Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Radiology Reporting Template: Consensus Statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association

Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.87). 01/2014; 270(1):248-60. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131184
Source: PubMed


Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive malignancy with a high mortality rate. Proper determination of the extent of disease on imaging studies at the time of staging is one of the most important steps in optimal patient management. Given the variability in expertise and definition of disease extent among different practitioners as well as frequent lack of complete reporting of pertinent imaging findings at radiologic examinations, adoption of a standardized template for radiology reporting, using universally accepted and agreed on terminology for solid pancreatic neoplasms, is needed. A consensus statement describing a standardized reporting template authored by a multi-institutional group of experts in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that included radiologists, gastroenterologists, and hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons was developed under the joint sponsorship of the Society of Abdominal Radiologists and the American Pancreatic Association. Adoption of this standardized imaging reporting template should improve the decision-making process for the management of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by providing a complete, pertinent, and accurate reporting of disease staging to optimize treatment recommendations that can be offered to the patient. Standardization can also help to facilitate research and clinical trial design by using appropriate and consistent staging by means of resectability status, thus allowing for comparison of results among different institutions. © RSNA and the AGA Institute, 2014 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Download full-text


Available from: Dushyant V Sahani, Apr 28, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To prospectively compare detection and reader confidence of pancreatic lesions using a standard multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) imaging protocol to a dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) imaging protocol with additional virtual non-contrast series. Methods: 60 subjects imaged for suspected or known pancreatic lesions were included. Subjects underwent pancreatic MDCT including non-contrast, pancreatic phase, and portal venous phase (PVP). The PVP was performed in dual energy mode. Virtual non-contrast and blended 120 kVp weighted images were created from the DECT data. Overall noise and absolute attenuation differences of pancreatic lesions and normal pancreatic tissue were measured. Images were read by two staff radiologists blinded to the underlying diagnosis. MDCT and DECT scans were reviewed separately to evaluate image quality and level of confidence in diagnosis of a pancreatic lesion. Results: Image quality was ranked excellent for 90 % and 95 % of the 120 kVp studies and 93 % and 95 % of the 100 kVp studies by readers 1 and 2, respectively. VNC was ranked sufficient quality or better by both readers. Average attenuation difference was 74 HU (120 kVp) and 71 HU (100 kVp). Average noise was 11.31 HU (120 kVp) and 15.89 HU (100 kVp). No lesions were missed by either approach. There was increased confidence in diagnostic interpretation in 14 % (± 9 % [95 % CI]) and 9 % (± 7 % [95 % CI]) of DECT scans compared to MDCT. Conclusions: DECT compared to MDCT pancreatic imaging leads to increased reader confidence with identical diagnostic sensitivity for pathologically proven cases. This approach could be implemented as a single phase acquisition study with calculated VNC leading to a significant dose savings to the patient.
    Abdominal Imaging 10/2014; 40(4). DOI:10.1007/s00261-014-0254-2 · 1.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To compare structured versus nonstructured reporting of multiphasic computed tomography (CT) for staging of pancreatic cancer and the effects of both types of reporting on subjective assessment of resectability. Materials and methods: This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study with waiver of informed consent included all patients who were referred for presurgical multiphasic CT of the pancreas between December 2006 and April 2011 at one institution before and after implementation (April 2008) of a structured reporting template. The template was created specifically for reporting multiphasic CT results to stage pancreatic cancer in patients and contained specific information relevant to surgical and oncologic planning. Multiphasic CT reports were assessed for the presence of 12 key features required for staging and surgical planning, including location, size, enhancement, node status, and vascular involvement. Three pancreatic surgeons evaluated the reports to assess resectability, surgical planning, and ease of extracting information before and after reviewing the multiphasic CT images blinded to the patient identifiers. The Student t test and χ(2) test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Forty-eight (40%) structured and 72 (60%) nonstructured multiphasic CT reports were reviewed. Nonstructured reports contained a mean ± standard deviation of 7.3 key features ± 2.1 (range, 1-11) and structured reports contained 10.6 ± 0.9 (range, 9-12) features (P < .001). Information for surgical planning was deemed easily accessible in 94%, 60%, and 98% of structured and 47%, 54%, and 32% of nonstructured reports by the three surgeons, respectively (P < .001, .79, < .001). Surgeons had sufficient information for surgical planning in 96%, 69%, and 98% of structured and 31%, 43%, and 25% of nonstructured reports (P < .001, .009, and < .001). When surgeons reviewed reports in combination with multiphasic CT images, they were more likely to convert an answer of "unsure" regarding resectability to a definitive answer (ie, resectable or unresectable) when the reports were structured than when they were nonstructured. Conclusion: Structured reporting of pancreatic multiphasic CT provided superior evaluation of pancreatic cancer and facilitated surgical planning. Surgeons were more confident regarding decisions about tumor resectability when they reviewed structured reports before review of multiphasic CT images.
    Radiology 10/2014; 274(2):140206. DOI:10.1148/radiol.14140206 · 6.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improved usage of the repertoires of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) profiles is crucially needed to guide the development of predictive and prognostic tools that could inform the selection of treatment options. Using publicly available mRNA abundance datasets, we performed a large retrospective meta-analysis on 466 PDAC patients to discover prognostic gene signatures. These signatures were trained on two clinical cohorts (n = 70), and validated on four independent clinical cohorts (n = 246). Further validation of the identified gene signature was performed using quantitative real-time RT-PCR. We identified 225 candidate prognostic genes. Using these, a 36-gene signature was discovered and validated on fully independent clinical cohorts (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.51 to 2.81, P = 3.62 × 10(-6), n = 246). This signature serves as a good alternative prognostic stratification marker compared to tumour grade (HR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.88, P = 3.18 × 10(-5)) and tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage (HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.94, P = 0.67). Upon multivariate analysis with adjustment for TNM stage and tumour grade, the 36-gene signature remained an independent prognostic predictor of clinical outcome (HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.16, P = 0.01). Univariate assessment revealed higher expression of ITGA5, SEMA3A, KIF4A, IL20RB, SLC20A1, CDC45, PXN, SSX3 and TMEM26 was correlated with shorter survival while B3GNT1, NOSTRIN and CADPS down-regulation was associated with poor outcome. Our 36-gene classifier is able to prognosticate PDAC independent of patient cohort and microarray platforms. Further work on the functional roles, downstream events and interactions of the signature genes is likely to reveal true molecular candidates for PDAC therapeutics.
    Genome Medicine 12/2014; 6(12):105. DOI:10.1186/s13073-014-0105-3 · 5.34 Impact Factor
Show more