Back to Journals » Cancer Management and Research » Volume 12

Comparative Diagnostic Evaluation with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms

Authors Sun Y, Yang S, Qi E, Liu F, Zhou F, Lu Y, Liang P, Ye H, Yu X

Received 22 January 2020

Accepted for publication 9 April 2020

Published 28 April 2020 Volume 2020:12 Pages 2889—2898


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Eileen O'Reilly

Ya Sun,1,2,* Shuo Yang,3,* Erpeng Qi,1 Fangyi Liu,1 Fubo Zhou,1 Yuhan Lu,1 Ping Liang,1 Huiyi Ye,4 Xiaoling Yu1

1Department of Interventional Ultrasound, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Ultrasound, Aerospace Central Hospital, Beijing 100049, People’s Republic of China; 3Chinese PLA Medical School, Beijing, 100853, People’s Republic of China; 4Radiology Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence: Xiaoling Yu
Department of Interventional Ultrasound, Chinese PLA General Hospital, 28 Fuxing Road, Beijing 100853, People’s Republic of China

Purpose: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs).
Methods: A total of 90 patients (66 women, 24 men) aged 18– 71 years were studied prospectively. CEUS was performed in all patients, whereas MRI was performed in 85 patients and CT in 69 patients. We analyzed the sensitivity and accuracy of these three imaging modalities to diagnose the PCNs. Neoplasm size, location, shape, intralesional mural nodules, septa and duct dilatation were also assessed by different radiologists.
Results: There were no significant differences in sensitivity for discriminating PCNs from pancreatic cystic lesions between CEUS and MRI (p=0.614) or between CEUS and CT (p=0.479). The diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for classifying PCNs was 64.4% (58/90), which was higher than that of CT (53.6%, 37/69, P=0.017), and lower than that of MRI (70.6%, 60/85, p=0.791). Regarding tumor size for lesions larger than 3 cm, CEUS was superior to CT in differentiating the specific type of PCN (p=0.041), and CEUS had the same value as MRI (p=0.774). Furthermore, CEUS is valuable for precisely characterizing internal structures, for instance, septa (p=0.003, compared with CT; p=0.443, compared with MRI) and nodules (p= 0.018, compared with CT; p=0.033, compared with MRI). The number of septa (p=0.033) and cyst morphology (p=0.016) were meaningful indicators in differentiating serous and mucinous adenoma. There was no significant difference in evaluating size and detecting duct dilatation among the three imaging methods.
Conclusion: CEUS compares favorably with MRI in displaying the inner structure of PCNs and offers advantages over CT. CEUS can contribute in an important way to the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.

Keywords: contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, pancreatic cystic neoplasms, diagnostic evaluation

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]