Paraduodenal pancreatitis: Clinical performance of MR imaging in distinguishing from carcinoma

Bobby T Kalb, Diego R Martin, Juan M. Sarmiento, Sarah H. Erickson, Daniel Gober, Elliot B. Tapper, Zhengjia Chen, N. Volkan Adsay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for distinguishing paraduodenal pancreatitis (PDP) from pancreatic head duct adenocarcinoma (CA) in patients with diagnoses confirmed by histopathologic analysis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Between July 2007 and July 2010, 47 patients who underwent Whipple procedure and MR imaging less than 60 days before surgery were identified retrospectively. Two relatively inexperienced fellowship trainees with 9 months of body fellowship training were asked to record the presence or absence of three MR imaging features: focal thickening of the second portion of the duodenum; abnormal enhancement of the second portion of the duodenum; and cystic focus in the expected region of the accessory pancreatic duct. Strict criteria for diagnosis of PDP included presence of all three imaging features. Any case that did not fulfill the criteria was classified as CA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for characterization of PDP was calculated for each reader with 95% confidence intervals. A k test assessed level of agreement between readers. Results: Each reader correctly categorized 15 of 17 (88.2%) PDP cases when all three imaging criteria were met. Alternatively, 26 of 30 (86.7%) pancreatic duct CA were correctly categorized as inconsistent with PDP. Four patients with histopathologic diagnosis of CA were incorrectly classified as PDP by each reader. Agreement between the two readers showed substantial k agreement for the diagnosis of PDP and differentiation from pancreatic duct CA. Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced MR imaging may help accurately identify PDP and distinguish it from CA when strict diagnostic criteria are followed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)475-481
Number of pages7
JournalRadiology
Volume269
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Pancreatitis
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Carcinoma
Pancreatic Ducts
Duodenum
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Research Ethics Committees
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
Contrast Media
Adenocarcinoma
Retrospective Studies
Confidence Intervals
Sensitivity and Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Paraduodenal pancreatitis : Clinical performance of MR imaging in distinguishing from carcinoma. / Kalb, Bobby T; Martin, Diego R; Sarmiento, Juan M.; Erickson, Sarah H.; Gober, Daniel; Tapper, Elliot B.; Chen, Zhengjia; Volkan Adsay, N.

In: Radiology, Vol. 269, No. 2, 11.2013, p. 475-481.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kalb, BT, Martin, DR, Sarmiento, JM, Erickson, SH, Gober, D, Tapper, EB, Chen, Z & Volkan Adsay, N 2013, 'Paraduodenal pancreatitis: Clinical performance of MR imaging in distinguishing from carcinoma', Radiology, vol. 269, no. 2, pp. 475-481. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13112056/-/DC1
Kalb, Bobby T ; Martin, Diego R ; Sarmiento, Juan M. ; Erickson, Sarah H. ; Gober, Daniel ; Tapper, Elliot B. ; Chen, Zhengjia ; Volkan Adsay, N. / Paraduodenal pancreatitis : Clinical performance of MR imaging in distinguishing from carcinoma. In: Radiology. 2013 ; Vol. 269, No. 2. pp. 475-481.
@article{e5dea20fced6415cab2b37876a8c27f0,
title = "Paraduodenal pancreatitis: Clinical performance of MR imaging in distinguishing from carcinoma",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for distinguishing paraduodenal pancreatitis (PDP) from pancreatic head duct adenocarcinoma (CA) in patients with diagnoses confirmed by histopathologic analysis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Between July 2007 and July 2010, 47 patients who underwent Whipple procedure and MR imaging less than 60 days before surgery were identified retrospectively. Two relatively inexperienced fellowship trainees with 9 months of body fellowship training were asked to record the presence or absence of three MR imaging features: focal thickening of the second portion of the duodenum; abnormal enhancement of the second portion of the duodenum; and cystic focus in the expected region of the accessory pancreatic duct. Strict criteria for diagnosis of PDP included presence of all three imaging features. Any case that did not fulfill the criteria was classified as CA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for characterization of PDP was calculated for each reader with 95{\%} confidence intervals. A k test assessed level of agreement between readers. Results: Each reader correctly categorized 15 of 17 (88.2{\%}) PDP cases when all three imaging criteria were met. Alternatively, 26 of 30 (86.7{\%}) pancreatic duct CA were correctly categorized as inconsistent with PDP. Four patients with histopathologic diagnosis of CA were incorrectly classified as PDP by each reader. Agreement between the two readers showed substantial k agreement for the diagnosis of PDP and differentiation from pancreatic duct CA. Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced MR imaging may help accurately identify PDP and distinguish it from CA when strict diagnostic criteria are followed.",
author = "Kalb, {Bobby T} and Martin, {Diego R} and Sarmiento, {Juan M.} and Erickson, {Sarah H.} and Daniel Gober and Tapper, {Elliot B.} and Zhengjia Chen and {Volkan Adsay}, N.",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.13112056/-/DC1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "269",
pages = "475--481",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Paraduodenal pancreatitis

T2 - Clinical performance of MR imaging in distinguishing from carcinoma

AU - Kalb, Bobby T

AU - Martin, Diego R

AU - Sarmiento, Juan M.

AU - Erickson, Sarah H.

AU - Gober, Daniel

AU - Tapper, Elliot B.

AU - Chen, Zhengjia

AU - Volkan Adsay, N.

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for distinguishing paraduodenal pancreatitis (PDP) from pancreatic head duct adenocarcinoma (CA) in patients with diagnoses confirmed by histopathologic analysis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Between July 2007 and July 2010, 47 patients who underwent Whipple procedure and MR imaging less than 60 days before surgery were identified retrospectively. Two relatively inexperienced fellowship trainees with 9 months of body fellowship training were asked to record the presence or absence of three MR imaging features: focal thickening of the second portion of the duodenum; abnormal enhancement of the second portion of the duodenum; and cystic focus in the expected region of the accessory pancreatic duct. Strict criteria for diagnosis of PDP included presence of all three imaging features. Any case that did not fulfill the criteria was classified as CA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for characterization of PDP was calculated for each reader with 95% confidence intervals. A k test assessed level of agreement between readers. Results: Each reader correctly categorized 15 of 17 (88.2%) PDP cases when all three imaging criteria were met. Alternatively, 26 of 30 (86.7%) pancreatic duct CA were correctly categorized as inconsistent with PDP. Four patients with histopathologic diagnosis of CA were incorrectly classified as PDP by each reader. Agreement between the two readers showed substantial k agreement for the diagnosis of PDP and differentiation from pancreatic duct CA. Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced MR imaging may help accurately identify PDP and distinguish it from CA when strict diagnostic criteria are followed.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for distinguishing paraduodenal pancreatitis (PDP) from pancreatic head duct adenocarcinoma (CA) in patients with diagnoses confirmed by histopathologic analysis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Between July 2007 and July 2010, 47 patients who underwent Whipple procedure and MR imaging less than 60 days before surgery were identified retrospectively. Two relatively inexperienced fellowship trainees with 9 months of body fellowship training were asked to record the presence or absence of three MR imaging features: focal thickening of the second portion of the duodenum; abnormal enhancement of the second portion of the duodenum; and cystic focus in the expected region of the accessory pancreatic duct. Strict criteria for diagnosis of PDP included presence of all three imaging features. Any case that did not fulfill the criteria was classified as CA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for characterization of PDP was calculated for each reader with 95% confidence intervals. A k test assessed level of agreement between readers. Results: Each reader correctly categorized 15 of 17 (88.2%) PDP cases when all three imaging criteria were met. Alternatively, 26 of 30 (86.7%) pancreatic duct CA were correctly categorized as inconsistent with PDP. Four patients with histopathologic diagnosis of CA were incorrectly classified as PDP by each reader. Agreement between the two readers showed substantial k agreement for the diagnosis of PDP and differentiation from pancreatic duct CA. Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced MR imaging may help accurately identify PDP and distinguish it from CA when strict diagnostic criteria are followed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886661837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886661837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.13112056/-/DC1

DO - 10.1148/radiol.13112056/-/DC1

M3 - Article

C2 - 23847255

AN - SCOPUS:84886661837

VL - 269

SP - 475

EP - 481

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -