Preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-1432.2017.05.006
- VernacularTitle:计算机断层扫描和磁共振成像对胰腺神经内分泌肿瘤的术前诊断
- Author:
Xiaozhu LIN
;
Huanhuan XIE
;
Qingrou WANG
;
Weimin CHAI
;
Nan CHEN
;
Fei MIAO
;
Kemin CHEN
;
Fuhua YAN
- Keywords:
Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms;
Tomography,X-ray computed;
Magnetic resonance imaging;
Diagnosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestion
2017;37(5):308-312
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To assess the value of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNEN) and to analyze the factors influencing thepreoperative imaging diagnosis of PNEN.Methods From January 2016 to November 2016, patients with PNEN diagnosed by surgery and biopsy were collected. CT and MRI data of them were analyzed. The CT values or signal intensity of the lesions and the pancreatic parenchyma were measured and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the lesion was calculated. Detecting sensitivity and diagnosis accuracy of CT and MRI were compared. Detecting sensitivity of different MRI sequences was also analyzed. Diagnosis accuracy of non-functional PNEN and functional PNEN was compared and analyzed. Lesion CNR was compared between arterial phase and portal venous phase of the contrast enhanced CT. The sensitivity, accuracy and constituent ratio were compared by nonparametric analysis. Independent sample t test and one-way analysis of variancewere performed for the quantitative parameters comparison. Results A total of 54 patients with 56 lesions of PNEN were included for two of whom had two lesions each. CT and MRI were both performed in 44 patients (46 lesions).Detecting sensitivity and diagnosis accuracy of CT were 97.8% (45/46) and87.0% (40/46), respectively. Detecting sensitivity of MRI were 97.8% (45/46) and89.1% (41/46), respectively. There was no significant difference in detecting sensitivity and diagnosis accuracy between CT and MRI (both P>0.05). The CNR of lesion in arterial phase was higher than that of portal venous phase(4.7±3.8 vs 3.4±2.5), and the difference was statistically significant (t=2.949, P<0.05). Detecting rates of T1 weighted imaging with fat suppression (T1WI-FS) image, T2 weighted imaging with fat suppression (T2WI-FS) image, diffusion weighted imagingand dynamic contrast enhanced T1WI-FS image were 90.0% (45/50), 88.0%(44/50), 86.0%(43/50), and 91.7% (44/48), respectively. There was no significant difference in detecting rate among these images sequences (Q=2.526, P=0.510). Tumor diameter in non-functional PNEN was significantly larger than that in functional PNEN ((2.9±1.6) cm vs (1.7±0.7) cm)(t=3.479,P<0.05). The overall diagnosis rate of non-functional PNEN with CT and MRI before operation was 70.8% (17/24), which was significantly lower than that of functional PNEN (100.0%, 31/31) (χ2=10.360，P=0.002).Conclusions CT and MRI are both sensitive in detectingPNEN, and they were two complementary modalities. CT image in arterial phase delineated the lesion better than that in portal venous phase. MRI images with different sequences can becomplementary and there is no significant difference in detecting sensitivity for PNEN among different sequences. CT and MRI play an equal rolein the diagnosis of PNEN before operation. Because of atypical CT and MRI findings, the diagnosis of non-functional PNEN is more difficult thanfunctional PNEN.
