Utility of CT to Differentiate Pancreatic Parenchymal Metastasis from Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The purpose of this retrospective study was to report the computed tomography (CT) features of pancreatic parenchymal metastasis (PPM) and identify CT features that may help discriminate between PPM and PDAC. At multivariable analysis, well-defined margins (OR, 6.64; 95% CI: 1.47–29....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barat, Maxime, Aldhaheri, Rauda, Dohan, Anthony, Fuks, David, Kedra, Alice, Hoeffel, Christine, Oudjit, Ammar, Coriat, Romain, Barret, Maximilien, Terris, Benoit, Marchese, Ugo, Soyer, Philippe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8268077/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34206263
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13133103
Descripción
Sumario:SIMPLE SUMMARY: The purpose of this retrospective study was to report the computed tomography (CT) features of pancreatic parenchymal metastasis (PPM) and identify CT features that may help discriminate between PPM and PDAC. At multivariable analysis, well-defined margins (OR, 6.64; 95% CI: 1.47–29.93; p = 0.014), maximal enhancement during arterial phase (OR, 6.15; 95% CI: 1.13–33.51; p = 0.036), no vessel involvement (OR, 7.19; 95% CI: 1.51–34.14) and no Wirsung duct dilatation (OR, 10.63; 95% CI: 2.27–49.91) were independently associated with PPM. A nomogram based on CT features identified at multivariable analysis yielded an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98) for the diagnosis of PPM vs. PDAC. ABSTRACT: Purpose: To report the computed tomography (CT) features of pancreatic parenchymal metastasis (PPM) and identify CT features that may help discriminate between PPM and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Materials and methods: Thirty-four patients (24 men, 12 women; mean age, 63.3 ± 10.2 [SD] years) with CT and histopathologically proven PPM were analyzed by two independent readers and compared to 34 patients with PDAC. Diagnosis performances of each variable for the diagnosis of PPM against PDAC were calculated. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. A nomogram was developed to diagnose PPM against PDAC. Results: PPM mostly presented as single (34/34; 100%), enhancing (34/34; 100%), solid (27/34; 79%) pancreatic lesion without visible associated lymph nodes (24/34; 71%) and no Wirsung duct enlargement (29/34; 85%). At multivariable analysis, well-defined margins (OR, 6.64; 95% CI: 1.47–29.93; p = 0.014), maximal enhancement during arterial phase (OR, 6.15; 95% CI: 1.13–33.51; p = 0.036), no vessel involvement (OR, 7.19; 95% CI: 1.512–34.14) and no Wirsung duct dilatation (OR, 10.63; 95% CI: 2.27–49.91) were independently associated with PPM. The nomogram yielded an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98) for the diagnosis of PPM vs. PDAC. Conclusion: CT findings may help discriminate between PPM and PDAC.

Ejemplares similares