European journal of radiology · 2009
Differential diagnosis of groove pancreatic carcinomas vs. groove pancreatitis: usefulness of the portal venous phase.
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.
Ishigami Kousei, Tajima Tsuyoshi, Nishie Akihiro, Kakihara Daisuke, Fujita Nobuhiro, Asayama Yoshiki, Ushijima Yasuhiro, Irie Hiroyuki, Nakamura Masafumi, Takahata Shunichi, Ito Tetsuhide, Honda Hiroshi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To clarify if the portal venous phase is helpful for the differential diagnosis of groove pancreatic carcinomas and groove pancreatitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MDCT and MRI of groove pancreatic carcinomas (n=7) and groove pancreatitis (n=15) were retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists independently. The signal intensity on T2-weighted images was subjectively assessed. The presence or absence of common bile duct (CBD) and main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures, calcifications, and cystic lesions was evaluated. Additionally, the appearance of groove pancreatic carcinoma and that of groove pancreatitis in the portal venous phase on dynamic MDCT and MRI were compared.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the signal intensity on T2-weighted images and in the presence or absence of CBD and MPD strictures, calcifications, and cystic lesions between groove pancreatic carcinomas and groove pancreatitis. However, patchy focal enhancement in the portal venous phase was more commonly observed in groove pancreatitis than groove pancreatic carcinoma (Reviewers 1 and 2: 14/15 [93.3%] vs. 1/7 [14.3%], P<0.0001). In addition, peripheral enhancement was only seen in groove pancreatic carcinomas (Reviewer 1: 4/7 [57.1%] vs. 0/15 [0%], P<0.005, and Reviewer 2: 3/7 [42.9%] vs. 0/15 [0%], P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The portal venous phase may be helpful for the differential diagnosis of groove pancreatic carcinomas and groove pancreatitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MDCT and MRI of groove pancreatic carcinomas (n=7) and groove pancreatitis (n=15) were retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists independently. The signal intensity on T2-weighted images was subjectively assessed. The presence or absence of common bile duct (CBD) and main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures, calcifications, and cystic lesions was evaluated. Additionally, the appearance of groove pancreatic carcinoma and that of groove pancreatitis in the portal venous phase on dynamic MDCT and MRI were compared.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the signal intensity on T2-weighted images and in the presence or absence of CBD and MPD strictures, calcifications, and cystic lesions between groove pancreatic carcinomas and groove pancreatitis. However, patchy focal enhancement in the portal venous phase was more commonly observed in groove pancreatitis than groove pancreatic carcinoma (Reviewers 1 and 2: 14/15 [93.3%] vs. 1/7 [14.3%], P<0.0001). In addition, peripheral enhancement was only seen in groove pancreatic carcinomas (Reviewer 1: 4/7 [57.1%] vs. 0/15 [0%], P<0.005, and Reviewer 2: 3/7 [42.9%] vs. 0/15 [0%], P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The portal venous phase may be helpful for the differential diagnosis of groove pancreatic carcinomas and groove pancreatitis.