4.4 Article

Imaging features of small (≤3 cm) pancreatic solid tumors on gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging: an initial experience

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 30, 期 7, 页码 916-925

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.02.017

关键词

MRI; Neoplasm; Pancreas; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Gadoxetic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective was to determine imaging features that distinguish small (<= 3cm) solid pancreatic adenocarcinoma, neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT) on gadoxetic-acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighed imaging (DWI). Materials and methods: Twenty-four adenocarcinomas, 10 NETs and 8 SPTs were retrospectively included. Two radiologists analyzed morphologic features, signal intensity of the tumors on MR images including DWI (b=800) and dynamic enhancement pattern with consensus. Tumor-to-parenchyma ratio and tumor apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) were quantitatively assessed. Results: All adenocarcinomas had an ill-defined margin and irregular shape, and more frequently had pancreatic duct dilatation compared with other tumors (P<.05). All SPTs and all but one of the adenocarcinomas (95.8%) had no arterial enhancement with progressively increased enhancement, whereas seven NETs (70%) had arterial enhancement with progressively decreased enhancement (P<.01). The mean value of tumor-to-parenchyma ratio on arterial and portal phases was significantly higher for NETs, and the mean value of tumor ADCs was significantly lower for SPTs than for other tumors (P<.05). Conclusions: Gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI may aid in differentiation between small adenocarcinomas, NETs and SPTs based on morphologic features with dynamic enhancement pattern in adenocarcinomas, dynamic enhancement pattern with tumor-to-parenchyma ration on arterial and portal phases in NETs, and dynamic enhancement pattern with lower ADC value in SPTs. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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