Cited by 317Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsPeptidase Inhibition and Analysis

A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography, Multidetector Row Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Primary Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer

Kauhanen, Saila P., Komar, Gaber, Seppänen, Marko P., Dean, Kirsti I., Minn, Heikki R., Kajander, Sami A., Rinta-Kiikka, Irina, Alanen, Kalle +4 more·2009·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Objective: To prospectively compare the accuracy of combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET/CT), multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy. Summary Background Data: FDG-PET/CT imaging is increasingly used for staging of pancreatic cancer. Preliminary data suggest a significant influence of FDG-PET/CT on treatment planning, although its role is still evolving. Methods: Thirty-eight consecutive patients with suspicion of pancreatic malignancy were enrolled. Patients underwent a protocol including FDG-PET/CT, MDCT, and MRI combined with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, all of which were blindly evaluated. The findings were confirmed macroscopically at operation and/or by histopathologic analysis (n = 29) or follow-up (n = 9). Results of TNM classification of different imaging methods were compared with clinical TNM classification. Results: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 17 patients, neuroendocrine tumor in 3, mass-forming pancreatitis in 4, cystic lesion in 6, and fibrosis in 2. Six patients had a finding of a normal pancreas. The diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for pancreatic malignancy was 89%, compared with 76% and 79% for MDCT and MRI, respectively. In the differential diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary stricture at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (n = 21), FDG-PET/CT had a positive predictive value of 92%. In 17 patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 30% for N- and 88% for M-staging. Both MDCT and MRI had sensitivities of 30% for N- and 38% for M-staging. Furthermore, the clinical management of 10 patients (26%) was altered after FDG-PET/CT. Conclusion: FDG-PET/CT was more sensitive than conventional imaging in the diagnosis of both primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma and associated distant metastases. In contrast, the sensitivity of FDG-PET/CT was poor in detecting local lymph node metastasis, which would have been important for an assessment of resectability. We recommend the use of FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of diagnostically challenging cases, especially in patients with biliary strictures without evidence of malignancy in conventional imaging. The aim of the study was to prospectively compare 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography or computed tomography, multidetector row computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. In group of 38 patients, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography or computed tomography was more sensitive than conventional imaging in the diagnosis of both primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma and associated distant metastases.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b2fafa

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kauhanen, S. P., Komar, G., Seppänen, M. P., Dean, K. I., Minn, H. R., Kajander, S. A., Rinta-Kiikka, I., Alanen, K., Borra, R. J., Puolakkainen, P. A., Nuutila, P., & Ovaska, J. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Turku (FI)
  • Turku University Hospital (FI)
  • Tampere University Hospital (FI)
Corresponding author
  • Kauhanen, Saila P.
  • Komar, Gaber
  • Seppänen, Marko P.
  • Minn, Heikki R.
  • Kajander, Sami A.
  • Borra, Ronald J.
  • Nuutila, Pirjo
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2009-12
Volume
250
Issue
6
Pages
957-963
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972313686
Cited by
317
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 23
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Peptidase Inhibition and Analysis
Keywords
pancreatic cancer, FDG PET/CT, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, diagnostic accuracy, tumor staging, multidetector computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, mass-forming pancreatitis, pancreatic cysts, distant metastasis, TNM classification, treatment planning
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography, Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review