4.3 Article

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: MR imaging features preoperatively predict lymph node metastasis

Journal

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 1000-1009

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-018-1863-y

Keywords

Neuroendocrine tumors; Pancreas; Lymph node metastases; MR imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposesPredictive factors of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are not well established. We sought to identify the value of MR imaging features in preoperatively predicting the lymph node metastasis of pNETs.Materials and methodsIn this study, we enrolled 108 consecutive patients with pNETs between January 2009 and June 2018. MR morphologic features and quantitative data were evaluated. Predictors of LNM were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.ResultsA total of 108 patients with pNETs were finally enrolled, including 82 LNM-negative and 26 LNM-positive patients. Features significantly related to the LNM of pNETs at univariate analysis were tumor size>2cm (P=0.003), Ki-67>5% (P=0.002), non-enhancement pattern (P<0.001), apparent diffusion coefficient value (P<0.001), main pancreatic duct dilation (P<0.001) and pancreatic atrophy (P=0.032) and extrapancreatic tumor spread (P=0.001), CNRs during arterial, portal and delay phase (P=0.005, 0.047, and 0.045, respectively), and histological classification (P=0.006). At multivariate analysis, non-enhancement pattern (P=0.019; odds ratio, 6.652; 95% CI 1.369, 32.321) and main pancreatic duct dilation (P=0.018; odds ratio, 6.745; 95% CI 1.379, 32.991) were independent risk factors for predicting the LNM of pNETs.ConclusionThe non-enhancement characteristic and main pancreatic duct dilation appear to be linked with LNM in pNETs. These radiological predictors can be easily obtained preoperatively, and may help to avoid missing pNETs with a high risk of LNM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available