Radiology · 2012
Differentiation of an intrapancreatic accessory spleen from a small (<3-cm) solid pancreatic tumor: value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jang Kyung Mi, Kim Seong Hyun, Lee Soon Jin, Park Min Jung, Lee Mi Hee, Choi Dongil
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging in differentiation of an intrapancreatic accessory spleen (IPAS) from a small (<3 cm) solid pancreatic tumor.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was waived. Twenty patients with IPAS and 22 patients with small solid pancreatic tumors were included. All patients underwent abdominal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with DW and gadoxetic acid-enhanced imaging. Qualitative (signal intensity) and quantitative (signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC]) evaluations were performed by two observers. Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing groups.
RESULTS: Compared with the spleen, the IPAS showed isointensity more frequently than did small pancreatic tumors on T2-weighted images (95% [19 of 20] vs 41% [nine of 22]), arterial phase images (100% [20 of 20] vs 18% [four of 22]), portal phase images (100% [20 of 20] vs 23% [five of 22]), late phase images (100% [20 of 20] vs 41% [nine of 22]), and DW images with b value of 0 sec/mm(2) (100% [20 of 20] vs 9% [two of 22]), b value of 100 sec/mm(2) (95% [19 of 20] vs 27% [six of 22]), and b value of 800 sec/mm(2) (100% [20 of 20] vs 27% [six of 22]), with significant differences (P < .01). The means of the absolute value of relative signal intensity and ADC ratio on DW images of IPAS were significantly lower and closer to zero than those of pancreatic tumors (P < .05). Visual assessment of the similarity between pancreatic lesion and spleen on DW images for diagnosis of IPAS yielded diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 95% (40 of 42), 100% (20 of 20), 91% (20 of 22), 91% (20 of 22), and 100% (20 of 20), respectively, for observer 1 and 90% (38 of 42), 95% (19 of 20), 86% (19 of 22), 86% (19 of 22), and 95% (19of 20), respectively, for observer 2.
CONCLUSION: In addition to conventional morphologic MR imaging, DW imaging can be used as a tool for differentiating IPAS from solid pancreatic tumors.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12112765/-/DC1.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was waived. Twenty patients with IPAS and 22 patients with small solid pancreatic tumors were included. All patients underwent abdominal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with DW and gadoxetic acid-enhanced imaging. Qualitative (signal intensity) and quantitative (signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC]) evaluations were performed by two observers. Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing groups.
RESULTS: Compared with the spleen, the IPAS showed isointensity more frequently than did small pancreatic tumors on T2-weighted images (95% [19 of 20] vs 41% [nine of 22]), arterial phase images (100% [20 of 20] vs 18% [four of 22]), portal phase images (100% [20 of 20] vs 23% [five of 22]), late phase images (100% [20 of 20] vs 41% [nine of 22]), and DW images with b value of 0 sec/mm(2) (100% [20 of 20] vs 9% [two of 22]), b value of 100 sec/mm(2) (95% [19 of 20] vs 27% [six of 22]), and b value of 800 sec/mm(2) (100% [20 of 20] vs 27% [six of 22]), with significant differences (P < .01). The means of the absolute value of relative signal intensity and ADC ratio on DW images of IPAS were significantly lower and closer to zero than those of pancreatic tumors (P < .05). Visual assessment of the similarity between pancreatic lesion and spleen on DW images for diagnosis of IPAS yielded diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 95% (40 of 42), 100% (20 of 20), 91% (20 of 22), 91% (20 of 22), and 100% (20 of 20), respectively, for observer 1 and 90% (38 of 42), 95% (19 of 20), 86% (19 of 22), 86% (19 of 22), and 95% (19of 20), respectively, for observer 2.
CONCLUSION: In addition to conventional morphologic MR imaging, DW imaging can be used as a tool for differentiating IPAS from solid pancreatic tumors.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12112765/-/DC1.