Prediction of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour grade with MR imaging features: added value of diffusion-weighted imaging
- 706 Downloads
To evaluate the value of MR imaging including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for the grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNET).
Material and Methods
Between 2006 and 2014, all resected pNETs with preoperative MR imaging including DWI were included. Tumour grading was based on the 2010 WHO classification. MR imaging features included size, T1-w, and T2-w signal intensity, enhancement pattern, apparent (ADC) and true diffusion (D) coefficients.
One hundred and eight pNETs (mean 40 ± 33 mm) were evaluated in 94 patients (48 women, 51 %, mean age 52 ± 12). Fifty-five (51 %), 42 (39 %), and 11 (10 %) tumours were given the following grades (G): G1, G2, and G3. Mean ADC and D values were significantly lower as grade increased (ADC: 2.13 ± 0.70, 1.78 ± 0.72, and 0.86 ± 0.22 10-3 mm2/s, and D: 1.92 ± 0.70, 1.75 ± 0.74, and 0.82 ± 0.19 10-3 mm2/s G1, G2, and G3, all p < 0.001). A higher grade was associated with larger sized tumours (p < 0.001). The AUROC of ADC and D to differentiate G3 and G1-2 were 0.96 ± 0.02 and 0.95 ± 0.02. Optimal cut-off values for the identification of G3 were 1.19 10-3 mm2/s for ADC (sensitivity 100 %, specificity 92 %) and 1.04 10-3 mm2/s for D (sensitivity 82 %, specificity 92 %).
Morphological/functional MRI features of pNETS depend on tumour grade. DWI is useful for the identification of high-grade tumours.
• Morphological and functional MRI features of pNETs depend on tumour grade.
• Their combination has a high predictive value for grade.
• All pNETs should be explored by MR imaging including DWI.
• DWI is helpful for identification of high-grade and poorly-differentiated tumours.
KeywordsNeoplasm Pancreas Ki-67 Carcinoma Grading
apparent diffusion coefficient
true diffusion coefficient
European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society
(pancreatic) neuroendocrine tumour
magnetic resonance imaging
World Health Organization
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Maxime Ronot. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.
- 9.Bilimoria KY, Tomlinson JS, Merkow RP et al (2007) Clinicopathologic features and treatment trends of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: analysis of 9,821 patients. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1460–1467, discussion 1467–1469 Google Scholar
- 12.Weynand B, Borbath I, Bernard V et al (2014) Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour grading on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: high reproducibility and inter-observer agreement of the Ki-67 labelling index. Cytopathol Off J Br Soc Clin Cytol 25:389–395Google Scholar