ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Imaging in pancreatic cancer is a challenge, especially regarding therapy response evaluation. Tumor size, attenuation, and perfusion are widely used as parameters for computed tomography (CT) examinations, but are often limited due to blurry tumor borders and missing qualitative parameters. To improve monitoring of therapy response, we tested a new CT-based approach of tumor heterogeneity feature analysis. METHODS: A total of 13 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing abdominal CT according to standard as baseline imaging with clinical follow-up and imaging (median time span 64 days) under systematic therapy (FOLFIRINOX/gemcitabine) were retrospectively analyzed. Progression was defined as new lesions and local tumor spread. Tumor heterogeneity analysis was performed using mintLesion®. Seven different image features referring to image heterogeneity were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed with Spearman's rank correlation and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: During follow-up, tumor volume did not significantly change between our groups with overall progression (local and systemic) and progression-free patients (p = 0.661). Mean positivity of pixel values were significantly higher in patients without progression compared to patients with progression (p = 0.030). There was a significant negative correlation between changes in kurtosis and time to local tumor spread (p = 0.008) or systemic progression (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that analysis of tumor heterogeneity might provide valuable information from routine-acquired images regarding therapy response evaluation. This might help adjusting therapy regimes and could be easily integrated in clinical workflows. Furthermore, this procedure might possibly predict therapy response and, hence could lead the way to find a potential marker for progression-free survival.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to establish shear wave elastography of the pancreas by comparing measurements in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and healthy volunteers and to consider whether this method could contribute to the screening or prevention of T1D. METHODS: This pilot study included 15 patients with T1D (10 men, 5 women) and 15 healthy volunteers (10 men, 5 women) as controls. Measurements were performed with a Siemens Acuson S3000 (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) using a 6C1 convex transducer and the Virtual Touch™ tissue quantification (VTQ) method. RESULTS: The mean shear wave velocity of the head of the pancreas was 1.0 ± 0.2 m/s (median: 1.1 m/s) for the study group and likewise 1.0 ± 0.2 m/s (median: 0.9 m/s) for the control group. Velocities of 1.2 ± 0.2 m/s (median: 1.2 m/s) were measured in the body of the pancreas in both groups. There was a significant difference between the values obtained in the tail of the pancreas: patients 1.1 ± 0.1 m/s (median: 1.0 m/s) versus controls 0.9 ± 0.1 m/s (median: 0.8 m/s) (p = 0.0474). The mean value in the whole pancreas of the study group was not significantly above that of the control group: 1.1 ± 0.1 m/s (median: 1.0 m/s) versus 1.0 ± 0.1 m/s (median: 1.0 m/s) (p = 0.2453). CONCLUSIONS: Sonoelastography of the pancreas revealed no overall difference between patients with T1D and healthy volunteers. Patients with T1D showed higher values only in the tail segment. Future studies need to determine whether specific regional differences can be found in a larger study population.