Abstract

Purpose: To compare imaging features of pancreatic metastases (PM) with those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC). Methods: CT and MR scans of 24 patients with 54 PM and 30 patients with PDAC were reviewed to evaluate the imaging features, which were compared by using a Chi square test. Results: We found a statistically significant difference between PM and PDAC based on location (P < 0.001), margins (P < 0.001), arterial enhancement (P = 0.004), rim enhancement (P < 0.001), pancreatic duct dilatation (P = 0.01), common bile duct dilatation (P = 0.003), vascular involvement (P = 0.02), parenchymal atrophy (P < 0.001), peripancreatic fluid (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Imaging features might be helpful to differentiate PM from PDAC.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)76-82
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Imaging
Volume51
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Adenocarcinoma
Neoplasm Metastasis
Dilatation
Pancreatic Ducts
Common Bile Duct
Chi-Square Distribution
Atrophy
Blood Vessels

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{f94207be1d814ad4bbf5272e8dfb7cb6,
title = "Imaging features of pancreatic metastases: A comparison with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare imaging features of pancreatic metastases (PM) with those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC). Methods: CT and MR scans of 24 patients with 54 PM and 30 patients with PDAC were reviewed to evaluate the imaging features, which were compared by using a Chi square test. Results: We found a statistically significant difference between PM and PDAC based on location (P < 0.001), margins (P < 0.001), arterial enhancement (P = 0.004), rim enhancement (P < 0.001), pancreatic duct dilatation (P = 0.01), common bile duct dilatation (P = 0.003), vascular involvement (P = 0.02), parenchymal atrophy (P < 0.001), peripancreatic fluid (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Imaging features might be helpful to differentiate PM from PDAC.",
keywords = "Abdominal radiology; Adenocarcinoma; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance; Metastases; Pancreas; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging",
author = "Terranova, {Maria Chiara} and {Di Buono}, Giuseppe and {La Grutta}, Ludovico and Dario Picone and Massimo Galia and Massimo Midiri and Anna Licata and Domenico Albano and Antonino Agrusa and {Lo Re}, Giuseppe",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "76--82",
journal = "Clinical Imaging",
issn = "0899-7071",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Imaging features of pancreatic metastases: A comparison with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

AU - Terranova, Maria Chiara

AU - Di Buono, Giuseppe

AU - La Grutta, Ludovico

AU - Picone, Dario

AU - Galia, Massimo

AU - Midiri, Massimo

AU - Licata, Anna

AU - Albano, Domenico

AU - Agrusa, Antonino

AU - Lo Re, Giuseppe

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Purpose: To compare imaging features of pancreatic metastases (PM) with those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC). Methods: CT and MR scans of 24 patients with 54 PM and 30 patients with PDAC were reviewed to evaluate the imaging features, which were compared by using a Chi square test. Results: We found a statistically significant difference between PM and PDAC based on location (P < 0.001), margins (P < 0.001), arterial enhancement (P = 0.004), rim enhancement (P < 0.001), pancreatic duct dilatation (P = 0.01), common bile duct dilatation (P = 0.003), vascular involvement (P = 0.02), parenchymal atrophy (P < 0.001), peripancreatic fluid (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Imaging features might be helpful to differentiate PM from PDAC.

AB - Purpose: To compare imaging features of pancreatic metastases (PM) with those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC). Methods: CT and MR scans of 24 patients with 54 PM and 30 patients with PDAC were reviewed to evaluate the imaging features, which were compared by using a Chi square test. Results: We found a statistically significant difference between PM and PDAC based on location (P < 0.001), margins (P < 0.001), arterial enhancement (P = 0.004), rim enhancement (P < 0.001), pancreatic duct dilatation (P = 0.01), common bile duct dilatation (P = 0.003), vascular involvement (P = 0.02), parenchymal atrophy (P < 0.001), peripancreatic fluid (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Imaging features might be helpful to differentiate PM from PDAC.

KW - Abdominal radiology; Adenocarcinoma; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance; Metastases; Pancreas; Radiology

KW - Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/276907

UR - http://www.elsevier.com/locate/clinimag

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 76

EP - 82

JO - Clinical Imaging

JF - Clinical Imaging

SN - 0899-7071

ER -