European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 179–187 | Cite as

Comparison between MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography for differentiating malignant from benign mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas

  • Jiyoung Hwang
  • Young Kon KimEmail author
  • Ji Hye Min
  • Woo Kyung Jeong
  • Seong Sook Hong
  • Hyun-joo Kim



To compare diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for differentiating malignant from benign intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN) of the pancreas.


This retrospective study included 55 patients with 47 surgically confirmed IPMNs (12 malignant, 35 benign) and eight MCNs (two malignant, six benign) who underwent contrast-enhanced pancreas MRI and EUS. Contrast enhancement was not routinely used at EUS examination. Two observers independently evaluated the MRIs, and another reviewed EUS images. They recorded their confidence for malignancy with each imaging modality. We calculated diagnostic performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (A z ), and to determine the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values.


The A z values of MRI were higher than those of EUS (0.712 and 0.688 for MRI vs. 0.543 for EUS; p = 0.007). The diagnostic accuracies (74.5%), specificity (78.0% and 80.5%) and PPV (50.0%) of MRI in two observers were higher than those (56.4%, 58.5% and 29.2%, respectively) of EUS (p = 0.013–0.049).


MRI showed better diagnostic performance than EUS for differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic IPMN and MCN.

Key Points

• The A z values of MRI were higher than those of EUS.

• The diagnostic accuracies of MRI were higher than those of EUS.

• The specificities of MRI were higher than those of EUS.


Magnetic resonance imaging Endoscopic ultrasonography Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm Mucinous cystic neoplasm Mural nodule 



Diffusion-weighted imaging


Endoscopic ultrasonography


Fine needle aspiration


Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm


Mucinous cystic neoplasm


Main pancreatic duct


MR cholangiopancreatography


Magnetic resonance imaging


Negative predictive value


Positive predictive value


Receiver operating characteristic


Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Young Kon Kim in the Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Conflict of interest

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.

Statistics and biometry

Soohyun Ahn PhD and Hyeon Seon Ahn MS in Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.


• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution


  1. 1.
    Spinelli KS, Fromwiller TE, Daniel RA et al (2004) Cystic pancreatic neoplasms: observe or operate. Ann Surg 239:651–657, discussion 657–659 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goh BK, Tan YM, Chung YF et al (2006) Non-neoplastic cystic and cystic-like lesions of the pancreas: may mimic pancreatic cystic neoplasms. ANZ J Surg 76:325–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hruban RH, Takaori K, Klimstra DS et al (2004) An illustrated consensus on the classification of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol 28:977–987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosman FTCF, Hruban RH, Theise ND (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cahalane AM, Purcell YM, Lavelle LP et al (2016) Which is the best current guideline for the diagnosis and management of cystic pancreatic neoplasms? An appraisal using evidence-based practice methods. Eur Radiol 26:3121–3128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tanaka M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Adsay V et al (2012) International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology 12:183–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seo N, Byun JH, Kim JH et al (2016) 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 263:557–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 208:202–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jang JY, Park T, Lee S et al (2014) Validation of international consensus guidelines for the resection of branch duct-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Br J Surg 101:686–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim KW, Park SH, Pyo J et al (2014) Imaging features to distinguish malignant and benign branch-duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 259:72–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walter TC, Steffen IG, Stelter LH et al (2015) Implications of imaging criteria for the management and treatment of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms - benign versus malignant findings. Eur Radiol 25:1329–1338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobayashi N, Sugimori K, Shimamura T et al (2012) Endoscopic ultrasonographic findings predict the risk of carcinoma in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreatology 12:141–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ohno E, Itoh A, Kawashima H et al (2012) Malignant transformation of branch duct-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas based on contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography morphological changes: focus on malignant transformation of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm itself. Pancreas 41:855–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee YS, Paik KH, Kim HW, Lee JC, Kim J, Hwang JH (2015) Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for pancreas cystic lesions. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim JH, Eun HW, Park HJ, Hong SS, Kim YJ (2012) Diagnostic performance of MRI and EUS in the differentiation of benign from malignant pancreatic cyst and cyst communication with the main duct. Eur J Radiol 81:2927–2935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim YC, Choi JY, Chung YE et al (2010) Comparison of MRI and endoscopic ultrasound in the characterization of pancreatic cystic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:947–952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang HJ, Lee JM, Joo I et al (2016) Assessment of malignant potential in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: comparison between multidetector CT and MR imaging with MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 279:128–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jang KM, Kim SH, Min JH et al (2014) Value of diffusion-weighted MRI for differentiating malignant from benign intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:992–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ogawa H, Itoh S, Ikeda M, Suzuki K, Naganawa S (2008) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: assessment of the likelihood of invasiveness with multisection CT. Radiology 248:876–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 43:1239–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vullierme MP, Giraud-Cohen M, Hammel P et al (2007) Malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: in situ versus invasive carcinoma surgical resectability. Radiology 245:483–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim SH, Lee JM, Lee ES et al (2015) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: evaluation of malignant potential and surgical resectability by using MR imaging with MR cholangiography. Radiology 274:723–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tamura K, Ohtsuka T, Ideno N et al (2014) Treatment strategy for main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas based on the assessment of recurrence in the remnant pancreas after resection: a retrospective review. Ann Surg 259:360–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bennett BM (1972) On comparisons of sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of a number of diagnostic procedures. Biometrics 28:793–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yoon WJ, Daglilar ES, Mino-Kenudson M, Morales-Oyarvide V, Pitman MB, Brugge WR (2014) Characterization of epithelial subtypes of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas with endoscopic ultrasound and cyst fluid analysis. Endoscopy 46:1071–1077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ohno E, Hirooka Y, Itoh A et al (2009) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: differentiation of malignant and benign tumors by endoscopic ultrasound findings of mural nodules. Ann Surg 249:628–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yamashita Y, Ueda K, Itonaga M et al (2013) Usefulness of contrast-enhanced endoscopic sonography for discriminating mural nodules from mucous clots in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: a single-center prospective study. J Ultrasound Med 32:61–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harima H, Kaino S, Shinoda S, Kawano M, Suenaga S, Sakaida I (2015) Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm using contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography. World J Gastroenterol 21:6252–6260CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee KH, Lee SJ, Lee JK et al (2014) Prediction of malignancy with endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with branch duct-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Pancreas 43:1306–1311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hirooka Y, Goto H, Itoh A et al (2003) Case of intraductal papillary mucinous tumor in which endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy caused dissemination. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 18:1323–1324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University College of MedicineSeoul HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Chungnam National University HospitalChungnam National University College of MedicineDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations