Purpose: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis; however, the implementation of neoadjuvant treatment enables borderline resectable cases to undergo curative resection and improves the overall survival rate. Attempts have been made to expand the eligibility criteria for neoadjuvant treatment, even in resectable cases. Some studies have suggested a correlation between vein abutment and poor prognosis or that the abutment angle may affect prognosis. This study investigated the anatomical factors affecting the vessel abutment angle and its prognostic value in pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2017 were included in this study. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. Data from only the intent-to-treat pancreaticoduodenectomy group were included in the analysis. Clinicopathological characteristics; preoperative factors such as CA 19-9, preoperative biliary drainage, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, portal vein/superior mesenteric vein contact angle measured via CT scan; and intraoperative factors were collected for analysis. Results: A total of 365 patients were included in this study, and the abutment group included 92 patients (25.2%). The abutment and no-contact groups did not show any significant differences in terms of the overall survival or diseasefree survival rate. Among the abutment groups, patients with less than 90° and 90°–180° did not show any significant differences. In the multivariate analysis, the only preoperative factor that had a prognostic effect was CA 19-9, a biological factor. Conclusion When there is no vessel invasion in the abutment group, upfront surgery should be considered because the angle does not affect the overall prognosis.

Purpose: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis; however, the implementation of neoadjuvant treatment enables borderline resectable cases to undergo curative resection and improves the overall survival rate. Attempts have been made to expand the eligibility criteria for neoadjuvant treatment, even in resectable cases. Some studies have suggested a correlation between vein abutment and poor prognosis or that the abutment angle may affect prognosis. This study investigated the anatomical factors affecting the vessel abutment angle and its prognostic value in pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2017 were included in this study. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. Data from only the intent-to-treat pancreaticoduodenectomy group were included in the analysis. Clinicopathological characteristics; preoperative factors such as CA 19-9, preoperative biliary drainage, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, portal vein/superior mesenteric vein contact angle measured via CT scan; and intraoperative factors were collected for analysis. Results: A total of 365 patients were included in this study, and the abutment group included 92 patients (25.2%). The abutment and no-contact groups did not show any significant differences in terms of the overall survival or diseasefree survival rate. Among the abutment groups, patients with less than 90° and 90°–180° did not show any significant differences. In the multivariate analysis, the only preoperative factor that had a prognostic effect was CA 19-9, a biological factor. Conclusion When there is no vessel invasion in the abutment group, upfront surgery should be considered because the angle does not affect the overall prognosis.

Purpose: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis; however, the implementation of neoadjuvant treatment enables borderline resectable cases to undergo curative resection and improves the overall survival rate. Attempts have been made to expand the eligibility criteria for neoadjuvant treatment, even in resectable cases. Some studies have suggested a correlation between vein abutment and poor prognosis or that the abutment angle may affect prognosis. This study investigated the anatomical factors affecting the vessel abutment angle and its prognostic value in pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2017 were included in this study. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. Data from only the intent-to-treat pancreaticoduodenectomy group were included in the analysis. Clinicopathological characteristics; preoperative factors such as CA 19-9, preoperative biliary drainage, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, portal vein/superior mesenteric vein contact angle measured via CT scan; and intraoperative factors were collected for analysis. Results: A total of 365 patients were included in this study, and the abutment group included 92 patients (25.2%). The abutment and no-contact groups did not show any significant differences in terms of the overall survival or diseasefree survival rate. Among the abutment groups, patients with less than 90° and 90°–180° did not show any significant differences. In the multivariate analysis, the only preoperative factor that had a prognostic effect was CA 19-9, a biological factor. Conclusion When there is no vessel invasion in the abutment group, upfront surgery should be considered because the angle does not affect the overall prognosis.

Objective: To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs). Materials and Methods: Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation. Results: The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance. Conclusion The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.

Objective: To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs). Materials and Methods: Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation. Results: The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance. Conclusion The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.

Objective: To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs). Materials and Methods: Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation. Results: The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance. Conclusion The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of image merging of an intraoral scan of an edentulous arch to a facial scan using wax rim and markers. . Materials and Methods: For registration of oral scan to face scan, a wax rim with markers wasmade. The markers were cuboid and divided into four groups according to size (5, 10 mm) and attachment location (midline, canine region). The evaluation of registration accuracy was compared with a standard created using cone-beam computed tomographydata. Anterior linear variation of the edentulous arch and the 3D variation of the overall arch were measured. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistics, and the significance level was set at 0.05 and evaluated under Bonferroni correction (0.05/6 = 0.083). Results: In the anterior deviation and global deviation results, there was no statistically significant difference in the oral scan position displacement values between the 5 mm and 10 mm groups. When the midline marker was used, the intraoral scan position displacement value was significantly lower than when only the canine marker was used. Conclusion Marker attached wax rim can be used for image matching between facial and intraoral scans of the edentulous arch. Marker location at the middle area increases the accuracy of image matching.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of image merging of an intraoral scan of an edentulous arch to a facial scan using wax rim and markers. . Materials and Methods: For registration of oral scan to face scan, a wax rim with markers wasmade. The markers were cuboid and divided into four groups according to size (5, 10 mm) and attachment location (midline, canine region). The evaluation of registration accuracy was compared with a standard created using cone-beam computed tomographydata. Anterior linear variation of the edentulous arch and the 3D variation of the overall arch were measured. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistics, and the significance level was set at 0.05 and evaluated under Bonferroni correction (0.05/6 = 0.083). Results: In the anterior deviation and global deviation results, there was no statistically significant difference in the oral scan position displacement values between the 5 mm and 10 mm groups. When the midline marker was used, the intraoral scan position displacement value was significantly lower than when only the canine marker was used. Conclusion Marker attached wax rim can be used for image matching between facial and intraoral scans of the edentulous arch. Marker location at the middle area increases the accuracy of image matching.

Objective: To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs). Materials and Methods: Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation. Results: The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance. Conclusion The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of image merging of an intraoral scan of an edentulous arch to a facial scan using wax rim and markers. . Materials and Methods: For registration of oral scan to face scan, a wax rim with markers wasmade. The markers were cuboid and divided into four groups according to size (5, 10 mm) and attachment location (midline, canine region). The evaluation of registration accuracy was compared with a standard created using cone-beam computed tomographydata. Anterior linear variation of the edentulous arch and the 3D variation of the overall arch were measured. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistics, and the significance level was set at 0.05 and evaluated under Bonferroni correction (0.05/6 = 0.083). Results: In the anterior deviation and global deviation results, there was no statistically significant difference in the oral scan position displacement values between the 5 mm and 10 mm groups. When the midline marker was used, the intraoral scan position displacement value was significantly lower than when only the canine marker was used. Conclusion Marker attached wax rim can be used for image matching between facial and intraoral scans of the edentulous arch. Marker location at the middle area increases the accuracy of image matching.