Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 11, pp 2698–2699 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy for neoplastic IPMN: does the contrast make the difference?

  • Andrea Lisotti
  • Pietro FusaroliEmail author

Dear Editor,

We have read with great interest Dr. Choi’s article comparing the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for the detection of neoplastic features in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) [1].

As stated by the authors, available evidence from the literature reported higher accuracy for EUS than for other imaging techniques (CT and MRI) in differential diagnosis of IPMN. Accordingly, guidelines have recommended EUS as the preferred second-level diagnostic technique [2, 3].

Interestingly, Choi et al. observed that contrast-enhanced CT, contrast-enhanced MRI, and EUS showed similar diagnostic accuracy for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant IPMN. Moreover, they found even higher sensitivity and specificity for the two radiologic imaging techniques when the presence of enhancing solid component was taken into account. The...


Diagnostic Accuracy Interobserver Agreement Biliary Drainage Cystic Neoplasm Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Compliance with ethical standards


No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.


  1. 1.
    Choi SY, Kim JH, Yu MH, et al. (2017) 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. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(5):1449–1458. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1053-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists.; Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas, Buscarini E, Pezzilli R, et al. (2014) Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms. Dig Liver Dis 46(6):479–493. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.12.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tanaka M, Fernández-del Castillo C, Adsay V, International Association of Pancreatology (2012) International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology 12(3):183–197. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2012.04.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fusaroli P, Kypreos D, Alma Petrini CA, Caletti G (2011) Scientific publications in endoscopic ultrasonography: changing trends in the third millennium. J Clin Gastroenterol 45(5):400–404. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181fbde42 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fusaroli P, Serrani M, De Giorgio R, et al. (2016) Contrast harmonic-endoscopic ultrasound is useful to identify neoplastic features of pancreatic cysts (with videos). Pancreas 45(2):265–268. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000441 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kamata K, Kitano M, Omoto S, et al. (2016) Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. Endoscopy 48(1):35–41. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1393564 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harima H, Kaino S, Shinoda S, et al. (2015) Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography. World J Gastroenterol 21(20):6252–6260. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i20.6252 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamamoto N, Kato H, Tomoda T, et al. (2016) Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography with time-intensity curve analysis for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Endoscopy 48(1):26–34. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1393563 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Mancino MG, et al. (2012) Interobserver agreement in contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27(6):1063–1069. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07115.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Science, Hospital of ImolaUniversity of BolognaImolaItaly

Personalised recommendations