Comparison of 68Ga-DOTATATE Positron Emmited Tomography/Computed Tomography and Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Liver Metastases from Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors.

This study aimed to compare the detection of neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NLMs) in hepatobiliary-specific contrast-enhanced MRI (pMR) versus 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT (DT-PET). This retrospective study cohort included 30 patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors who underwent both DT-PET and pMR. Two readers independently assessed NLMs count, SUVmax on DT-PET, and signal characteristics on pMR. A consensus review by two additional readers resolved discrepancies between the modalities. Results showed concordance between DT-PET and pMR NLM count in 14/30 patients (47%). pMR identified more NLMs in 12/30 patients (40%), of which 4 patients showed multiple deposits on pMR but only 0-1 lesions on DT-PET. DT-PET detected more in 4/30 patients (13%). Overall, pMR detected more metastases than DT-PET (p = 0.01). Excluding the four outliers, there was excellent agreement between the two methods (ICC: 0.945, 95%CI: 0.930, 0.958). Notably, pMR had a higher NLM detection rate than DT-PET, with correlations found between lesion size on pMR and DT-PET detectability, as well as diffusion restriction on pMR and SUVmax on DT-PET. In conclusion, in consecutive patients with well-differentiated NETs, the detection rate of NLM is higher with pMR than with DT-PET. However, when excluding patients whose tumors do not overexpress somatostatin receptors (13% of the cohort), high concordance in the detection of NLM is observed between DT PET and pMR.

Undetected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma on Computed Tomography: Frequency According to Scan Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is the main diagnostic modality for detecting pancreatic adenocarcinoma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of missed pancreatic adenocarcinoma on CT scans according to different CT protocols. METHODS: The medical records of consecutive pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients were retrospectively collected (12/2011-12/2015). Patients with abdominal CT scans performed up to a year prior to cancer diagnosis were included. Two radiologists registered the presence of radiological signs of missed cancers. The frequency of missed cancers was compared between portal and pancreatic/triphasic CT protocols. RESULTS: Overall, 180 CT scans of pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients performed prior to cancer diagnosis were retrieved; 126/180 (70.0%) were conducted using pancreatic/triphasic protocols and 54/180 (30.0%) used portal protocols. The overall frequency of missed cancers was 6/180 (3.3%) in our study population. The frequency of missed cancers was higher with the portal CT protocols compared to the pancreatic/triphasic protocols: 5/54 (9.3%) vs. 1/126 (0.8%), P = 0.01. CT signs of missed cancers included small hypodense lesions, peri-pancreatic fat stranding, and dilated pancreatic duct with a cut-off sign. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of missed pancreatic adenocarcinoma is higher on portal CT protocols. Physicians should consider the cancer miss rate on different CT protocols.

Perivascular Cuffing as the Sole Imaging Finding of Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Perivascular cuffing as the sole imaging manifestation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an under-recognized entity. OBJECTIVES: To present this rare finding and differentiate it from retroperitoneal fibrosis and vasculitis. METHODS: Patients with abdominal vasculature cuffing were retrospectively collected (January 2011 to September 2017). We evaluated vessels involved, wall thickness, length of involvement and extra-vascular manifestations. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with perivascular cuffing were retrieved: three with celiac and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) perivascular cuffing as the only manifestation of surgically proven PDAC, seven with abdominal vasculitis, and four with retroperitoneal fibrosis. PDAC patients exhibited perivascular cuffing of either or both celiac and SMA (3/3). Vasculitis patients showed aortitis with or without iliac or SMA cuffing (3/7) or cuffing of either or both celiac and SMA (4/7). Retroperitoneal fibrosis involved the aorta (4/4), common iliac (4/4), and renal arteries (2/4). Hydronephrosis was present in 3/4 of retroperitoneal fibrosis patients. PDAC and vasculitis demonstrated reduced wall thickness in comparison to retroperitoneal fibrosis (PDAC: 1.0 ± 0.2 cm, vasculitis: 1.2 ± 0.5 cm, retroperitoneal fibrosis: 2.4 ± 0.4 cm; P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in length of vascular involvement (PDAC: 6.3 ± 2.1 cm, vasculitis: 7.1 ± 2.6 cm, retroperitoneal fibrosis: 8.7 ± 0.5 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Celiac and SMA perivascular cuffing can be the sole finding in PDAC and may be indistinguishable from vasculitis. This entity may differ from retroperitoneal fibrosis as it spares the aorta, iliac, and renal arteries and demonstrates thinner walls and no hydronephrosis.