European journal of radiology · 2012
Autoimmune pancreatitis: assessment of the enhanced duct sign on multiphase contrast-enhanced computed tomography.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kawai Yuichi, Suzuki Kojiro, Itoh Shigeki, Takada Akira, Mori Yoshine, Naganawa Shinji
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the usefulness of the computed tomography (CT) finding of main pancreatic duct (MPD) wall enhancement, termed the "enhanced duct sign", for diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) in comparison with diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma and chronic pancreatitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two radiologists independently evaluated the presence or absence of the enhanced duct sign on multiphase contrast-enhanced CT in patients with AIP (n=55), pancreatic carcinoma (n=50), and chronic pancreatitis (n=50). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of AIP were calculated. In patients demonstrating the enhanced duct sign, additional findings were evaluated by consensus.
RESULTS: The enhanced duct sign was more frequently observed in patients with AIP (37/55, 67%) than in patients with pancreatic carcinoma (5/50, 10%) or chronic pancreatitis (0/50, 0%) (P<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the finding were 0.67, 0.95, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.84, respectively. In AIP, the lumen within the enhanced duct was completely or partially invisible in 29 of 37 (78%) patients, and the enhanced duct was observed within the affected pancreatic parenchyma in 35 of 37 (95%) patients. In pancreatic carcinoma, the lumen within the enhanced duct was visible in all patients (5/5, 100%), and the enhanced duct was observed downstream of the tumor (5/5, 100%).
CONCLUSION: The enhanced duct sign is highly specific of AIP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two radiologists independently evaluated the presence or absence of the enhanced duct sign on multiphase contrast-enhanced CT in patients with AIP (n=55), pancreatic carcinoma (n=50), and chronic pancreatitis (n=50). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of AIP were calculated. In patients demonstrating the enhanced duct sign, additional findings were evaluated by consensus.
RESULTS: The enhanced duct sign was more frequently observed in patients with AIP (37/55, 67%) than in patients with pancreatic carcinoma (5/50, 10%) or chronic pancreatitis (0/50, 0%) (P<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the finding were 0.67, 0.95, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.84, respectively. In AIP, the lumen within the enhanced duct was completely or partially invisible in 29 of 37 (78%) patients, and the enhanced duct was observed within the affected pancreatic parenchyma in 35 of 37 (95%) patients. In pancreatic carcinoma, the lumen within the enhanced duct was visible in all patients (5/5, 100%), and the enhanced duct was observed downstream of the tumor (5/5, 100%).
CONCLUSION: The enhanced duct sign is highly specific of AIP.