Diagnostic performance and imaging features for predicting the malignant potential of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: a comparison of EUS, contrast-enhanced CT and MRI
To compare diagnostic performance for prediction of malignant potential in IPMNs between EUS, contrast-enhanced CT and MRI.
Materials and methods
76 patients with IPMN (benign = 37, malignant = 39) underwent EUS, contrast-enhanced CT, and MRI. EUS was analyzed based on formal reports and contrast-enhanced CT and MRI were retrospectively analyzed by two radiologists according to the consensus guidelines 2012. Diagnostic performance and imaging features of malignant IPMNs were analyzed using ROC analysis and multivariate analyses.
Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT (AUC = 0.792 in R1, 0.830 in R2), MRI (AUC = 0.742 in R1, 0.776 in R2), and EUS (AUC = 0.733) for predicting malignant IPMNs were comparable without significant difference (p > 0.05). In multivariable analysis, enhancing solid component in contrast-enhanced CT and MRI and mural nodule in EUS (OR 1.8 in CT, 1.36 in MRI, 1.47 in EUS), MPD diameter ≥ 10 mm (OR 1.3 in CT, 1.4 in MRI, 1.66 in EUS), MPD diameter of 5–9 mm (OR 1.23 in CT, 1.31 in MRI), and thickened septa or wall (OR 1.3 in CT and MRI) were significant variables (p < 0.05). Interobserver agreement of thickened cyst septa or wall (k = 0.579–0.617) and abrupt caliber change of MPD (k = 0.689–0.788) was lower than other variables (k > 0.80).
Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT, MRI, and EUS for predicting malignant IPMNs was comparable with each modalities without significant difference.
KeywordsDynamic contrast-enhanced CT Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI EUS Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas Diagnosis
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm
Main pancreatic duct
Magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography
We would like to thank Bonnie Hami, MA (USA) for her editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was received for this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.
- 4.Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system, vol. 4. Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
- 6.Manfredi R, Graziani R, Motton M, et al. (2009) Main pancreatic duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: accuracy of MR imaging in differentiation between benign and malignant tumors compared with histopathologic analysis. Radiology 253(1):106–115. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2531080604 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Seo N, Byun JH, Kim JH, et al. (2015) Validation of the 2012 international consensus guidelines using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: branch duct and main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Ann Surg . doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kim JH, Eun HW, Kim KW, et al. (2013) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with associated invasive carcinoma of the pancreas: imaging findings and diagnostic performance of MDCT for prediction of prognostic factors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(3):565–572. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9511 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Aso T, Ohtsuka T, Matsunaga T, et al. (2014) “High-risk stigmata” of the 2012 international consensus guidelines correlate with the malignant grade of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreas 43(8):1239–1243. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000199 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Nagai K, Doi R, Ito T, et al. (2009) Single-institution validation of the international consensus guidelines for treatment of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(3):353–358. doi: 10.1007/s00534-009-0068-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Goh BK, Thng CH, Tan DM, et al. (2014) Evaluation of the Sendai and 2012 International Consensus Guidelines based on cross-sectional imaging findings performed for the initial triage of mucinous cystic lesions of the pancreas: a single institution experience with 114 surgically treated patients. Am J Surg 208(2):202–209. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar