Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


Cross sectional imaging plays a paramount role in the diagnosis of pancreatic pathologies. However, detection of early stage pancreatic carcinoma may be challenging due to only very distinct alterations of morphology and contrast material uptake compared to normal pancreatic tissue. But accurate diagnosis in an early stage is vital in this disease. Acute necrotising pancreatitis represents another potentially life-threatening condition where the extend of necrotic areas has been shown to be directly related to mortality. As acute pancreatitis usually goes along with a general oedematous swelling of the organ, difficulties in detecting necrotic areas due to limited soft tissue contrast of CT may occur. Dual Energy CT with its potential to increase soft tissue contrast and display and quantify iodine distribution in different body tissues may be an important step towards superior diagnostic accuracy compared to regular Single Energy CT. This chapter intends to give a practical approach to Dual Energy CT imaging of the pancreas in front of current literature and clinical case presentations


Acute Pancreatitis Pancreatic Carcinoma Celiac Trunk Iodine Content Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction 
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.


  1. Goldstein D, Carroll S, Apte M, Keogh G (2004) Modern management of pancreatic carcinoma. Intern Med J 34(8):475–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Delbeke D, Pinson CW (2004) Pancreatic tumors: role of imaging in the diagnosis, staging, and treatment. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 11(1):4–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Francis IR (2007) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and staging using multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Cancer Imaging, 7 Spec No A:S160–S165Google Scholar
  4. Grenacher L, Klauss M (2009) Computed tomography of pancreatic tumors. Radiologe 49(2):107–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mehmet Erturk S, Ichikawa T, Sou H et al (2006) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: MDCT versus MRI in the detection and assessment of locoregional extension. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30(4):583–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alhajeri A, Erwin S (2008) Acute pancreatitis: value and impact of CT severity index. Abdom Imaging 33(1):18–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JH (1990) Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 174(2):331–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatzicostas C, Roussomoustakaki M, Vardas E, Romanos J, Kouroumalis EA (2003) Balthazar computed tomography severity index is superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE II and III scoring systems in predicting acute pancreatitis outcome. J Clin Gastroenterol 36(3):253–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leung TK, Lee CM, Lin SY et al (2005) Balthazar computed tomography severity index is superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE II scoring system in predicting acute pancreatitis outcome. World J Gastroenterol 11(38):6049–6052PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Graser A, Johnson TR, Chandarana H, Macari M (2009a) Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 19(1):13–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17(6):1510–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST et al (2010) Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm – initial clinical experience. Radiology 254(1):145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Macari M, Spieler B, Kim D et al (2010) Dual-Source Dual-Energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:W27–W32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graser A, Johnson TR, Hecht EM et al (2009b) Dual-energy CT in patients suspected of having renal masses: can virtual nonenhanced images replace true nonenhanced images? Radiology 252(2):433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heiken JP, Brink JA, McClennan BL, Sagel SS, Crowe TM, Gaines MV (1995) Dynamic incremental CT: effect of volume and concentration of contrast material and patient weight on hepatic enhancement. Radiology 195:353–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cademartiri F, van der Lugt A, Luccichenti G, Pavone P, Krestin GP (2002) Parameters affecting bolus geometry in CTA: a review. J Comput Assist Tomogr 26(4):598–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyClinic of the Goethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations