18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in management of pancreatic cystic tumors

PET-MR Imaging and MR Texture Analysis in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cysts: A Prospective Preliminary Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to evaluate the capability of textural and metabolic parameters measured at pretreatment ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron emission tomography (PET)-MR in differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic cystic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Forty consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. They underwent simultaneous PET-MR for the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. Thirty texture parameters were extracted from manually contoured axial T2-weighted imaging with fat suppression (T2FS) and apparent diffusion coefficient images, respectively. Maximal and mean standardized uptake values (SUV_max and SUV_mean, respectively) of pancreatic cysts were measured at PET-MR imaging. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare both textural and metabolic parameters between benign and malignant group.

RESULTS

FDG uptake was significantly higher in patients with malignant pancreatic cysts (SUV_maxp = 0.002, SUV_meanp < 0.001). Malignant cysts showed significantly lower standard deviation for spatial scaling factor at 3-6mm on T2FS images and lower skewness for spatial scaling factor at 2-4mm on apparent diffusion coefficient images (p < 0.01). SUV_mean had the highest Area under the curve of 0.892 on receiver-operating characteristic analysis with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 88.9%, 87.1%, and 87.6%, respectively. When metabolic and textural features were combined into a single diagnostic model, the AUC increased to 0.961, with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 88.9%, 96.8%, and 95.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study implied that PET-MR showed no obvious advantages over traditional PET-related imaging in differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic cystic lesions. Diagnostic model based on the combination of metabolic and textural parameters showed satisfactory performance.

Diagnosis and management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms

This review outlines the current classification of pancreatic cystic lesions, with a particular emphasis on pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs). It will describe the diagnostic approach to PCNs, with reference to clinicopathological features, cross-sectional radiology and endoscopic ultrasound. This review will conclude with an evidence-based discussion of the management of PCNs focused on recent clinical guidelines.

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.

Advancement in treatment and diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with radiopharmaceuticals

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a major health problem. Conventional imaging modalities show limited accuracy for reliable assessment of the tumor. Recent researches suggest that molecular imaging techniques with tracers provide more biologically relevant information and are benefit for the diagnosis of the cancer. In addition, radiopharmaceuticals also play more important roles in treatment of the disease. This review summaries the advancement of the radiolabeled compounds in the theranostics of PC.

Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT, Multidetector CT, and MR Imaging in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cysts: A Prospective Single-Center Study

Accurate diagnosis of the nature of pancreatic cysts is challenging but more important than ever, in part because of the increasing number of incidental cystic findings in the pancreas. Preliminary data suggest that (18)F-FDG PET/CT may have a significant influence on clinical decision making, although its role is still evolving. Our aim was to prospectively compare the accuracy of combined (18)F-FDG PET and contrast-enhanced CT ((18)F-FDG PET/CT), multidetector CT (MDCT), and MR imaging in differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic cysts.

METHODS

Thirty-one consecutive patients with pancreatic cysts were enrolled in the study. They underwent a protocol including (18)F-FDG PET/CT, MDCT, and MR imaging combined with MR cholangiopancreatography, all of which were evaluated in a masked manner. The findings were confirmed macroscopically at surgery or histopathologic analysis (n = 22) or at follow-up (n = 9).

RESULTS

Of the 31 patients, 6 had malignant and 25 had benign lesions. The diagnostic accuracy was 94% for (18)F-FDG PET/CT, compared with 77% and 87% for MDCT (P < 0.05) and MR imaging, respectively. (18)F-FDG PET/CT had a negative predictive value of 100% and a positive predictive value of 75% for pancreatic cysts. The maximum standardized uptake value was significantly higher in malignant (7.4 ± 2.6) than in benign lesions (2.4 ± 0.8) (P < 0.05). When the maximum standardized uptake value was set at 3.6, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 88%, respectively. Furthermore, when compared with MDCT and MR imaging, respectively, (18)F-FDG PET/CT altered the clinical management of 5 and 3 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

(18)F-FDG PET/CT is an accurate imaging modality for differentiating between benign and malignant pancreatic cysts. We recommend the use of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of diagnostically challenging pancreatic cysts.

Cross-modality PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT imaging for pancreatic cancer

AIM: To explore the diagnostic value of the cross-modality fusion images provided by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) for pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS: Data from 70 patients with pancreatic lesions who underwent CECT and PET/CT examinations at our hospital from August 2010 to October 2012 were analyzed. PET/CECT for the cross-modality image fusion was obtained using TureD software. The diagnostic efficiencies of PET/CT, CECT and PET/CECT were calculated and compared with each other using a χ² test. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS: Of the total 70 patients, 50 had PC and 20 had benign lesions. The differences in the sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy between CECT and PET/CECT in detecting PC were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). In 15 of the 31 patients with PC who underwent a surgical operation, peripancreatic vessel invasion was verified. The differences in the sensitivity, positive predictive value, NPV, and accuracy of CECT vs PET/CT and PET/CECT vs PET/CT in diagnosing peripancreatic vessel invasion were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). In 19 of the 31 patients with PC who underwent a surgical operation, regional lymph node metastasis was verified by postsurgical histology. There was no statistically significant difference among the three methods in detecting regional lymph node metastasis (P > 0.05 for each). In 17 of the 50 patients with PC confirmed by histology or clinical follow-up, distant metastasis was confirmed. The differences in the sensitivity and NPV between CECT and PET/CECT in detecting distant metastasis were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each).

CONCLUSION: Cross-modality image fusion of PET/CT and CECT is a convenient and effective method that can be used to diagnose and stage PC, compensating for the defects of PET/CT and CECT when they are conducted individually.