4.7 Article

Magnetic resonance imaging findings of the mass-forming type of autoimmune pancreatitis: Comparison with pancreatic adenocarcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 188-197

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23609

关键词

autoimmune pancreatitis; MR cholangiopancreatography; diffusion-weighted imaging; pancreatic adenocarcinoma

资金

  1. SNUH [05-2009-001-0]
  2. Ministry for Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [1120310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine the characteristic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), which allow its differentiation from pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). Materials and Methods: MR images of 37 patients with either pathologically proven, mass-forming AIPs (n = 9) or PACs (n = 28) were retrospectively reviewed. The pancreatic MR protocol included unenhanced images, contrast-enhanced dynamic images, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and MR-cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Two reviewers analyzed the MR images regarding the number, location, morphologic features, and enhancement degree and pattern of the lesions as well as secondary changes of the pancreatic parenchyma, the biliary and pancreatic ducts. The size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of the lesions were measured. Results: Although sensitivities were low (28.6%44.4%), specificities of multiplicity, capsule-like rim enhancement, and skipped stricture of the biliary or pancreatic duct in mass-forming AIP were high (100%). Sensitivities and specificities of irregular or geographic shape, delayed enhancement, and a low ADC value <1.26 X 10-3 mm2/s in mass-forming AIP were favorable (71.4%83.3% and 78.5%89.3%). Conclusion: Although to differentiate mass-forming AIP from pancreatic cancer is difficult, the combination of MRI findings including contrast-enhanced dynamic images, MRCP, and DWI can be a help. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2012;36:188197. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据