Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dual-phase helical CT in the preoperative assessment of suspected pancreatic cancer: a comparative study with receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dual-phase helical CT in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three consecutive surgical candidates (20 men, 13 women; 39-81 years old) were included. MR imaging comprised fast spin-echo (TR/TE 4000/91), fat-suppressed T1-weighted spin-echo (500/15), and T1-weighted breath-hold gradient-echo fast low-angle shot (100/4; flip angle, 80 degrees) images before and after the administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Helical CT used 5-mm collimation with a pitch of 1:1.5-1.7; images were obtained 20 and 65-70 sec after injection of 150 ml of contrast material. Two pairs of interpreters who were unaware of the results of the other imaging method independently scored each examination for the presence of a lesion and for surgical resectability using a five-point scale. Results were correlated with surgery (n = 25) or consensus review (n = 8). Receiver operating characteristic methodology was used to analyze the results for resectability, and positive predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Both MR imaging and helical CT revealed 29 of 31 lesions. In determining lesion resectability, the mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.96 and 0.81 (p = .01) and the positive predictive values were 86.5% and 76% (p = .02) for MR imaging and helical CT, respectively. CONCLUSION: MR imaging and helical CT performed equally well in lesion detection. MR imaging was significantly better in the assessment of resectability of pancreatic tumors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The sensitivity and specificity of CT for pancreatic cancer diagnosis is 76-92% and 67%, respectively.
“The sensitivity and specificity of CT for pancreatic cancer diagnosis is 76–92% (23-25) and 67% (23), respectively.”
From Suspicious findings observed retrospectively on CT imaging performed before the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [25]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 10 · Cited by 149
- Authors
- Sheridan, M. B., Ward, J., Guthrie, J. A., Spencer, J. A., Craven, C. M., Wilson, D., Guillou, P. J., & Robinson, P. J.
- Affiliations
- St James's University Hospital (GB)
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 173
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 583-590
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W2050638707
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Roentgenology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- pancreatic cancer, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, preoperative assessment, tumor resectability, lesion detection, Gd-DTPA, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value
- MeSH terms
- Adenocarcinoma, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Contrast Media, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Iohexol, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, Preoperative Care, ROC Curve, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Gadolinium DTPA
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