Ultrasound findings and contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings of mass-type autoimmune pancreatitis versus pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.06.025
- VernacularTitle:肿块型自身免疫性胰腺炎与胰腺导管腺癌的超声及超声造影表现分析
- Author:
Xiangliu OUYANG
1
;
Yunxia HAN
1
;
Lichun ZHENG
2
;
Yingchun ZHAO
3
;
Xinyu SHEN
2
;
Wenjun ZHANG
2
;
Yanbin WANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Ultrasound, Tangshan Gongren Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei 063000, China
2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tangshan Gongren Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei 063000, China
3. Department of Nutrition, Tangshan Gongren Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei 063000, China
- Publication Type:Original Articles_Pancreatic Diseases
- Keywords:
Ultrasonography;
Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography;
Pancreatitis;
Pancreatic Neoplasms;
Diagnosis, Differential
- From:
Journal of Clinical Hepatology
2022;38(6):1351-1355
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the value of ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the differential diagnosis of mass-type autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data, ultrasound findings, and CEUS findings of 11 patients with mass-type AIP who were diagnosed in Tangshan Workers' Hospital from January 2015 to December 2020, and their characteristic manifestations were analyzed and compared with the data of 23 patients with PDCA. The chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. Results For the 11 patients with mass-type AIP, CEUS had a diagnostic accuracy of 63.64%, and all of these patients had hypoechoic single lesions; the patients with clear boundaries, regular morphology, pancreatic duct dilatation or cutoff, and blood flow signal accounted for 54.55%, 63.64%, 18.18%, and 36.36%, respectively, while in the PDCA group, such patients accounted for 30.43%, 34.78%, 78.26%, and 21.74%, respectively, and there was a significant difference in the presence or absence of pancreatic duct dilatation or cutoff between the two groups( χ 2 =11.089, P < 0.05), with no significant differences in the other indices (all P > 0.05). For the 11 patients with mass-type AIP, CEUS showed that 7 patients (63.64%) had hyperenhancement and 4 (36.36%) had iso-enhancement in the arterial phase, and 5 patients (45.45%) had hyperenhancement in the arterial phase and 6 (54.55%) had iso-enhancement in the venous phase; for the 23 patients with PDCA, 22 (95.65%) had hypoenhancement of lesions in both arterial and venous phases, and there were significant differences in the enhancement pattern in arterial and venous phases between the two groups ( χ 2 =30.345 and 30.084, both P < 0.05). Conclusion The enhancement pattern of CEUS and the presence or absence of pancreatic duct dilatation or cutoff have a relatively high value in the differential diagnosis of mass-type AIP and PDCA.
