4.5 Article

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: Correlation of helical CT features with pathologic findings

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 2, Pages 222-227

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.06.007

Keywords

Pancreas; Neoplasms; Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms; Tomography; X-ray computed

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [08411966500]
  2. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [S30203]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the CT features of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas (IPMNs), and to compare with pathological findings in order to identify CT features that can be helpful in differentiating benign IPMNs from malignant IPMNs. Materials and methods: The CT findings in 25 patients were reviewed for tumor location, tumor type, dilatation of the main pancreatic duct (MPD), MPD involvement, mural node or solid attenuating component, tumor size in branch duct or mixed duct type, dilatation of common bile duct (CBD) and invasion of surrounding structures. The data was subjected to Chi-Square Tests or Fisher's Exact Test using SPSS13.0 software with p value <0.05 indicating significant statistical difference. Results: Presence of mural node or solid enhancing component, size of mural node or solid enhancing component >= 7 mm, dilatation of CBD was more common in malignant IPMNs (p<0.05). None of tumor location, tumor type, dilatation of MPD, MPD involvement, tumor size, and invasion of surrounding structures was statistically significant in differentiating benign from malignant IPMNs. Conclusions: CT features suggestive of malignant or invasive IPMNs include presence of mural node or solid enhancing component, size of mural node or solid enhancing component >= 7 mm, and dilatation of CBD. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available