MR Elastography of the Pancreas: Bowel Preparation and Repeatability Assessment in Pancreatic Cancer Patients and Healthy Controls.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) stromal viscoelasticity can be measured using MR elastography (MRE). Bowel preparation regimens could affect MRE quality and knowledge on repeatability is crucial for clinical implementation. PURPOSE: To assess effects of four bowel preparation regimens on MRE quality and to evaluate repeatability and differentiate patients from healthy controls. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: 15 controls (41 ± 16 years; 47% female), 16 PDAC patients (one excluded, 66 ± 12 years; 40% female) with 15 age-/sex-matched controls (65 ± 11 years; 40% female). Final sample size was 25 controls and 15 PDAC. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3-T, spin-echo echo-planar-imaging, turbo spin-echo, and fast field echo gradient-echo. ASSESSMENT: Four different regimens were used: fasting; scopolaminebutyl; drinking 0.5 L water; combination of 0.5 L water and scopolaminebutyl. MRE signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was compared between all regimens. MRE repeatability (test-retest) and differences in shear wave speed (SWS) and phase angle (ϕ) were assessed in PDAC and controls. Regions-of-interest were defined for tumor, nontumorous (n = 8) tissue in PDAC, and whole pancreas in controls. Two radiologists delineated tumors twice for evaluation of intraobserver and interobserver variability. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeated measures analysis of variance, coefficients of variation (CoVs), Bland-Altman analysis, (un)paired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Preparation regimens did not significantly influence MRE-SNR. Therefore, the least burdensome preparation (fasting only) was continued. CoVs for tumor SWS were: intrasession (12.8%) and intersession (21.7%), and intraobserver (7.9%) and interobserver (10.3%) comparisons. For controls, CoVs were intrasession (4.6%) and intersession (6.4%). Average SWS for tumor, nontumor, and healthy tissue were: 1.74 ± 0.58, 1.38 ± 0.27, and 1.18 ± 0.16 m/sec (ϕ: 1.02 ± 0.17, 0.91 ± 0.07, and 0.85 ± 0.08 rad), respectively. Significant differences were found between all groups, except for ϕ between healthy-nontumor (P = 0.094). DATA CONCLUSION: The proposed bowel preparation regimens may not influence MRE quality. MRE may be able to differentiate between healthy tissue-tumor and tumor-nontumor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

Amsterdam International Consensus Meeting: tumor response scoring in the pathology assessment of resected pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Histopathologically scoring the response of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to neoadjuvant treatment can guide the selection of adjuvant therapy and improve prognostic stratification. However, several tumor response scoring (TRS) systems exist, and consensus is lacking as to which system represents best practice. An international consensus meeting on TRS took place in November 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Here, we provide an overview of the outcomes and consensus statements that originated from this meeting. Consensus (≥80% agreement) was reached on a total of seven statements: (1) TRS is important because it provides information about the effect of neoadjuvant treatment that is not provided by other histopathology-based descriptors. (2) TRS for resected PDAC following neoadjuvant therapy should assess residual (viable) tumor burden instead of tumor regression. (3) The CAP scoring system is considered the most adequate scoring system to date because it is based on the presence and amount of residual cancer cells instead of tumor regression. (4) The defining criteria of the categories in the CAP scoring system should be improved by replacing subjective terms including "minimal" or "extensive" with objective criteria to evaluate the extent of viable tumor. (5) The improved, consensus-based system should be validated retrospectively and prospectively. (6) Prospective studies should determine the extent of tissue sampling that is required to ensure adequate assessment of the residual cancer burden, taking into account the heterogeneity of tumor response. (7) In future scientific publications, the extent of tissue sampling should be described in detail in the "Materials and methods" section.