Differential diagnosis of benign and malign pancreatic masses with 18F-fluordeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography recorded with a dual-head coincidence gamma camera

18F-FAPI-04 Outperforms 18F-FDG PET/CT in Clinical Assessments of Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Accurate diagnosis and staging are crucial for selecting treatment for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The desmoplastic responses associated with PDAC are often characterized by hypometabolism. Here, we investigated 18F-fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI)-04 PET/CT in evaluation of PDAC and compared the findings with those obtained using 18F-FDG. Methods: Sixty-two PDAC patients underwent 18F-FAPI-04 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Identification of primary lesions, lymph node (LN) metastasis, and distant metastasis (DM) by these methods was evaluated, and TNM staging was performed. Correlation between SUVmax of the primary lesion and treatment response was explored in patients who received systemic therapy. Results: 18F-FAPI-04 PET/CT identified all patients with PDAC; 18F-FDG PET/CT missed 1 patient. Tracer uptake was higher in 18F-FAPI-04 PET/CT than in 18F-FDG PET/CT in primary tumors (10.63 vs. 2.87, P < 0.0001), LN metastasis (2.90 vs. 1.43, P < 0.0001), and DM (liver, 6.11 vs. 3.10, P = 0.002; peritoneal, 4.70 vs. 2.08, P = 0.015). The methods showed no significant difference in the T staging category, but the N and M values were significantly higher for 18F-FAPI-04 PET/CT than for 18F-FDG PET/CT (P = 0.002 and 0.008, respectively). Thus, 14 patients were upgraded, and only 1 patient was downgraded, by 18F-FAPI-04 PET/CT compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT. A high SUVmax of the primary tumor did not correlate with treatment response for either 18F-FAPI-04 or 18F-FDG. Conclusion: 18F-FAPI-04 PET/CT performed better than 18F-FDG PET/CT in identification of primary tumors, LN metastasis, and DM and in TNM staging of PDAC.

The Challenge of Autoimmune Pancreatitis: A Portrayal From the Pediatric Perspective

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare disorder characterized by prompt clinical response to corticosteroids. Lost tolerance to a variety of pancreatic antigens and subsequent development of autoantibodies are presumably involved in the initiation of AIP. Even pediatric patients have been reported with features of AIP, and awareness of this disorder is increasing among different clinicians. The terms lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis and idiopathic duct-centric pancreatitis refer to the different histologic patterns of AIP, named type 1 and type 2, respectively. A combination of serologic, radiologic, and histologic investigations is needed to assess diagnosis of AIP and rule out neoplastic disorders. In addition, type 1 AIP can be distinguished by raised levels of serum immunoglobulin G4 and should be considered as part of systemic immunoglobulin G4-related disease. Conversely, type 2 AIP is frequently reported in younger patients and has less clear immune-mediated pathogenetic mechanisms. The natural history of pediatric AIP is obscure, and the diagnostic usefulness of different autoimmune abnormalities found in adults with AIP is limited for children. Tips to manage pediatric patients with AIP have been recently drafted through a set of recommendation statements. This review describes the current data about AIP and the pathogenic contribution of specific autoantibodies expressly in the pediatric population.

Imaging modalities in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer, primarily pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), accounts for 2.4% of cancer diagnoses and 5.8% of cancer death annually. Early diagnoses can improve 5-year survival in PDAC. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy values for MRI, CT, PET&PET/CT, EUS and transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) in the diagnosis of PDAC.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies reporting sensitivity, specificity and/or diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of PDAC with MRI, CT, PET, EUS or TAUS. Proportional meta-analysis was performed for each modality.

RESULTS

A total of 5399 patients, 3567 with PDAC, from 52 studies were included. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were 93% (95% CI=88-96), 89% (95% CI=82-94) and 90% (95% CI=86-94) for MRI; 90% (95% CI=87-93), 87% (95% CI=79-93) and 89% (95% CI=85-93) for CT; 89% (95% CI=85-93), 70% (95% CI=54-84) and 84% (95% CI=79-89) for PET; 91% (95% CI=87-94), 86% (95% CI=81-91) and 89% (95% CI=87-92) for EUS; and 88% (95% CI=86-90), 94% (95% CI=87-98) and 91% (95% C=87-93) for TAUS.

CONCLUSION

This review concludes all modalities, except for PET, are equivalent within 95% confidence intervals for the diagnosis of PDAC.

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.

Combining in Vitro Diagnostics with in Vivo Imaging for Earlier Detection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Challenges and Solutions

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and is associated with a dismal prognosis, particularly when diagnosed at an advanced stage. Overall survival is significantly improved if PDAC is detected at an early stage prior to the onset of symptoms. At present, there is no suitable screening strategy for the general population. Available diagnostic serum markers are not sensitive or specific enough, and clinically available imaging modalities are inadequate for visualizing early-stage lesions. In this article, the role of currently available blood biomarkers and imaging tests for the early detection of PDAC will be reviewed. Also, the emerging biomarkers and molecularly targeted imaging agents being developed to improve the specificity of current imaging modalities for PDAC will be discussed. A strategy incorporating blood biomarkers and molecularly targeted imaging agents could lead to improved screening and earlier detection of PDAC in the future. (©) RSNA, 2015.

Usefulness of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to confirm suspected pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is among the five most lethal malignancies in the world. Unfortunately, many malignant tumors go undetected by the current primary diagnostic tools. (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT might be useful to confirm suspected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed using all major search engines. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed as well as quality of the PET-protocol. The following pooled estimates served as primary outcome measures: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 90%, NPV 76% and accuracy 86%. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET/CT were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 89%, NPV 78% and accuracy 86%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for (18)FDG-PET to differentiate between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis were 90% and 84%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT offer no benefit over the current primary diagnostic tools in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, the (18)FDG-PET/CT systems are still improving. We should investigate the sensitivity and specificity of these new systems while reevaluating the tradeoff between false positive and false negative results. Yet, (18)FDG-PET/CT may have a role in the staging of pancreatic cancer, in survival prediction, and may add to other diagnostic information, like histology.

Pancreatic head cancer in patients with chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a risk factor of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA). The discovery of a pancreatic head lesion in CP frequently leads to a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) which preceded by a multidisciplinary meeting (MM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the relevance between this indication of PD and the definitive pathological results.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2010, all patients with CP who underwent PD for suspicion of PA without any histological proof were retrospectively analyzed. The operative decision has always been made at an MM. The definitive pathological finding was retrospectively confronted with the decision made at an MM, and patients were classified in two groups according to this concordance (group 1) or not (group 2). Clinical and biological parameters were analyzed, preoperative imaging were reread, and confronted to pathological findings in order to identify predictive factors of malignant degeneration.

RESULTS

During the study period, five of 18 (group 1) patients with CP had PD were histologically confirmed to have PA, and the other 13 (group 2) did not have PA. The median age was 52.5+/-8.2 years (gender ratio 3.5). The main symptoms were pain (94.4%) and weight loss (72.2%). There was no patient's death. Six (33.3%) patients had a major complication (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3). There was no statistical difference in clinical and biological parameters between the two groups. The rereading of imaging data could not detect efficiently all patients with PA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed the difficulty in detecting malignant transformation in patients with CP before surgery and therefore an elevated rate of unnecessary PD was found. A uniform imaging protocol is necessary to avoid PD as a less invasive treatment could be proposed.

The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer continues to have a grim prognosis with 5-year survival rates at less than 5 %. It is a particularly challenging health problem given these poor survival outcomes, aggressive tumor biology, and late onset of symptoms. Most patients present with advanced unresectable cancer however, margin-negative resection provides a rare chance for cure for patients with resectable disease. The standard imaging modality for the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer is contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography. Remarkable advances in CT technology have led to improvements in the ability to detect small tumors and intricate vasculature involvement by the tumor, yet CT is still restricted to providing a morphological portrait of the tumor. Diagnosis can be challenging due to similar appearance of certain benign and malignant disease. Distant metastatic disease can be silent on CT leading to improper staging, and thus management, of certain patients. Furthermore, radiation-induced fibrosis and necrosis complicate assessment of treatment response by CT alone. F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) is becoming a prevalent tool employed by physicians to improve accuracy in these clinical scenarios. Malignant transformation causes a high metabolic activity of cancer cells. 18F-FDG-PET captures this functional activity of malignancies by capturing areas with high glucose utilization rates. Imaging function rather than morphological appearance, 18F-FDG-PET has a unique role in the management of oncology patients with the ability to detect regions of tumor involvement that may be silent on conventional imaging. Literature on the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG-PET fails to reach a consensus, and improvements resulting in hybridization of 18F-FDG-PET and CT imaging techniques are preliminary. Here we review the potential role of 18F-FDG-PET and PET/CT in improving accuracy in the initial evaluation and subsequent steps in the management of pancreatic cancer patients.

Imaging of pancreatic cancer: An overview

Pancreatic cancer (PaCa) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. The median size of pancreatic adenocarcinoma at the time of diagnosis is about 31 mm and has not changed significantly in last three decades despite major advances in imaging technology that can help diagnose increasingly smaller tumors. This is largely because patients are asymptomatic till late in course of pancreatic cancer or have nonspecific symptoms. Increased awareness of pancreatic cancer amongst the clinicians and knowledge of the available imaging modalities and their optimal use in evaluation of patients suspected to have pancreatic cancer can potentially help in diagnosing more early stage tumors. Another major challenge in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer involves reliable determination of resectability. Only about 10% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas are resectable at the time of diagnosis and would potentially benefit from a R0 surgical resection. The final determination of resectability cannot be made until late during surgical resection. Failure to identify unresectable tumor pre-operatively can result in considerable morbidity and mortality due to an unnecessary surgery. In this review, we review the relative advantages and shortcomings of imaging modalities available for evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer and for preoperative determination of resectability.

Post-surgical Pancreatitis Masquerading as Recurrent Neuroendocrine Cancer

Neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas can have a spectrum of behaviour from relatively benign to aggressive. Resection can result in cure although metastatic disease is described. We present an unusual case of an apparent local recurrence of previously resected neuroendocrine tumour in a young man who had undergone distal pancreatectomy. Pathological analysis demonstrated focal post-surgical pancreatitis with radiological appearances bearing striking similarity to the original primary tumour.

Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis

The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET), combined (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in diagnosing patients with pancreatic carcinoma. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and some other databases, from January 1966 to April 2009, were searched for initial studies. All the studies published in English or Chinese relating to the diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET, PET/CT and EUS for patients with pancreatic cancer were collected. Methodological quality was assessed. The statistic software called "Meta-Disc 1.4" was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

51 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity estimate for combined PET/CT (90.1%) was significantly higher than PET (88.4%) and EUS (81.2%). The pooled specificity estimate for EUS (93.2%) was significantly higher than PET (83.1%) and PET/CT (80.1%). The pooled DOR estimate for EUS (49.774) was significantly higher than PET (32.778) and PET/CT (27.105). SROC curves for PET/CT and EUS showed a little better diagnostic accuracy than PET alone. For PET alone, when interpreted the results with knowledge of other imaging tests, its sensitivity (89.4%) and specificity (80.1%) were closer to PET/CT. For EUS, its diagnostic value decreased in differentiating pancreatic cancer for patients with chronic pancreatitis. In conclusion, PET/CT was a high sensitive and EUS was a high specific modality in diagnosing patients with pancreatic cancer. PET/CT and EUS could play different roles during different conditions in diagnosing pancreatic carcinoma.