Search

Objective: The purposes of this study were to identify the most common imaging features of autoimmune pancreatitis and to evaluate the utility of MDCT for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from two more frequently encountered differential diagnoses--pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and acute interstitial pancreatitis., Materials and Methods: Dual-phase contrast-enhanced MDCT images of 91 patients (39 with autoimmune pancreatitis, 25 with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 27 with acute interstitial pancreatitis) were evaluated by two radiologists in consensus for distribution of pancreatic abnormality, sausage shape, low-attenuation halo, pancreatic duct dilatation, peripancreatic stranding, lymphadenopathy, biliary abnormality, vascular involvement, and renal lesions. Chi-square tests, multiple logistic regression analysis, and ROC analysis were performed., Results: The most common imaging features of autoimmune pancreatitis were sausage shape (25/39 [64%]) and low-attenuation halo (23/39 [59%]). Pancreatic duct dilatation (20/25 [80%]) and biliary dilatation (11/25 [44%]) were most frequent in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Peripancreatic stranding (22/27 [81%]) was most frequent in acute interstitial pancreatitis. Sausage shape, low-attenuation halo, and absence of a pancreatic duct or biliary dilatation differentiated autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with an accuracy of 0.88. Sausage shape and absence of peripancreatic stranding differentiated autoimmune pancreatitis from acute interstitial pancreatitis with an accuracy of 0.82. There was no significant difference in the frequency of vascular involvement or of lymphadenopathy among these diagnoses., Conclusion: Typical cases of autoimmune pancreatitis can be accurately differentiated from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and acute interstitial pancreatitis on the basis of characteristic MDCT features. However, autoimmune pancreatitis should be considered in the presence of atypical features.

The educational objectives for this self-assessment module are for the participant to exercise, self-assess, and improve his or her understanding of thoracic and abdominal devices.

Objective: Surgical, interventional, and diagnostic devices are continually being developed and often have unexpected radiographic appearances. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the radiologist with several devices that may be placed in the thorax and abdomen., Conclusion: The radiologist's familiarity with the radiographic appearance of devices placed in the chest and abdomen is essential for accurate image interpretation and identification of postprocedure complications.

Objective: The clinical usefulness of routine, nonfocused helical CT was evaluated in diagnosing acute appendicitis or providing an alternative diagnosis in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute lower abdominal pain., Materials and Methods: We reviewed CT reports and clinical records of 650 consecutive adult patients who presented between January 1996 and December 2000 with right lower quadrant pain or lower abdominal pain and clinical findings suggestive of appendicitis. Helical CT was performed with oral contrast material in 610 cases (93.8%) and IV contrast in 572 cases (88.0%). Both vascular and enteric contrast media were administered in 544 cases (83.7%). Rectal contrast material was administered in 52 cases (8.0%). The abdomen was helically scanned from the dome of the diaphragm to the iliac crests with a collimation of 7 mm, from the iliac crests to the acetabular roof at a 5-mm collimation, from the acetabular roof to the symphysis pubis with a collimation of 5-10 mm. The surgical or clinical record was used for follow-up., Results: Of the 650 patients, 552 (84.9%) had adequate clinical follow-up. There were 137 true-positive, eight false-positive, five false-negative, and 402 true-negative cases. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of nonfocused helical CT were 96.5%, 98.0%, 97.6%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 94.5% and 98.8%, respectively. In patients without acute appendicitis, CT suggested an alternative diagnosis, which clinically explained the patient's acute abdominal pain in 266 patients (66.2%)., Conclusion: Nonfocused helical CT was highly accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis or suggesting an alternative diagnosis in patients with acute lower abdominal pain or right lower quadrant pain.