[Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma: MRI versus multislice-CT -- a prospective study].
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate multislice-CT versus MRI in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma in a prospective multi-reader analysis.


METHODS
Fifty patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma underwent both multislice-CT (4-Row, "hydro-technique") and state-of-the-art MRI (two 1.5 T units). In correlation with histopathologic findings or in case of a non-lesion diagnosis by follow-up (6-month interval), we evaluated MRI versus CT in a multi-reader analysis (2 reader pairs) for: 1. diagnostic quality; 2. examination time; 3. accuracy of potential resectability; 4. kappa analysis of observer variations; and 5. overall diagnostic reliability.


RESULTS
A total of 28 lesions (n = 22 malignant, n = 6 benign) were present in the cohort group versus 22 patients without a focal lesion (n = 10 pancreatitis, n = 12 no tumor). For lesion detection, CT had a sensitivity of 100/89 % (reader pair 1/2) and specificity of 77 %, and MRI had a sensitivity of 75/89 % and specificity of 77/73 %. For the subgroup of adenocarcinomas of the pancreas (n = 17), we found a sensitivity of 100 % and a specificity of 61 % for CT versus a sensitivity of 82/94 % and a specificity of 67/61 % for MRI. The accuracy for determining the resectability was 91/82 % for CT and 90/82 % for MRI. The kappa analysis showed a good correlation for CT (0.71) and a moderate correlation of both groups for MRI (0.49).


CONCLUSIONS
CT and MRI showed comparable results in the detection of pancreatic carcinomas as well as in the determination of resectability. Chronic pancreatitis as a "tumor-like-lesion" was the major factor of a missed diagnosis. The results of multi-reader analysis for both reading groups were almost identical with a moderate to good kappa correlation. There is no reason to prefer MRI (more expensive) over CT for patients with the presumptive diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.
Grenacher
L
L
Abteilung Radiodiagnostik der Universität Heidelberg. lars_grenacher@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Klauss
M
M
Dukic
L
L
Delorme
S
S
Knaebel
H-P
HP
Düx
M
M
Kauczor
H U
HU
Büchler
M W
MW
Kauffmann
G W
GW
Richter
G M
GM
D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015331:Cohort Studies; D003537:Cystadenoma / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D018358:Neuroendocrine Tumors / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D010179:Pancreas / Q000473:pathology; D010190:Pancreatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000556:secondary / Q000601:surgery; D010195:Pancreatitis / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013997:Time Factors; D036542:Tomography, Spiral Computed / Q000379:methods*