F-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Differentiating Malignant From Benign Pancreatic Cysts: A Prospective Study

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.8). 02/2005; 9(1):22-8; discussion 28-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.10.002
Source: PubMed


The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant pancreatic cystic lesions may be very difficult. We recently found that F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18-FDG PET) was useful for the preoperative work-up of pancreatic cystic lesions. This study was undertaken to confirm these results. From February 2000 to July 2003, 50 patients with a pancreatic cystic lesion were prospectively investigated with 18-FDG PET in addition to helical computed tomography (CT) and, in some instances, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The validation of diagnosis was based on pathologic findings after surgery (n=31), percutaneous biopsy (n=4), and according to follow-up in 15 patients. The 18-FDG PET was analyzed visually and semiquantitatively using the standard uptake value (SUV). The accuracy of FDG PET and CT was determined for preoperative diagnosis of malignant cystic lesions. Seventeen patients had malignant cystic lesions. Sixteen (94%) showed increased 18-FDG uptake (SUV>2.5), including two patients with carcinoma in situ. Eleven patients (65%) were correctly identified as having malignancy by CT. Thirty-three patients had benign tumors: two patients showed increased 18-FDG uptake, and four patients showed CT findings of malignancy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy of 18-FDG PET and CT in detecting malignant tumors were 94%, 94%, 89%, 97%, and 94% and 65%, 88%, 73%, 83%, and 80%, respectively. 18-FDG PET is accurate in identifying malignant pancreatic cystic lesions and should be used in combination with CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pancreatic cystic lesions. A negative result with 18-FDG PET may avoid unnecessary operation in asymptomatic or high-risk patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Sergio Pedrazzoli, Apr 01, 2015
9 Reads
  • Source
    • "Thirdly, Hong et al. described that the diagnostic accuracy of a cut-off value using SUV max 2.5 was as high as 96% in 31 patients (Hong et al. 2010). Regrettably, they merely adopted this cut-off value from other reports that dealt with miscellaneous types of cystic tumors (Sperti et al. 2005, 2007; Mansour et al. 2006; Tann et al. 2007) and skipped the process of statistical estimation. They gave no explanation as to why they used an SUV max of 2.5 as a cut-off value. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG-PET) has been proven useful for differentiating pancreatic ductal cancer from mass-forming chronic pancreatitis. However, there are particular pancreatic tumors having various grades of malignancy such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. We examined whether the cut-off value of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) determined by pancreatic ductal cancers is also applicable for other pancreatic tumors. One hundred thirty six patients with pancreatic tumors underwent FDG-PET imaging. We first analyzed the cut-off value to differentiate pancreatic ductal cancers from mass-forming chronic pancreatitis. Secondly, we determined the cut-off value between malignant IPMN and benign IPMN. Thirdly, we computed a cut-off value between malignant pancreatic tumors and benign tumors irrespective of tumor type. The optimal cut-off value to differentiate ductal cancers from mass-forming chronic pancreatitis was 2.5. The optimal cut-off value for differentiating malignant IPMN from benign IPMN was also 2.5, similar to that of reported studies. In all types of pancreatic tumors, the cut-off value was also 2.5. The accuracy for detecting malignancy was 93.4% for all tumors. In the FDG-PET study for pancreatic tumors, an SUVmax of 2.5 would be justified as a cut-off value to differentiate malignant lesions.
    SpringerPlus 03/2015; 4(154). DOI:10.1186/s40064-015-0938-2
  • Source
    • "Sperti et al. [16] 2001 56 94 97 94 97 e e Sperti et al. [20] 2005 50 94 94 89 97 e 94 Tann et al. [22] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cystic lesions are an increasing problem and investigation of these cysts can be fraught with difficulty. There is currently no gold standard for diagnosis or surveillance. This review was undertaken to determine the present reliability of the characterisation, assessment of malignant potential and diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions using available imaging modalities. A Medline search using the terms 'pancreatic', 'pancreas', 'cyst', 'cystic', 'lesions', 'imaging', 'PET'. 'CT', 'MRI' and 'EUS' was performed. Publications were screened to include studies examining the performance of CT, MRI, MRCP, EUS and 18-FDG PET in the determination of benign or malignant cysts, cyst morphology and specific diagnoses. Nineteen studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. 18-FDG PET had a sensitivity and specificity of 57.0-94.0% and 65.0-97.0% and an accuracy of 94% in determining benign versus malignant cysts. CT had a sensitivity and specificity of 36.3-71.4% and 63.9-100% in determining benign disease but had an accuracy of making a specific diagnosis of 39.0-44.7%. MRI had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.4-100.0% and 89.7% in assessing main pancreatic duct communication. CT is a good quality initial investigation to be used in conjunction with clinical data. MRCP can add useful information regarding MPD communication but should be used judiciously. PET may have a role in equivocal cases to determine malignancy. Further examination of CT-PET in this patient group is warranted.
    Pancreatology 07/2013; 13(4):436-42. DOI:10.1016/j.pan.2013.05.007 · 2.84 Impact Factor
    • "For this risk, as well as the accuracy of fluid analysis, several studies[689] and as also in our study, did routinely use endoscopic US which is expensive, invasive, and needs experience. Recently, positron emission tomography has been found to be accurate in detecting small pancreatic cancers, but it is very expensive.[27] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background/Aim: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms are being increasingly identified with the widespread use of advanced imaging techniques. In the absence of a good radiologic or pathologic test to preoperatively determine the dianosis, clinical characteristics might be helpful. The objectives of this analysis were to define the incidence and predictors of malignancy in pancreatic cysts. Patients and Methods: Patients with true pancreatic cysts who were treated at our institution were included. Patients with documented pseudocysts were excluded. Demographic data, clinical manifestations, radiological, surgical, and pathological records of those patients were reviewed. Results: Eighty-one patients had true pancreatic cyst. The mean age was 47 ± 15.5 years. There were 28.4% serous cystadenoma, 21% mucinous cystadenoma, 6.2% intraductal papillary tumors, 8.6% solid pseudopapillary tumors, 1.2% neuroendocrinal tumor, 3.7% ductal adenocarcinoma, and 30.9% mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Malignancy was significantly associated with men (P = 0.04), older age (0.0001), cysts larger than 3 cm in diameter (P = 0.001), presence of solid component (P = 0.0001), and cyst wall thickening (P = 0.0001). The majority of patients with malignancy were symptomatic (26/28, 92.9%). The symptoms that correlated with malignancy included abdominal pain (P = 0.04) and weight loss (P = 0.0001). Surgical procedures were based on the location and extension of the lesion. Conclusion: The most common pancreatic cysts were serous and mucinous cysts. These tumors were more common in females. Old age, male gender, large tumor, presence of solid component, wall thickness, and presence of symptoms may predict malignancy in the cyst.
    Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology 03/2013; 19(1):45-53. DOI:10.4103/1319-3767.105927 · 1.12 Impact Factor
Show more