Search

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of combining non-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and non-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for assessing the malignant potential of lesions in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas (IPMNs). Material and methods: Data from 38 patients histopathologically diagnosed with IPMN adenomas or IPMN adenocarcinomas were retrospectively analysed. Preliminary univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify statistically significant associations. Three blinded radiologists evaluated the image sets to assess the diagnostic performance of combined use of non-enhanced MRI and EUS as opposed to non-enhanced MRI alone in distinguishing malignant from benign lesions. Observer performance and interobserver variability were determined using receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis and weighted κ statistics. Results: Multivariate analyses identified a significant difference between the abrupt change in the main pancreatic duct (MPD) calibre with distal pancreatic atrophy and the signal intensity of lesion-to-spinal cord ratio on MRI; a significant difference was observed in MPD size on EUS. Diagnostic performance assessments of the image sets did not differ significantly between the blinded radiologists. Conclusions: The clinical utility of non-enhanced EUS may be attributive in evaluating IPMN that has already been evaluated by non-enhanced MRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the differentiating features between non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PNET) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on dynamic computed tomography (CT) and non-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Material and methods: We enrolled 102 patients with non-hypervascular PNET (n = 15) or PDAC (n = 87), who had undergone dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. One radiologist evaluated all images, and the results were subjected to univariate and multivariate analyses. To investigate reproducibility, a second radiologist re-evaluated features that were significantly different between PNET and PDAC on multivariate analysis. Results: Tumour margin (well-defined or ill-defined) and enhancement ratio of tumour (ERT) showed significant differences in univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analysis revealed a predominance of well-defined tumour margins in non-hypervascular PNET, with an odds ratio of 168.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.62-2685.29; p < 0.001). Furthermore, ERT was significantly lower in non-hypervascular PNET than in PDAC, with an odds ratio of 85.80 (95% CI: 2.57-2860.95; p = 0.01). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.7%, 96.6%, and 95.1%, respectively, when the tumour margin was used as the criteria. The values for ERT were 66.7%, 98.9%, and 94.1%, respectively. In reproducibility tests, both tumour margin and ERT showed substantial agreement (margin of tumour, κ = 0.6356; ERT, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.6155). Conclusions: Non-hypervascular PNET showed well-defined margins and lower ERT compared to PDAC, with significant differences. Our results showed that non-hypervascular PNET can be differentiated from PDAC via dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the differentiating features between non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PNET) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on dynamic computed tomography (CT) and non-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Material and methods: We enrolled 102 patients with non-hypervascular PNET (n = 15) or PDAC (n = 87), who had undergone dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. One radiologist evaluated all images, and the results were subjected to univariate and multivariate analyses. To investigate reproducibility, a second radiologist re-evaluated features that were significantly different between PNET and PDAC on multivariate analysis. Results: Tumour margin (well-defined or ill-defined) and enhancement ratio of tumour (ERT) showed significant differences in univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analysis revealed a predominance of well-defined tumour margins in non-hypervascular PNET, with an odds ratio of 168.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.62-2685.29; p < 0.001). Furthermore, ERT was significantly lower in non-hypervascular PNET than in PDAC, with an odds ratio of 85.80 (95% CI: 2.57-2860.95; p = 0.01). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.7%, 96.6%, and 95.1%, respectively, when the tumour margin was used as the criteria. The values for ERT were 66.7%, 98.9%, and 94.1%, respectively. In reproducibility tests, both tumour margin and ERT showed substantial agreement (margin of tumour, κ = 0.6356; ERT, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.6155). Conclusions: Non-hypervascular PNET showed well-defined margins and lower ERT compared to PDAC, with significant differences. Our results showed that non-hypervascular PNET can be differentiated from PDAC via dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the differentiating features between non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PNET) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on dynamic computed tomography (CT) and non-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Material and methods: We enrolled 102 patients with non-hypervascular PNET (n = 15) or PDAC (n = 87), who had undergone dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. One radiologist evaluated all images, and the results were subjected to univariate and multivariate analyses. To investigate reproducibility, a second radiologist re-evaluated features that were significantly different between PNET and PDAC on multivariate analysis. Results: Tumour margin (well-defined or ill-defined) and enhancement ratio of tumour (ERT) showed significant differences in univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analysis revealed a predominance of well-defined tumour margins in non-hypervascular PNET, with an odds ratio of 168.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.62-2685.29; p < 0.001). Furthermore, ERT was significantly lower in non-hypervascular PNET than in PDAC, with an odds ratio of 85.80 (95% CI: 2.57-2860.95; p = 0.01). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.7%, 96.6%, and 95.1%, respectively, when the tumour margin was used as the criteria. The values for ERT were 66.7%, 98.9%, and 94.1%, respectively. In reproducibility tests, both tumour margin and ERT showed substantial agreement (margin of tumour, κ = 0.6356; ERT, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.6155). Conclusions: Non-hypervascular PNET showed well-defined margins and lower ERT compared to PDAC, with significant differences. Our results showed that non-hypervascular PNET can be differentiated from PDAC via dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the differentiating features between non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PNET) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on dynamic computed tomography (CT) and non-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Material and methods: We enrolled 102 patients with non-hypervascular PNET (n = 15) or PDAC (n = 87), who had undergone dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. One radiologist evaluated all images, and the results were subjected to univariate and multivariate analyses. To investigate reproducibility, a second radiologist re-evaluated features that were significantly different between PNET and PDAC on multivariate analysis. Results: Tumour margin (well-defined or ill-defined) and enhancement ratio of tumour (ERT) showed significant differences in univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analysis revealed a predominance of well-defined tumour margins in non-hypervascular PNET, with an odds ratio of 168.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.62-2685.29; p < 0.001). Furthermore, ERT was significantly lower in non-hypervascular PNET than in PDAC, with an odds ratio of 85.80 (95% CI: 2.57-2860.95; p = 0.01). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.7%, 96.6%, and 95.1%, respectively, when the tumour margin was used as the criteria. The values for ERT were 66.7%, 98.9%, and 94.1%, respectively. In reproducibility tests, both tumour margin and ERT showed substantial agreement (margin of tumour, κ = 0.6356; ERT, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.6155). Conclusions: Non-hypervascular PNET showed well-defined margins and lower ERT compared to PDAC, with significant differences. Our results showed that non-hypervascular PNET can be differentiated from PDAC via dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the differentiating features between non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PNET) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on dynamic computed tomography (CT) and non-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Material and methods: We enrolled 102 patients with non-hypervascular PNET (n = 15) or PDAC (n = 87), who had undergone dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. One radiologist evaluated all images, and the results were subjected to univariate and multivariate analyses. To investigate reproducibility, a second radiologist re-evaluated features that were significantly different between PNET and PDAC on multivariate analysis. Results: Tumour margin (well-defined or ill-defined) and enhancement ratio of tumour (ERT) showed significant differences in univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analysis revealed a predominance of well-defined tumour margins in non-hypervascular PNET, with an odds ratio of 168.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.62-2685.29; p < 0.001). Furthermore, ERT was significantly lower in non-hypervascular PNET than in PDAC, with an odds ratio of 85.80 (95% CI: 2.57-2860.95; p = 0.01). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.7%, 96.6%, and 95.1%, respectively, when the tumour margin was used as the criteria. The values for ERT were 66.7%, 98.9%, and 94.1%, respectively. In reproducibility tests, both tumour margin and ERT showed substantial agreement (margin of tumour, κ = 0.6356; ERT, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.6155). Conclusions: Non-hypervascular PNET showed well-defined margins and lower ERT compared to PDAC, with significant differences. Our results showed that non-hypervascular PNET can be differentiated from PDAC via dynamic CT and non-enhanced MRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the predictors of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas (IPMNs) with high-grade dysplasia, using 2-dimensional (2D) analysis and 3-dimensional (3D) volume-of-interest-based apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis. Material and methods: The data of 45 patients with histopathologically confirmed IPMNs with high-grade or lowgrade dysplasia were retrospectively assessed. The 2D analysis included lesion-to-spinal cord signal intensity ratio (LSR), minimum ADC value (ADCmin), and mean ADC value (ADCmean). The 3D analysis included the overall mean (ADCoverall mean), mean of the bottom 10th percentile (ADCmean0-10), mean of the bottom 10-25th percentile (ADCmean10-25), mean of the bottom 25-50th percentile (ADCmean25-50), skewness (ADCskewness), kurtosis (ADCkurtosis), and entropy (ADCentropy). Diagnostic performance was compared by analysing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Inter-rater reliability was assessed by blinded evaluation using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: There were 16 and 29 IPMNs with high- and low-grade dysplasia, respectively. The LSR, ADCoverall mean, ADCmean0-10, ADCmean10-25, ADCmean25-50, and ADCentropy showed significant between-group differences (AUC = 72-93%; p < 0.05). Inter-rater reliability assessment showed almost perfect agreement for LSR and substantial agreement for ADCoverall mean and ADCentropy. Multivariate logistic regression showed that ADCoverall mean and ADCentropy were significant independent predictors of malignancy (p < 0.05), with diagnostic accuracies of 80% and 73%, respectively. Conclusion: ADCoverall mean and ADCentropy from 3D analysis may assist in predicting IPMNs with high-grade dysplasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]