8 months (range, 12-217). Patients with a follow-up period shorter than 12 months (n=33) and those with a diagnosis of multifocal IPMN of the side branches without any follow-up (n=14) were excluded from the study. The final study population thus comprised 108 patients. A double, quantitative and qualitative, analysis was carried out. The quantitative image analysis included: number of dilated side branches in the head-uncinate process and body-tail; maximum diameter of lesions in the head-uncinate process; maximum diameter in the body-tail; maximum diameter of the main pancreatic duct in the head and body-tail. The qualitative image analysis included: presence of malformations or anatomical variants of the pancreatic ductal system; site of the lesions (head-uncinate process, body-tail, ubiquitous, bridge morphology); presence of gravity-dependent intraluminal filling defects; presence of enhancing mural nodules.

RESULTS

At diagnosis, the mean number of cystic lesions of the side branches was 7.09. The mean diameter of the cystic lesions was 13.7 mm. The mean diameter of the main pancreatic duct was 3.6 mm. At follow-up, the mean number of cystic lesions was 7.76. The mean diameter of the cystic lesions was 13.9 mm. The mean diameter of the main pancreatic duct was 3.7 mm. Intraluminal filling defects in the side branches were seen in 18/108 patients (16.6%); enhancing mural nodules were seen in 3/108 patients (2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal IPMN of the branch ducts shows a very slow growth and evolution over time. In our study, only 3/108 patients showed mural nodules which, however, did not require any surgical procedure, indicating that careful nonoperative management may be safe and effective in asymptomatic patients.

[Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia: which findings support observation?]

On abdominal CT scans asymptomatic cystic lesions of the pancreas are accidentally detected in 1-2% of patients. Congenital cysts and pancreatic pseudocysts account for two thirds of these lesions. Pancreatic pseudocysts are a frequent complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis. Among resected cystic neoplasms serous cystic adenoma accounts for 30%, mucinous cystic neoplasms for 45% and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms for 25%. The diagnosis of a cystic pancreatic lesion is usually made by diagnostic imaging. Symptomatic lesions require definitive therapeutic treatment after appropriate diagnostic work-up. In the diagnosis of asymptomatic cystic lesions several factors are important, among them whether the cyst is connected to the pancreatic duct (as in IPMN and pseudocysts), the size of lesion (for treatment indications) and whether nodules form in the wall of the cyst (a sign of potential malignancy). EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of the cyst fluid adds to the discrimination between benign, premalignant and malignant cystic lesions. Measuring lipase activity, CEA, viscosity and mucin as well as cytology can help in differentiating cystic lesions. An algorithm is discussed for the differential diagnosis and for selection of the appropriate treatment for pancreatic cystic lesions, most of which never require surgery.

Cystic tumors of the pancreas: imaging and management

Cystic tumors of the pancreas are a subset of rare pancreatic tumors that vary from benign to malignant. Many have specific imaging findings that allow them to be differentiated from each other. This article (1) reviews the imaging features of the common cystic pancreatic lesions, including serous microcystic adenoma, mucinous cystic tumor, intraductal papillary mucinous tumor, and solid pseudopapillary tumor, and including the less common lesions such as cystic endocrine tumors, cystic metastases, cystic teratomas, and lymphangiomas; and (2) provides comprehensive algorithms on how to manage the individual lesions, with recommendations on when to reimage patients.