Imaging of paraduodenal pancreatitis: A systematic review.
Computed tomography
Diagnostic imaging
Endoscopic ultrasound
Magnetic resonance imaging
Pancreatitis
Paraduodenal pancreatitis
Journal
World journal of radiology
ISSN: 1949-8470
Titre abrégé: World J Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101538184
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Feb 2023
28 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
28
09
2022
revised:
24
10
2022
accepted:
06
12
2022
entrez:
6
3
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
medline:
7
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Paraduodenal pancreatitis (PP) represents a diagnostic challenge, especially in non-referral centers, given its potential imaging overlap with pancreatic cancer. There are two main histological variants of PP, the cystic and the solid, with slightly different imaging appearances. Moreover, imaging findings in PP may change over time because of disease progression and/or as an effect of its risk factors exposition, namely alcohol intake and smoking. To describe multimodality imaging findings in patients affected by PP to help clinicians in the differential diagnosis with pancreatic cancer. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses 2009 guidelines. A Literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library using (groove pancreatitis [Title/Abstract]) OR (PP [Title/Abstract]) as key words. A total of 593 articles were considered for inclusion. After eliminating duplicates, and title and abstract screening, 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eligibility criteria were: Original studies including 8 or more patients, fully written in English, describing imaging findings in PP, with pathological confirmation or clinical-radiological follow-up as the gold standard. Finally, 14 studies were included in our systematic review. Computed tomography (CT) findings were described in 292 patients, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in 231 and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings in 115. Duodenal wall thickening was observed in 88.8% of the cases: Detection rate was 96.5% at EUS, 91.0% at MRI and 84.1% at CT. Second duodenal portion increased enhancement was recognizable in 76.3% of the cases: Detection rate was 84.4% at MRI and 72.1% at CT. Cysts within the duodenal wall were detected in 82.6% of the cases: Detection rate was 94.4% at EUS, 81.9% at MRI and 75.7% at CT. A solid mass in the groove region was described in 40.9% of the cases; in 78.3% of the cases, it showed patchy enhancement in the portal venous phase, and in 100% appeared iso/hyperintense during delayed phase imaging. Only 3.6% of the lesions showed restricted diffusion. The prevalence of radiological signs of chronic obstructive pancreatitis, namely main pancreatic duct dilatation, pancreatic calcifications, and pancreatic cysts, was extremely variable in the different articles. PP has peculiar imaging findings. MRI is the best radiological imaging modality for diagnosing PP, but EUS is more accurate than MRI in depicting duodenal wall alterations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Paraduodenal pancreatitis (PP) represents a diagnostic challenge, especially in non-referral centers, given its potential imaging overlap with pancreatic cancer. There are two main histological variants of PP, the cystic and the solid, with slightly different imaging appearances. Moreover, imaging findings in PP may change over time because of disease progression and/or as an effect of its risk factors exposition, namely alcohol intake and smoking.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To describe multimodality imaging findings in patients affected by PP to help clinicians in the differential diagnosis with pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses 2009 guidelines. A Literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library using (groove pancreatitis [Title/Abstract]) OR (PP [Title/Abstract]) as key words. A total of 593 articles were considered for inclusion. After eliminating duplicates, and title and abstract screening, 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eligibility criteria were: Original studies including 8 or more patients, fully written in English, describing imaging findings in PP, with pathological confirmation or clinical-radiological follow-up as the gold standard. Finally, 14 studies were included in our systematic review.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Computed tomography (CT) findings were described in 292 patients, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in 231 and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings in 115. Duodenal wall thickening was observed in 88.8% of the cases: Detection rate was 96.5% at EUS, 91.0% at MRI and 84.1% at CT. Second duodenal portion increased enhancement was recognizable in 76.3% of the cases: Detection rate was 84.4% at MRI and 72.1% at CT. Cysts within the duodenal wall were detected in 82.6% of the cases: Detection rate was 94.4% at EUS, 81.9% at MRI and 75.7% at CT. A solid mass in the groove region was described in 40.9% of the cases; in 78.3% of the cases, it showed patchy enhancement in the portal venous phase, and in 100% appeared iso/hyperintense during delayed phase imaging. Only 3.6% of the lesions showed restricted diffusion. The prevalence of radiological signs of chronic obstructive pancreatitis, namely main pancreatic duct dilatation, pancreatic calcifications, and pancreatic cysts, was extremely variable in the different articles.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
PP has peculiar imaging findings. MRI is the best radiological imaging modality for diagnosing PP, but EUS is more accurate than MRI in depicting duodenal wall alterations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36874260
doi: 10.4329/wjr.v15.i2.42
pmc: PMC9979191
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
42-55Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Références
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2022 Aug;28(8):1186-1192
pubmed: 35920434
Endoscopy. 2014 Jul;46(7):580-7
pubmed: 24839187
Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015 Jul-Sep;25(3):303-14
pubmed: 26288527
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Oct;95:236-241
pubmed: 28987673
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:185265
pubmed: 24995273
World J Surg. 2009 Dec;33(12):2664-9
pubmed: 19809849
Semin Diagn Pathol. 2004 Nov;21(4):247-54
pubmed: 16273943
Pancreas. 2017 Apr;46(4):489-495
pubmed: 28196024
Am J Surg Pathol. 2017 Oct;41(10):1347-1363
pubmed: 28795998
Eur Radiol. 2016 Jan;26(1):199-205
pubmed: 25991480
Clin Radiol. 2022 Aug;77(8):e613-e619
pubmed: 35589430
Dig Liver Dis. 2009 Apr;41(4):311-7
pubmed: 19097829
HPB (Oxford). 2021 Aug;23(8):1244-1252
pubmed: 33483260
Radiology. 2013 Nov;269(2):475-81
pubmed: 23847255
Pancreas. 2014 Nov;43(8):1329-33
pubmed: 25058888
Clin Imaging. 2016 Nov - Dec;40(6):1246-1252
pubmed: 27636383
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2022 Feb 09;:1-8
pubmed: 35138983
Pancreatology. 2021 Jan;21(1):81-88
pubmed: 33309222
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Aug;83(8):1337-43
pubmed: 24935140
Pancreatology. 2018 Oct;18(7):805-811
pubmed: 30224296
Pancreatology. 2020 Mar;20(2):193-198
pubmed: 31952917
Pancreas. 2015 Aug;44(6):901-8
pubmed: 25899649
Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jun;74(3):e95-e100
pubmed: 19450943