Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET in Pancreatic Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Textbook of Pancreatic Cancer

  • 2619 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter highlights the advantages, limitations and pitfalls of functional imaging with Fluorodeoxy-Glucose Positron Emission Computed Tomography (FDG PET CT) and compares its diagnostic performance with structural imaging modalities Computer Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer.

Structural imaging in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy and tumour recurrence is a radiological challenge, in particularly treatment induced changes are difficult to interpret and can mask local recurrence. FDG PET CT can overcome some of the problems encountered in structural imaging and provides added value in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. The indications for FDG PET CT include tumour staging, evaluating tumour recurrence, monitoring response to therapy and targeted biopsy planning in patients with clinically suspected pancreatic cancer and equivocal structural imaging features or non-diagnostic fine-needle aspiration findings. FDG-PET can be cost beneficial and prevent unnecessary surgical procedures by detecting distant metastases not identified on CT or MRI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. SEER stat fact sheets: pancreas cancer. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program website. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/pancreas.html. Updated June 14, 2013.

  2. Michl P, Pauls S, Gress TM. Evidence-based diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;20:227–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Warburg O, Posener K, Negelein E. On the metabolism of cancer cells. Biochem Z. 1924;152:319–44.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, et al. A tabulated summary of the FDGPET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1–93S.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sokoloff L. The deoxyglucose method: theory and practice. Eur Neurol. 1981;20:137–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Callery MP, Chang KJ, Fishman EK, Talamonti MS, William Traverso L, Linehan DC. Pretreatment assessment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(7):1727–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Duffy JP, Reber HA. Nonendocrine tumors of the pancreas. In: Yamada T, editor. Textbook of gastroenterology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2003. p. 2091–107.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Huguet F, Girard N, Guerche CS, Hennequin C, Mornex F, Azria D. Chemoradiotherapy in the management of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma: a qualitative systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(13):2269–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tatli S, Gerbaudo VH, Mamede M, Tuncali K, Shyn PB, Silverman SG. Abdominal masses sampled at PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy: initial experience with registration of prior PET/CT images. Radiology. 2010;256(1):305–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tamm EP, Loyer EM, Faria SC, Evans DB, Wolff RA, Charnsangavej C. Retrospective analysis of dual-phase MDCT and follow-up EUS/EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32(5):660–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higashi T, Saga T, Nakamoto Y, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET): usefulness and limitations in “clinical reality”. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17(4):261–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schick V, Franzius C, Beyna T, et al. Diagnostic impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT evaluating solid pancreatic lesions versus endosonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography with intraductal ultrasonography and abdominal ultrasound. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(10):1775–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Okano K, Kakinoki K, Akamoto S, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of small pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(2):231–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. van Kouwen MC, Jansen JB, van Goor H, de Castro S, Oyen WJ, Drenth JP. FDG-PET is able to detect pancreatic carcinoma in chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(4):399–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lemke AJ, Niehues SM, Hosten N, et al. Retrospective digital image fusion of multidetector CT and 18F-FDG PET: clinical value in pancreatic lesions—a prospective study with 104 patients. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(8):1279–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kauhanen SP, Komar G, Seppanen MP, et al. A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, multidetector row computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;250:957–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koyama K, Okamura T, Kawabe J, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of FDG PET for pancreatic mass lesions. Ann Nucl Med. 2001;15(3):217–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Imdahl A, Nitzsche E, Krautmann F, et al. Evaluation of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose for the differentiation of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 1999;86(2):194–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Raut CP, Tseng JF, Sun CC, et al. Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;246(1):52–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Vargas R, Nino-Murcia M, Trueblood W, Jeffrey RB. MDCT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: prediction of vascular invasion and resectability using a multiphasic technique with curved planar reformations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(2):419–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zamboni GA, Kruskal JB, Vollmer CM, Baptista J, Callery MP, Raptopoulos VD. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: value of multidetector CT angiography in preoperative evaluation. Radiology. 2007;245(3):770–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fukushima H, Itoh S, Takada A, et al. Diagnostic value of curved multiplanar reformatted images in multislice CT for the detection of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(8):1709–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Diehl SJ, Lehmann KJ, Sadick M, Lachmann R, Georgi M. Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology. 1998;206(2):373–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lu DS, Reber HA, Krasny RM, Kadell BM, Sayre J. Local staging of pancreatic cancer: criteria for unresectability of major vessels as revealed by pancreatic-phase, thin-section helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(6):1439–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Manak E, Merkel S, Klein P, Papadopoulos T, Bautz WA, Baum U. Resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: assessment using multidetector-row computed tomography with multiplanar reformations. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(1):75–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valls C, Andía E, Sanchez A, et al. Dual-phase helical CT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: assessment of resectability before surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(4):821–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Saif MW, Cornfeld D, Modarresifar H, Ojha B. 18F-FDG positron emission tomography CT (FDG PET-CT) in the management of pancreatic cancer: initial experience in 12 patients. J Gastrointest Liver Dis. 2008;17(2):173–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Soriano A, Castells A, Ayuso C, et al. Preoperative staging and tumor resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer: prospective study comparing endoscopic ultrasonography, helical computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(3):492–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heinrich S, Goerres GW, Schäfer M, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness. Ann Surg. 2005;242(2):235–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Diederichs CG, Staib L, Vogel J, et al. Values and limitations of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography with preoperative evaluation of patients with pancreatic masses. Pancreas. 2000;20(2):109–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nakamoto Y, Higashi T, Sakahara H, et al. Contribution of PET in the detection of liver metastases from pancreatic tumours. Clin Radiol. 1999;54(4):248–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Akhurst T, Kates TJ, Mazumdar M, et al. Recent chemotherapy reduces the sensitivity of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8713–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Fischman AJ, et al. Detection of liver metastases from adenocarcinoma of the colon and pancreas: comparison of mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced liver MRI and whole-body FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(1):239–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu RC, Traverso LW. Diagnostic laparoscopy improves staging of pancreatic cancer deemed locally unresectable by computed tomography. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(5):638–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tabuchi T, Itoh K, Ohshio G, et al. Tumor staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma using early- and late-phase helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(2):375–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Yokoe K, et al. Contribution of whole body FDG-PET to the detection of distant metastasis in pancreatic cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2005;19(6):491–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Delbeke D, Rose DM, Chapman WC, et al. Optimal interpretation of FDG PET in the diagnosis, staging and management of pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(11):1784–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sperti C, Pasquali C, Bissoli S, Chierichetti F, Liessi G, Pedrazzoli S. Tumor relapse after pancreatic cancer resection is detected earlier by 18-FDG PET than by CT. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(1):131–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kleeff J, Reiser C, Hinz U, et al. Surgery for recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;245(4):566–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Gould MK, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, et al. Test performance of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for mediastinal staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(11):879–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ruf J, Lopez Hänninen E, Oettle H, et al. Detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer: comparison of FDG-PET with CT/MRI. Pancreatology. 2005;5(2-3):266–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kuwatani M, Kawakami H, Eto K, et al. Modalities for evaluating chemotherapeutic efficacy and survival time in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: comparison between FDG-PET, CT, and serum tumor markers. Intern Med. 2009;48(11):867–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Casneuf V, Delrue L, Kelles A, et al. Is combined 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography superior to positron emission tomography or computed tomography alone for diagnosis, staging and restaging of pancreatic lesions? Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2007;70(4):331–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoshioka M, Sato T, Furuya T, et al. Role of positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose in evaluating the effects of arterial infusion chemotherapy and radiotherapy on pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol. 2004;39(1):50–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bang S, Chung HW, Park SW, et al. The clinical usefulness of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the differential diagnosis, staging, and response evaluation after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40(10):923–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schellenberg D, Quon A, Minn AY, et al. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose PET is prognostic of progression-free and overall survival in locally advanced pancreas cancer treated with stereotactic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(5):1420–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Okamoto K, Koyama I, Miyazawa M, et al. Preoperative 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts early recurrence after pancreatic cancer resection. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011;16(1):39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Blake MA, Singh A, Setty BN, et al. Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PET-CT. Radiographics. 2006;26(5):1335–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hruban RH, Klimstra DS, Pitman MB. AFIP atlas of tumor pathology: tumors of the pancreas—series 4. Washington, DC: AFIP; 2007. p. 23–376.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tan EH, Tan CH. Imaging of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. World J Clin Oncol. 2011;2(1):28–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Massironi S, Sciola V, Peracchi M, Ciafardini C, Spampatti MP, Conte D. Neuroendocrine tumors of the gastro-entero-pancreatic system. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:5377–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ehehalt F, Saeger HD, Schmidt CM, Grützmann R. Neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas. Oncologist. 2009;14:456–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bombardieri E, Maccauro M, De Deckere E, Savelli G, Chiti A. Nuclear medicine imaging of neuroendocrine tumours. Ann Oncol. 2001;12(Suppl 2):S51–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ichikawa T, Peterson MS, Federle MP, et al. Islet cell tumor of the pancreas: biphasic CT versus MR imaging in tumor detection. Radiology. 2000;216(1):163–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Nakamoto Y, Higashi T, Sakahara H, et al. Evaluation of pancreatic islet cell tumors by fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: comparison with other modalities. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25(2):115–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rufini V, Baum RP, Castaldi P, et al. Role of PET/CT in the functional imaging of endocrine pancreatic tumors. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37:1004–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. van Essen M, Sundin A, Krenning EP, Kwekkeboom DJ. Neuroendocrine tumours: the role of imaging for diagnosis and therapy. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014;10:102–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Koopmans KP, Neels OC, Kema IP, et al. Improved staging of patients with carcinoid and islet cell tumors with 18F-dihydroxy-phenyl-alanine and 11C-5-hydroxy-tryptophan positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1489–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Orlefors H, Sundin A, Garske U, et al. Whole-body (11) C-5-hydroxytryptophan positron emission tomography as a universal imaging technique for neuroendocrine tumors: comparison with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and computed tomography. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90:3392–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Binderup T, Knigge U, Loft A, et al. Functional imaging of neuroendocrine tumors: a head-to-head comparison of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, 123I-MIBG scintigraphy, and 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:704–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bhate K, Mok WY, Tran K, Khan S, Al-Nahhas A. Functional assessment in the multimodality imaging of pancreatic neuro-endocrine tumours. Minerva Endocrinol. 2010;35:17–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nayer H, Weir EG, Sheth S, Ali SZ. Primary pancreatic lymphomas: a cytopathologic analysis of a rare malignancy. Cancer. 2004;102(5):315–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Karam M, Novak L, Cyriac J, Ali A, Nazeer T, Nugent F. Role of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the evaluation and follow-up of patients with low-grade lymphomas. Cancer. 2006;107(1):175–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Martin DR, Semelka RC. MR imaging of pancreatic masses. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2000;8(4):787–812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Yoon SN, Lee MH, Yoon JK. F-18 FDG positron emission tomography findings in primary pancreatic lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2004;29(9):574–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(9):1514–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ghavamian R, Klein KA, Stephens DH, et al. Renal cell carcinoma metastatic to the pancreas: clinical and radiological features. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;75(6):581–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sato M, Okumura T, Kaito K, et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of pancreatic metastases from lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23(1):49–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Merkle EM, Boaz T, Kolokythas O, Haaga JR, Lewin JS, Brambs HJ. Metastases to the pancreas. Br J Radiol. 1998;71(851):1208–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Brugge WR, Lauwers GY, Sahani D, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Warshaw AL. Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(12):1218–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hong HS, Yun M, Cho A, et al. The utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Clin Nucl Med. 2010;35(10):776–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Takeshita K, Kutomi K, Takada K, et al. Unusual imaging appearances of pancreatic serous cystadenoma: correlation with surgery and pathologic analysis. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30(5):610–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sahani DV, Sainani NI, Blake MA, Crippa S, Mino-Kenudson M. del-Castillo CF. Prospective evaluation of reader performance on MDCT in characterization of cystic pancreatic lesions and prediction of cyst biologic aggressiveness. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):W53–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sperti C, Bissoli S, Pasquali C, et al. 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography enhances computed tomography diagnosis of malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 2007;246(6):932–7; discussion 937–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Takanami K, Hiraide T, Tsuda M, et al. Additional value of FDG PET/CT to contrast-enhanced CT in the differentiation between benign and malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas with mural nodules. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25(7):501–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Tomimaru Y, Takeda Y, Tatsumi M, et al. Utility of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas. Oncol Rep. 2010;24(3):613–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sainani N, Sahani DV, Blake M, Deshpande V, Fernandes-del Castillo C, Fischman A. Morphological and functional characterization of mucinous lesions of pancreas: is the combination PET-CT better than MDCT or PET alone? J Nucl Med Meet Abst. 2008;49:273P-a.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Diederichs CG, Staib L, Glatting G, Beger HG. Reske SN FDG PET: elevated plasma glucose reduces both uptake and detection rate of pancreatic malignancies. J Nucl Med. 1998;39(6):1030–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology (Aintree Site), Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK

    Hulya Wieshmann & K. N. Pannag Desai

Authors
  1. Hulya Wieshmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. N. Pannag Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hulya Wieshmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stavanger University Hospital, The University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Kjetil Søreide

  2. Chirurgie (VTT), Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Tirol, Austria

    Stefan Stättner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wieshmann, H., Desai, K.N.P. (2021). PET in Pancreatic Cancer. In: Søreide, K., Stättner, S. (eds) Textbook of Pancreatic Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53786-9_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53786-9_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-53785-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-53786-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation