Download PDF
Z Gastroenterol 2015; 53(10): 1175-1181
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-103847
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Quantitative perfusion analysis in pancreatic contrast enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US): a promising tool for the differentiation between autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer

Quantifizierende Kontrastmittelsonografie (DCE-US) des Pankreas: eine vielversprechende Methode zur Differenzierung von Autoimmunpankreatits und Pankreaskarzinom
F. Vitali   *
,
L. Pfeifer   *
,
C. Janson
,
R. S. Goertz
,
M. F. Neurath
,
D. Strobel
,
D. Wildner
Further Information

Publication History

02 December 2014

06 April 2015

Publication Date:
19 October 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In the work-up of focal pancreatic lesions autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare differential diagnosis to pancreatic cancer (PC) with similar clinical constellations. The aim of our study was to compare differences between proven AIP and PC using transabdominal dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US). Therefore we recorded 3-minute-clips of CEUS examinations and analyzed perfusion parameters with VueBox®-quantification software. To obtain DCE-US Parameters, Regions-of-Interest were selected within the lesions and the surrounding pancreas parenchyma, serving as reference tissue. We compared 3 patients with AIP (mean age: 58 years; lesion mean size: 40 mm) to 17 patients with PC (mean age: 68 years; lesion mean size: 35.9 mm). Significant differences between PC and parenchyma could be found in the following parameters: Peak-Enhancement (PE), Wash-in-and-Wash-out-AUC, Wash-in Perfusion-Index. PE of AIP was comparable to normal parenchyma. The relation of PE between parenchyma and lesion (ΔPE) AIP and PC was significantly different [AIP: 0.21 (± 0.06); PC: 0.81 (± 0.1); p < 0.01]. PE of neoplastic lesions was significantly lower as AIP and normal parenchyma (p < 0.01). Therefore perfusion analysis in DCE-US can help to differentiate hypovascular PC from AIP presenting nearly isovascular time intensity curves. Diagnostic accuracy of DCE-US in this setting has to be validated in future prospective studies in comparison to CT and MRI.

Zusammenfassung

In der Abklärung fokaler Pankreasläsionen stellt die Autoimmunpankreatitis (AIP) eine seltene Differenzialdiagnose zum Pankreaskarzinom (PC) mit vergleichbarer klinischer Symptomkonstellation dar. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war es zu untersuchen, ob die dynamische transabdominelle Kontrastmittelsonografie (DCE-US) Unterschiede zwischen gesicherten AIP und PC darstellen kann. Videoclips der Kontrastmittelsonografie nach Bolusinjektion von SonoVue® wurden über 3 Minuten aufgezeichnet und mittels Quantifizierungs-Software (VueBox®) ausgewertet. Die Quantifikationsparameter wurden durch einen Messbereich innerhalb der Pankreasläsion bestimmt und mit denen des angrenzenden gesunden Pankreasparenchyms als intraindividuelle Referenz verglichen. Es wurden 3 AIP-Patienten (mittleres Alter: 58 Jahre; mittlere Läsionsgröße: 40 mm) und 17 PC-Patienten (mittleres Alter: 68 Jahre; mittlere Läsionsgröße: 35,9 mm) untersucht. Signifikante Unterschiede zeigten sich zwischen Parenchym und PC in folgenden DCE-US-Parametern: Peak-Enhancement (PE), Wash-in-and-Wash-out-AUC, Wash-in Perfusion-Index. DCE-US Parameter der AIP zeigten vergleichbare Werte zum umliegenden, morphologisch unauffälligen, Parenchym. Das Verhältnis des PE zwischen Parenchym und Läsion (ΔPE) war signifikant unterschiedlich [AIP: 0,21 (± 0,06); PC: 0,81 (± 0,1); p < 0,01]. Die Analyse der Perfusionskinetik mittels DCE-US kann helfen, das hypovaskularisierte PC von der nahezu isovaskularisierten AIP zu unterscheiden. Die diagnostische Treffsicherheit der quantitativen Kontrastmittelsonografie muss in prospektiven Studien im Vergleich zur CT und MRT validiert werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Kontrastmittelsonografie - Pankreaskarzinom - Autoimmunpankreatitis - quantifizierende Perfusionsanalyse

Key words

contrast enhanced ultrasound - pancreatic adenocarcinoma - autoimmune pancreatitis - quantitative perfusion analysis

* Drs. Vitali and Pfeifer contributed equally to this article.


 

  • References

  • 1 Asbun HJ, Conlon K, Fernandez-Cruz L et al. When to perform a pancreatoduodenectomy in the absence of positive histology? A consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery 2014; 155: 887-892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Seufferlein T, Porzner M, Becker T et al. S3-guideline exocrine pancreatic cancer. Z Gastroenterol 2013; 51: 1395-1440
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vitali F, Hansen T, Kiesslich R et al. Frequency and characterization of benign lesions in patients undergoing surgery for the suspicion of solid pancreatic neoplasm. Pancreas 2014; 43: 1329-1333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cohen JR, Kuchta N, Geller N et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign disease. Ann Surg 1983; 197: 68-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Smith CD, Behrns KE, van Heerden JA et al. Radical pancreatoduodenectomy for misdiagnosed pancreatic mass. Br J Surg 1994; 81: 585-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Barens SA, Lillemoe KD, Kaufman HS et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign disease. Am J Surg 1996; 171: 131-134 ; discussion 134–135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 van Gulik TM, Reeders JW, Bosma A et al. Incidence and clinical findings of benign, inflammatory disease in patients resected for presumed pancreatic head cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 417-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Abraham SC, Wilentz RE, Yeo CJ et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple resections) in patients without malignancy: are they all 'chronic pancreatitis'?. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 110-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Weber SM, Cubukcu-Dimopulo O, Palesty JA et al. Lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis: inflammatory mimic of pancreatic carcinoma. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery: official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2003; 7: 129-137 ; discussion 137–129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Manzia TM, Toti L, Lenci I et al. Benign disease and unexpected histological findings after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the role of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2010; 92: 295-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hardacre JM, Iacobuzio-Donahue CA, Sohn TA et al. Results of pancreaticoduodenectomy for lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis. Annals of surgery 2003; 237: 853-858 ; discussion 858–859
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Adsay NV, Basturk O, Klimstra DS et al. Pancreatic pseudotumors: non-neoplastic solid lesions of the pancreas that clinically mimic pancreas cancer. Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 2004; 21: 260-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kennedy T, Preczewski L, Stocker SJ et al. Incidence of benign inflammatory disease in patients undergoing Whipple procedure for clinically suspected carcinoma: a single-institution experience. American journal of surgery 2006; 191: 437-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kavanagh DO, O'Riain C, Ridgway PF et al. Radical Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Benign Disease. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL 2008; 8: 1156-1167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 de la Fuente SG, Ceppa EP, Reddy SK et al. Incidence of benign disease in patients that underwent resection for presumed pancreatic cancer diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA). J Gastrointest Surg 2010; 14: 1139-1142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 de Castro SM, de Nes LC, Nio CY et al. Incidence and characteristics of chronic and lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis in patients scheduled to undergo a pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB: the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association 2010; 12: 15-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hurtuk MG, Shoup M, Oshima K et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomies in patients without periampullary neoplasms: lesions that masquerade as cancer. The American Journal of Surgery 2010; 199: 372-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 van Heerde MJ, Biermann K, Zondervan PE et al. Prevalence of autoimmune pancreatitis and other benign disorders in pancreatoduodenectomy for presumed malignancy of the pancreatic head. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57: 2458-2465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sasson AR, Gulizia JM, Galva A et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy: have advancements in radiographic imaging improved results?. American journal of surgery 2006; 192: 888-893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Frulloni L, Scattolini C, Falconi M et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis: differences between the focal and diffuse forms in 87 patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 2288-2294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, Frulloni L et al. International consensus diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis: guidelines of the International Association of Pancreatology. Pancreas 2011; 40: 352-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ghazale A, Chari ST, Smyrk TC et al. Value of serum IgG4 in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and in distinguishing it from pancreatic cancer. The American journal of gastroenterology 2007; 102: 1646-1653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Park DH, Kim MH, Chari ST. Recent advances in autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut 2009; 58: 1680-1689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cwik G, Wallner G, Skoczylas T et al. Cancer antigens 19–9 and 125 in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic mass lesions. Archives of surgery 2006; 141: 968-973 ; discussion 974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Stintzing S, Herold C, Hahn EG et al. CA 19–9 in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. Der Internist 2008; 49: 225-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 van Heerde MJ, Buijs J, Hansen BE et al. Serum level of Ca 19–9 increases ability of IgG4 test to distinguish patients with autoimmune pancreatitis from those with pancreatic carcinoma. Digestive diseases and sciences 2014; 59: 1322-1329
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 D'Onofrio M, Zamboni G, Tognolini A et al. Mass-forming pancreatitis: value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 4181-4184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2012; 33: 33-59
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kersting S, Konopke R, Kersting F et al. Quantitative perfusion analysis of transabdominal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of pancreatic masses and carcinomas. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 1903-1911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas JM et al. An EFSUMB introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2012; 33: 344-351
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Greis C. Quantitative evaluation of microvascular blood flow by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation 2011; 49: 137-149
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 D'Onofrio M, Canestrini S, Crosara S et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound with quantitative perfusion analysis for objective characterization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A feasibility study. World journal of radiology 2014; 6: 31-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wildner D, Pfeifer L, Goertz RS et al. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for the Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cholangiocellular Carcinoma. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2014; DOI: 10.1055/s-0034–1385170.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, Frulloni L et al. International consensus diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis: guidelines of the International Association of Pancreatology. Pancreas 2011; 40: 352-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 D'Onofrio M, Biagioli E, Gerardi C et al. Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound (ECEUS) for the Differentiation of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2014; DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1385068.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mauch M, Blank W, Kunze G et al. Importance of Abdominal Ultrasound in 17 Patients with Histologically Confirmed Autoimmune Pancreatitis (AIP. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2014; DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1385385.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Matsubayashi H, Yoneyama M, Nanri K et al. Determination of steroid response by abdominal ultrasound in cases with autoimmune pancreatitis. Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver 2013; 45: 1034-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA et al. Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2003; 229: 81-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Prokesch RW, Chow LC, Beaulieu CF et al. Isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma at multi-detector row CT: secondary signs. Radiology 2002; 224: 764-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kim T, Murakami T, Takamura M et al. Pancreatic mass due to chronic pancreatitis: correlation of CT and MR imaging features with pathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol American journal of roentgenology 2001; 177: 367-371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Manfredi R, Graziani R, Cicero C et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis: CT patterns and their changes after steroid treatment. Radiology 2008; 247: 435-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Takahashi N, Fletcher JG, Hough DM et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis: differentiation from pancreatic carcinoma and normal pancreas on the basis of enhancement characteristics at dual-phase CT. Am J Roentgenol American journal of roentgenology 2009; 193: 479-484
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 D'Onofrio M, Malago R, Zamboni G et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography better identifies pancreatic tumor vascularization than helical CT. Pancreatology 2005; 5: 398-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Matsubara H, Itoh A, Kawashima H et al. Dynamic quantitative evaluation of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases. Pancreas 2011; 40: 1073-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Imazu H, Kanazawa K, Mori N et al. Novel quantitative perfusion analysis with contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic carcinoma. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology 2012; 47: 853-860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hocke M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2011; 43 (Suppl. 02) UCTN: E381-382
    PubMedGoogle Scholar