CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 401Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchMRI in cancer diagnosisPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: A state-of-the-art review

Open access
Lee, Eun Sun·2014·World Journal of Gastroenterology
DOI 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7864PMC PMC4069314
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains one of the deadliest cancers worldwide, and has a poor, five-year survival rate of 5%. Although complete surgical resection is the only curative therapy for pancreatic cancer, less than 20% of newly-diagnosed patients undergo surgical resection with a curative intent. Due to the lack of early symptoms and the tendency of pancreatic adenocarcinoma to invade adjacent structures or to metastasize at an early stage, many patients with pancreatic cancer already have advanced disease at the time of their diagnosis and, therefore, there is a high mortality rate. To improve the patient survival rate, early detection of PC is critical. The diagnosis of PC relies on computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), or biopsy or fine-needle aspiration using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Although multi-detector row computed tomography currently has a major role in the evaluation of PC, MRI with MRCP facilitates better detection of tumors at an early stage by allowing a comprehensive analysis of the morphological changes of the pancreas parenchyma and pancreatic duct. The diagnosis could be improved using positron emission tomography techniques in special conditions in which CT and EUS are not completely diagnostic. It is essential for clinicians to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the various pancreatic imaging modalities in order to be able to make optimal treatment and management decisions. Our study investigates the current role and innovative techniques of pancreatic imaging focused on the detection of pancreatic cancer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7864

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • MRI is of great value in diagnosing PC due to its ability to collect many types and superior soft-tissue contrast; best application circumstances include detection of small non-contour-deforming tumors, evaluation of local extension and vascular encasement, and determination of lymph node, liver, and peritoneal metastases.

    “MRI is of great value in diagnosing PC due to its ability to collect many types and superior soft-tissue contrast. The best application circumstances for MRI include: (1) detection of small non-contour-deforming tumors, (2) evaluation of local extension and vascular encasement, and (3) determination of lymph node, liver, and peritoneal metastases 17,144.”

    From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [17]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • For PC, FDG-PET is more sensitive than CT for treatment monitoring after radiotherapy and description of recurrence after tumor resection.

    “For PC, FDG-PET is more sensitive than CT for treatment monitoring after radiotherapy and description of recurrence after tumor resection 17.”

    From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [17]

    The PET section says FDG-PET is more sensitive than MDCT for depicting tumor recurrence after resection. It also reports greater sensitivity for treatment monitoring following chemoradiotherapy, but the claim broadens that condition to radiotherapy without specifying concurrent chemotherapy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Typical CT findings of pancreatic cancer are hypoattenuating tumor in the arterial and portal venous phases with secondary findings such as pancreatic duct dilatation, pancreatic duct break, common bile duct dilatation, and pancreatic atrophy.

    “Typical CT findings of pancreatic cancer are hypoattenuating tumor in the arterial and portal venous phases with secondary findings such as pancreatic duct dilatation, pancreatic duct break, common bile duct dilatation, and pancreatic atrophy (8,18).”

    From Suspicious findings observed retrospectively on CT imaging performed before the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 114

  1. Hariharan D, Saied A, Kocher HM. Analysis of mortality rates for pancreatic cancer across the world. HPB (Oxford) 2008; 10: 58-62 [PMID: 18695761 DOI: 10.1080/136518207018 83148] · DOI
  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63: 11-30 [PMID: 23335087 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21166] · DOI · Paper page
  3. Li D, Xie K, Wolff R, Abbruzzese JL. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 2004; 363: 1049-1057 [PMID: 15051286 DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(04)15841-8] · DOI
  4. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71-96 [PMID: 18287387 DOI: 10.3322/CA.2007.0010] · DOI
  5. Güngör C, Hofmann BT, Wolters-Eisfeld G, Bockhorn M. Pancreatic cancer. Br J Pharmacol 2014; 171: 849-858 [PMID: 24024905 DOI: 10.1111/bph.12401] · DOI
  6. Karmazanovsky G, Fedorov V, Kubyshkin V, Kotchatkov A. Pancreatic head cancer: accuracy of CT in determination of resectability. Abdom Imaging 2005; 30: 488-500 [PMID: 15759205 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-004-0279-z] · DOI
  7. Miura F, Takada T, Amano H, Yoshida M, Furui S, Takeshita K. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford) 2006; 8: 337-342 [PMID: 18333085 DOI: 10.1080/13651820500540949] · DOI
  8. Brennan DD, Zamboni GA, Raptopoulos VD, Kruskal JB. Comprehensive preoperative assessment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 64-section volumetric CT. Radiograph- ics 2007; 27: 1653-1666 [PMID: 18025509 DOI: 10.1148/ rg.276075034] · DOI
  9. Morana G, Cancian L, Pozzi Mucelli R, Cugini C. Staging cancer of the pancreas. Cancer Imaging 2010; 10 Spec no A: S137-S141 [PMID: 20880783 DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2010.9028] · DOI
  10. Appel BL, Tolat P, Evans DB, Tsai S. Current staging sys- tems for pancreatic cancer. Cancer J 2012; 18: 539-549 [PMID: 23187840 DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e318278c5b5] · DOI
  11. Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Caletti G, Eloubeidi MA. Pancreati- co-biliary endoscopic ultrasound: a systematic review of the levels of evidence, performance and outcomes. World J Gas- troenterol 2012; 18: 4243-4256 [PMID: 22969187 DOI: 10.3748/ wjg.v18.i32.4243] · DOI
  12. Sahani DV, Bonaffini PA, Catalano OA, Guimaraes AR, Blake MA. State-of-the-art PET/CT of the pancreas: cur- rent role and emerging indications. Radiographics 2012; 32: 1133-1158; discussion 1158-1160 [PMID: 22786999 DOI: 10.1148/rg.324115143] · DOI
  13. Conrad C, Fernández-Del Castillo C. Preoperative evaluation and management of the pancreatic head mass. J Surg Oncol 2013; 107: 23-32 [PMID: 22674403 DOI: 10.1002/jso.23165] · DOI
  14. Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Goel M, Arya S. Multimodal- ity imaging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review of the literature. HPB (Oxford) 2012; 14: 658-668 [PMID: 22954001 DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00508.x] · DOI
  15. Raman SP, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Multimodality imag- ing of pancreatic cancer-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Cancer J 2012; 18: 511-522 [PMID: 23187837 DOI: 10.1097/ PPO.0b013e318274a461] · DOI
  16. Dibble EH, Karantanis D, Mercier G, Peller PJ, Kachnic LA, Subramaniam RM. PET/CT of cancer patients: part 1, pan- creatic neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 952-967 [PMID: 23096166 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.8182] · DOI
  17. Kinney T. Evidence-based imaging of pancreatic malignan- cies. Surg Clin North Am 2010; 90: 235-249 [PMID: 20362784 DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2009.12.003] · DOI
  18. Bhat K, Wang F, Ma Q, Li Q, Mallik S, Hsieh TC, Wu E. Advances in biomarker research for pancreatic cancer. Curr Pharm Des 2012; 18: 2439-2451 [PMID: 22372502]
  19. Wray CJ, Ahmad SA, Matthews JB, Lowy AM. Surgery for pancreatic cancer: recent controversies and current practice. Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 1626-1641 [PMID: 15887155]
  20. Cameron K, Golan S, Simpson W, Peti S, Roayaie S, Labow D, Kostakoglu L. Recurrent pancreatic carcinoma and chol- angiocarcinoma: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Abdom Imaging 2011; 36: 463-471 [PMID: 21465110 DOI: 10.1007/ s00261-011-9729-6] · DOI
  21. Maringhini A, Ciambra M, Raimondo M, Baccelliere P, Grasso R, Dardanoni G, Lanzarone F, Cottone M, Sciarrino E, Pagliaro L. Clinical presentation and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 1993; 8: 146-150 [PMID: 8460088]
  22. Karlson BM, Ekbom A, Lindgren PG, Källskog V, Rastad J. Abdominal US for diagnosis of pancreatic tumor: prospec- tive cohort analysis. Radiology 1999; 213: 107-111 [PMID: 10540649]
  23. Rickes S, Unkrodt K, Neye H, Ocran KW, Wermke W. Differentiation of pancreatic tumours by conventional ul- trasound, unenhanced and echo-enhanced power Doppler sonography. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 1313-1320 [PMID: 12465731]
  24. Schima W, Ba-Ssalamah A, Kölblinger C, Kulinna-Cosentini C, Puespoek A, Götzinger P. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 638-649 [PMID: 17021700 DOI: 10.1007/ s00330-006-0435-7] · DOI
  25. Lepanto L, Arzoumanian Y, Gianfelice D, Perreault P, Dage- nais M, Lapointe R, Létourneau R, Roy A. Helical CT with CT angiography in assessing periampullary neoplasms: identification of vascular invasion. Radiology 2002; 222: 347-352 [PMID: 11818598]
  26. Zhao WY, Luo M, Sun YW, Xu Q, Chen W, Zhao G, Wu ZY. Computed tomography in diagnosing vascular invasion in pancreatic and periampullary cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2009; 8: 457-464 [PMID: 19822487]
  27. Li H, Zeng MS, Zhou KR, Jin DY, Lou WH. Pancreatic ad- enocarcinoma: signs of vascular invasion determined by multi-detector row CT. Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 880-887 [PMID: 16822803 DOI: 10.1259/bjr/19684199] · DOI
  28. Vargas R, Nino-Murcia M, Trueblood W, Jeffrey RB. MDCT in Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: prediction of vascular inva- sion and resectability using a multiphasic technique with curved planar reformations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 419-425 [PMID: 14736675 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820419] · DOI
  29. Lu DS, Reber HA, Krasny RM, Kadell BM, Sayre J. Local staging of pancreatic cancer: criteria for unresectability of major vessels as revealed by pancreatic-phase, thin-section helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 1439-1443 [PMID: 9168704 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.168.6.9168704] · DOI
  30. Manak E, Merkel S, Klein P, Papadopoulos T, Bautz WA, Baum U. Resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: assess- ment using multidetector-row computed tomography with multiplanar reformations. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: 75-80 [PMID: 17934772 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-007-9285-2] · DOI
  31. Gusmini S, Nicoletti R, Martinenghi C, Del Maschio A. Vas- cular involvement in periampullary tumors: MDCT, EUS, and CDU. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: 514-522 [PMID: 18587612 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-008-9439-x] · DOI
  32. Zamboni GA, Kruskal JB, Vollmer CM, Baptista J, Callery MP, Raptopoulos VD. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: value of multidetector CT angiography in preoperative evaluation. Radiology 2007; 245: 770-778 [PMID: 17951353 DOI: 10.1148/ radiol.2453061795] · DOI
  33. Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Jowell PS, Nelson RC, Xie HB. Pan- creatic FNA in 1000 cases: a comparison of imaging modali- ties. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 854-861 [PMID: 15933687]
  34. Rösch T, Lorenz R, Braig C, Feuerbach S, Siewert JR, Schus- dziarra V, Classen M. Endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic tumor diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 347-352 [PMID: 2070987]
  35. Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL, Eloubeidi MA. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspi- ration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pan- creatic mass?: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas 2013; 42: 20-26 [PMID: 23254913 DOI: 10.1097/ MPA.0b013e3182546e79] · DOI
  36. Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, de Lima LF, de Oliveira JR, Venco F, Santo GC, Modena JL. Diagnosis of pancreatic tumors by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 3112-3116 [PMID: 17589929]
  37. Faigel DO, Ginsberg GG, Bentz JS, Gupta PK, Smith DB, Kochman ML. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided real-time fine- needle aspiration biopsy of the pancreas in cancer patients with pancreatic lesions. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1439-1443 [PMID: 9193337]
  38. Chen J, Yang R, Lu Y, Xia Y, Zhou H. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012; 138: 1433-1441 [PMID: 22752601 DOI: 10.1007/ s00432-012-1268-1] · DOI
  39. Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wi- ersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1087-1095 [PMID: 9097990]
  40. Bhutani MS, Hawes RH, Baron PL, Sanders-Cliette A, van Velse A, Osborne JF, Hoffman BJ. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of malignant pancreatic le- sions. Endoscopy 1997; 29: 854-858 [PMID: 9476770 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1004321] · DOI
  41. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancre- atic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1386-1391 [PMID: 12094855 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05777.x] · DOI
  42. Fusaroli P, Spada A, Mancino MG, Caletti G. Contrast harmonic echo-endoscopic ultrasound improves accuracy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 629-34.e1-2 [PMID: 20417721 DOI: 10.1016/ j.cgh.2010.04.012] · DOI
  43. Giovannini M, Thomas B, Erwan B, Christian P, Fabrice C, Benjamin E, Geneviève M, Paolo A, Pierre D, Robert Y, Walter S, Hanz S, Carl S, Christoph D, Pierre E, Jean-Luc VL, Jacques D, Peter V, Andrian S. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of lymph nodes and pancreatic masses: a multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 1587-1593 [PMID: 19340900]
  44. Lee TH, Cha SW, Cho YD. EUS elastography: advances in diagnostic EUS of the pancreas. Korean J Radiol 2012; 13 Suppl 1: S12-S16 [PMID: 22563282 DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2012.13. S1.S12] · DOI
  45. Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I, Forteza J, Do- minguez-Munoz JE. EUS elastography for the characteriza- tion of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1101-1108 [PMID: 19647248 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.05.011] · DOI
  46. Giovannini M, Hookey LC, Bories E, Pesenti C, Monges G, Delpero JR. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: the first step towards virtual biopsy? Preliminary results in 49 patients. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 344-348 [PMID: 16680632 DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-925158] · DOI
  47. Sandrasegaran K, Lin C, Akisik FM, Tann M. State-of-the-art pancreatic MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 42-53 [PMID: 20566796 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4421] · DOI
  48. Maccioni F, Martinelli M, Al Ansari N, Kagarmanova A, De Marco V, Zippi M, Marini M. Magnetic resonance cholan- giography: past, present and future: a review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2010; 14: 721-725 [PMID: 20707292]
  49. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Mueller PR, Saini S. State-of-the- art imaging of pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 857-865 [PMID: 14711772]
  50. Miller FH, Rini NJ, Keppke AL. MRI of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: W365-W374 [PMID: 16985107 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0875] · DOI
  51. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 2007; 242: 360-385 [PMID: 17255408 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2422051113] · DOI · Paper page
  52. Kauhanen SP, Komar G, Seppänen MP, Dean KI, Minn HR, Kajander SA, Rinta-Kiikka I, Alanen K, Borra RJ, Puolak- kainen PA, Nuutila P, Ovaska JT. 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. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 957-963 [PMID: 19687736 DOI: 10.1097/ SLA.0b013e3181b2fafa] · DOI · Paper page
  53. Yoshioka M, Sato T, Furuya T, Shibata S, Andoh H, Asanu- ma Y, Hatazawa J, Shimosegawa E, Koyama K, Yamamoto Y. Role of positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy- 2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose in evaluating the effects of arterial infusion chemotherapy and radiotherapy on pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol 2004; 39: 50-55 [PMID: 14767734 DOI: 10.1007/s00535-003-1244-2] · DOI
  54. Sperti C, Pasquali C, Bissoli S, Chierichetti F, Liessi G, Pe- drazzoli S. Tumor relapse after pancreatic cancer resection is detected earlier by 18-FDG PET than by CT. J Gastrointest Surg 2010; 14: 131-140 [PMID: 19777315 DOI: 10.1007/ s11605-009-1010-8] · DOI
  55. Ruf J, Lopez Hänninen E, Oettle H, Plotkin M, Pelzer U, Stroszczynski C, Felix R, Amthauer H. Detection of recur- rent pancreatic cancer: comparison of FDG-PET with CT/ MRI. Pancreatology 2005; 5: 266-272 [PMID: 15855825 DOI: 10.1159/000085281] · DOI
  56. Kuwatani M, Kawakami H, Eto K, Haba S, Shiga T, Tamaki N, Asaka M. Modalities for evaluating chemotherapeutic ef- ficacy and survival time in patients with advanced pancreat- ic cancer: comparison between FDG-PET, CT, and serum tu- mor markers. Intern Med 2009; 48: 867-875 [PMID: 19483354]
  57. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applica- tions of PET in oncology. Radiology 2004; 231: 305-332 [PMID: 15044750 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2312021185] · DOI
  58. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiol- ogy 2006; 238: 405-422 [PMID: 16436809 DOI: 10.1148/ra- diol.2382041977] · DOI
  59. Martínez-Noguera A, D'Onofrio M. Ultrasonography of the pancreas. 1. Conventional imaging. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32: 136-149 [PMID: 16897275 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-006-9079-y] · DOI
  60. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Yokoyama R, Miyoshi T, Kato H, Tsuge Y, Shiratori Y, Hoshi H, Onozuka M, Mori- yama N, Bae KT. Pancreas: optimal scan delay for contrast- enhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2006; 241: 167-174 [PMID: 16990676 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2411051338] · DOI
  61. Kondo H, Kanematsu M, Goshima S, Miyoshi T, Shiratori Y, Onozuka M, Moriyama N, Bae KT. MDCT of the pancreas: optimizing scanning delay with a bolus-tracking technique for pancreatic, peripancreatic vascular, and hepatic contrast enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 751-756 [PMID: 17312064 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.0372] · DOI
  62. Tamm EP, Balachandran A, Bhosale P, Szklaruk J. Update on 3D and multiplanar MDCT in the assessment of biliary and pancreatic pathology. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: 64-74 [PMID: 18483805 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-008-9416-4] · DOI
  63. Salles A, Nino-Murcia M, Jeffrey RB. CT of pancreas: mini- mum intensity projections. Abdom Imaging 2008; 33: 207-213 [PMID: 17387537 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-007-9212-6] · DOI
  64. Kim HC, Yang DM, Jin W, Ryu CW, Ryu JK, Park SI, Park SJ, Shin HC, Kim IY. Multiplanar reformations and minimum intensity projections using multi-detector row CT for assess- ing anomalies and disorders of the pancreaticobiliary tree. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 4177-4184 [PMID: 17696245]
  65. Raptopoulos V, Prassopoulos P, Chuttani R, McNicholas MM, McKee JD, Kressel HY. Multiplanar CT pancreatogra- phy and distal cholangiography with minimum intensity projections. Radiology 1998; 207: 317-324 [PMID: 9577475]
  66. Sun HY, Kim SH, Kim MA, Lee JY, Han JK, Choi BI. CT im- aging spectrum of pancreatic serous tumors: based on new pathologic classification. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: e45-e55 [PMID: 20056368 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.11.017] · DOI
  67. Wang Y, Miller FH, Chen ZE, Merrick L, Mortele KJ, Hoff FL, Hammond NA, Yaghmai V, Nikolaidis P. Diffusion- weighted MR imaging of solid and cystic lesions of the pan- creas. Radiographics 2011; 31: E47-E64 [PMID: 21721197]
  68. Kim JE, Lee JM, Kim SH, Baek JH, Moon SK, Yu IS, Kim SH, Lee JY, Han JK, Choi BI. Differentiation of intraductal growing-type cholangiocarcinomas from nodular-type chol- angiocarcinomas at biliary MR imaging with MR cholangi- ography. Radiology 2010; 257: 364-372 [PMID: 20829532 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10092105] · DOI
  69. Ryoo I, Lee JM, Chung YE, Park HS, Kim SH, Han JK, Choi BI. Gadobutrol-enhanced, three-dimensional, dynamic MR imaging with MR cholangiography for the preoperative evaluation of bile duct cancer. Invest Radiol 2010; 45: 217-224 [PMID: 20195160 DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181d2eeb1] · DOI
  70. Bertolotto M, D'Onofrio M, Martone E, Malagò R, Pozzi Mucelli R. Ultrasonography of the pancreas. 3. Doppler imaging. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32: 161-170 [PMID: 16865314 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-006-9009-z] · DOI
  71. D'Onofrio M, Zamboni G, Faccioli N, Capelli P, Pozzi Mucelli R. Ultrasonography of the pancreas. 4. Contrast- enhanced imaging. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32: 171-181 [PMID: 16838218 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-006-9010-6] · DOI
  72. Oshikawa O, Tanaka S, Ioka T, Nakaizumi A, Hamada Y, Mitani T. Dynamic sonography of pancreatic tumors: com- parison with dynamic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 1133-1137 [PMID: 11959716 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781133] · DOI
  73. Francis IR. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and stag- ing using multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Cancer Imaging 2007; 7 Spec No A: S160-S165 [PMID: 17921087 DOI: 10.1102/1470 -7330.2007.9010] · DOI
  74. Callery MP, Chang KJ, Fishman EK, Talamonti MS, William Traverso L, Linehan DC. Pretreatment assessment of resect- able and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: expert con- sensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 1727-1733 [PMID: 19396496 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0408-6] · DOI
  75. Tamm EP, Bhosale PR, Vikram R, de Almeida Marcal LP, Balachandran A. Imaging of pancreatic ductal adenocarci- noma: State of the art. World J Radiol 2013; 5: 98-105 [PMID: 23671746 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i3.98 · DOI
  76. Fukukura Y, Takumi K, Kamimura K, Shindo T, Kumagae Y, Tateyama A, Nakajo M. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: variability of diffusion-weighted MR imaging findings. Ra- diology 2012; 263: 732-740 [PMID: 22623694 DOI: 10.1148/ra- diol.120111222] · DOI
  77. Koyama K, Okamura T, Kawabe J, Nakata B, Chung KH, Ochi H, Yamada R. Diagnostic usefulness of FDG PET for pancreatic mass lesions. Ann Nucl Med 2001; 15: 217-224 [PMID: 11545191]
  78. Schick V, Franzius C, Beyna T, Oei ML, Schnekenburger J, Weckesser M, Domschke W, Schober O, Heindel W, Pohle T, Juergens KU. Diagnostic impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT evaluating solid pancreatic lesions versus endosonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography with in- traductal ultrasonography and abdominal ultrasound. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 1775-1785 [PMID: 18481063 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-008-0818-x] · DOI
  79. Catalano C, Laghi A, Fraioli F, Pediconi F, Napoli A, Danti M, Reitano I, Passariello R. Pancreatic carcinoma: the role of high-resolution multislice spiral CT in the diagnosis and as- sessment of resectability. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 149-156 [PMID: 12541123 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1473-4] · DOI
  80. Grenacher L, Klauss M, Dukic L, Delorme S, Knaebel HP, Düx M, Kauczor HU, Büchler MW, Kauffmann GW, Richter GM. [Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma: MRI versus multislice-CT --a prospective study]. Rofo 2004; 176: 1624-1633 [PMID: 15497081 DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813642] · DOI
  81. Koelblinger C, Ba-Ssalamah A, Goetzinger P, Puchner S, Weber M, Sahora K, Scharitzer M, Plank C, Schima W. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced 3.0-T MR imaging ver- sus multiphasic 64-detector row CT: prospective evaluation in patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer. Radiol- ogy 2011; 259: 757-766 [PMID: 21436084 DOI: 10.1148/ra- diol.11101189] · DOI
  82. Lee JK, Kim AY, Kim PN, Lee MG, Ha HK. Prediction of vascular involvement and resectability by multidetector-row CT versus MR imaging with MR angiography in patients who underwent surgery for resection of pancreatic duc- tal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2010; 73: 310-316 [PMID: 19070981 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.10.028] · DOI
  83. Park HS, Lee JM, Choi HK, Hong SH, Han JK, Choi BI. Pre- operative evaluation of pancreatic cancer: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MRI with MR cholangiopan- creatography versus MDCT. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 586-595 [PMID: 19711405 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21889] · DOI
  84. Schima W, Függer R. Evaluation of focal pancreatic masses: comparison of mangafodipir-enhanced MR imaging and contrast-enhanced helical CT. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2998-3008 [PMID: 12439582 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1531-y] · DOI
  85. Chu AJ, Lee JM, Lee YJ, Moon SK, Han JK, Choi BI. Dual- source, dual-energy multidetector CT for the evaluation of pancreatic tumours. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e891-e898 [PMID: 22972978 DOI: 10.1259/bjr/26129418] · DOI
  86. Marin D, Nelson RC, Barnhart H, Schindera ST, Ho LM, Jaffe TA, Yoshizumi TT, Youngblood R, Samei E. Detection of pancreatic tumors, image quality, and radiation dose during the pancreatic parenchymal phase: effect of a low- tube-voltage, high-tube-current CT technique--preliminary results. Radiology 2010; 256: 450-459 [PMID: 20656835 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091819] · DOI
  87. Heye T, Nelson RC, Ho LM, Marin D, Boll DT. Dual-energy CT applications in the abdomen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: S64-S70 [PMID: 23097169 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9196] · DOI
  88. Graser A, Johnson TR, Chandarana H, Macari M. Dual en- ergy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical ap- plications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 13-23 [PMID: 18677487 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1122-7] · DOI
  89. Macari M, Spieler B, Kim D, Graser A, Megibow AJ, Babb J, Chandarana H. Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreat- ic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W27-W32 [PMID: 20028887 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2737] · DOI
  90. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innova- tions in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adap- tive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 191-199 [PMID: 20028923 DOI: 10.2214/ AJR.09.2953] · DOI
  91. Yu MH, Lee JM, Yoon JH, Baek JH, Han JK, Choi BI, Flohr TG. Low tube voltage intermediate tube current liver MDCT: sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm for de- tection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 23-32 [PMID: 23789655 DOI: 10.2214/ AJR.12.10000] · DOI
  92. Baker ME, Dong F, Primak A, Obuchowski NA, Einstein D, Gandhi N, Herts BR, Purysko A, Remer E, Vachhani N. Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full-and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 8-18 [PMID: 22733888 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7421] · DOI
  93. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Nishibori H, Miyazawa D, Kondo H, Moriyama N, Bae KT. Image quality and radiation exposure in CT of the pancreas: 320-MDCT with and with- out adaptive iterative dose reduction versus 64-MDCT. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: e593-e600 [PMID: 23916551 DOI: 10.1016/ j.crad.2013.05.102] · DOI
  94. Kalra MK, Woisetschläger M, Dahlström N, Singh S, Lindblom M, Choy G, Quick P, Schmidt B, Sedlmair M, Blake MA, Persson A. Radiation dose reduction with Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012; 36: 339-346 [PMID: 22592621 DOI: 10.1097/ RCT.0b013e31825586c0] · DOI
  95. Leipsic J, Nguyen G, Brown J, Sin D, Mayo JR. A prospec- tive evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 1095-1099 [PMID: 20966312 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.4050] 100 · DOI
  96. Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST, Richard S, Youngblood RS, Yoshizumi TT, Samei E. Low-tube-voltage, high-tube- current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image qual- ity and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm--initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010; 254: 145-153 [PMID: 20032149 DOI: 10.1148/ radiol.09090094] 101 · DOI
  97. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Ackman JB, Digumarthy SR, Hsieh J, Do S, Shepard JA, Gilman MD. Diffuse lung disease: CT of the chest with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology 2010; 256: 261-269 [PMID: 20574099 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091487] 102 · DOI
  98. Schabel C, Fenchel M, Schmidt B, Flohr TG, Wuerslin C, Thomas C, Korn A, Tsiflikas I, Claussen CD, Heuschmid M, Ketelsen D. Clinical evaluation and potential radiation dose reduction of the novel sinogram-affirmed iterative recon- struction technique (SAFIRE) in abdominal computed to- mography angiography. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: 165-172 [PMID: 23099242 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.08.015] 103 · DOI
  99. Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD, Hsieh J, Pien HH, Digum- arthy SR, Shepard JA. Adaptive statistical iterative recon- struction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 2011; 259: 565-573 [PMID: 21386048 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11101450] 104 · DOI
  100. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, Licato PE, Do S, Pien HH, Blake MA. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical itera- tive and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010; 257: 373-383 [PMID: 20829535 DOI: 10.1148/ radiol.10092212] 105 · DOI
  101. Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR, Riordan RD, Roobottom CA. Image quality assessment of standard-and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based it- erative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 545-552 [PMID: 23436843 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9424] 106 · DOI
  102. Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G, Schmidt B, Flohr T, Goet- ti R, Pfammatter T, Frauenfelder T, Alkadhi H. Raw data- based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of ra- diation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 2521-2526 [PMID: 21822785 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2227-y] 107 · DOI
  103. Xu J, Mahesh M, Tsui BM. Is iterative reconstruction ready for MDCT? J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6: 274-276 [PMID: 19327661 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.12.014] 108 · DOI
  104. Akisik MF, Sandrasegaran K, Bu G, Lin C, Hutchins GD, Chiorean EG. Pancreatic cancer: utility of dynamic contrast- enhanced MR imaging in assessment of antiangiogenic therapy. Radiology 2010; 256: 441-449 [PMID: 20515976 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091733] 109 · DOI
  105. Bali MA, Metens T, Denolin V, Delhaye M, Demetter P, Closset J, Matos C. Tumoral and nontumoral pancreas: cor- relation between quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and histopathologic parameters. Radiology 2011; 261: 456-466 [PMID: 21852570 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11103515] 110 · DOI
  106. Kim JH, Lee JM, Park JH, Kim SC, Joo I, Han JK, Choi BI. Solid pancreatic lesions: characterization by using timing bolus dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging assessment- -a preliminary study. Radiology 2013; 266: 185-196 [PMID: 23192779 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120111] 111 · DOI
  107. Inan N, Arslan A, Akansel G, Anik Y, Demirci A. Diffusion- weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of cystic lesions of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: 1115-1121 [PMID: 18806153 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3754] 112 · DOI
  108. Lee SS, Byun JH, Park BJ, Park SH, Kim N, Park B, Kim JK, Lee MG. Quantitative analysis of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas: usefulness in characterizing solid pancreatic masses. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28: 928-936 [PMID: 18821618 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21508] 113 · DOI
  109. Fattahi R, Balci NC, Perman WH, Hsueh EC, Alkaade S, Havlioglu N, Burton FR. Pancreatic diffusion-weighted im- aging (DWI): comparison between mass-forming focal pan- creatitis (FP), pancreatic cancer (PC), and normal pancreas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 29: 350-356 [PMID: 19161187 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21651] 114 · DOI
  110. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in in- travoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 168: 497-505 [PMID: 3393671] 115
  111. Lemke A, Laun FB, Klauss M, Re TJ, Simon D, Delorme S, Schad LR, Stieltjes B. Differentiation of pancreas car- cinoma from healthy pancreatic tissue using multiple b-values: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 769-775 [PMID: 19838121 DOI: 10.1097/ RLI.0b013e3181b62271] 116 · DOI
  112. Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS, Wong S, Hecht EM, Babb JS, Taouli B. Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with stan- dard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging. Radiology 2008; 246: 812-822 [PMID: 18223123 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2463070432] 117 · DOI
  113. Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Morisaka H, Sou H, Muhi A, Kimura K, Sano K, Araki T. Detection of pancreatic carcino- ma and liver metastases with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: comparison with contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2011; 260: 446-453 [PMID: 21693662 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11103548] 118 · DOI
  114. Torigian DA, Zaidi H, Kwee TC, Saboury B, Udupa JK, Cho ZH, Alavi A. PET/MR imaging: technical aspects and poten- tial clinical applications. Radiology 2013; 267: 26-44 [PMID: 23525716 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121038] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, E. S.
Affiliations
Seoul National University Hospital (KR)
Corresponding author
Lee, Eun Sun
ORCID
Lee, Eun Sun
Venue
World Journal of Gastroenterology
Publisher
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
Published
2014
Volume
20
Issue
24
Pages
7864
ISSN
1007-9327 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7864
PMC
PMC4069314
OpenAlex
W2029582007
Cited by
401
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • World Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (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 › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
pancreatic cancer, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, early detection, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, fine-needle aspiration, positron emission tomography, imaging modalities, pancreatic duct imaging
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neoplasm Staging, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Critical Pathways, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Positron-Emission Tomography, Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration, Multimodal Imaging

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