Search

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to test for the possibility that published malignancy risks for side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are overestimates, likely due to verification bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We tested for possible verification bias using simulation modeling techniques. First, in age-defined hypothetical cohorts of 10 million persons, we projected the frequency of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) arising from side-branch IPMNs over 5 years using published estimates of their prevalence (4.4%) and rate of malignant transformation (1.9%). Second, we projected the total number of PDAC cases in corresponding cohorts over the same time horizon using national cancer registry data. For each cohort, we determined whether the percentage of all PDAC cases that arose from side-branch IPMNs (i.e., side-branch IPMN–associated PDAC cases) was clinically plausible using an upper limit of 10% to define plausibility, as estimated from the literature. Model assumptions and parameter uncertainty were evaluated in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS. Across all cohorts, percentages of side-branch IPMN–associated PDACs greatly exceeded 10%. In the base case (mean age = 55.7 years), 80% of PDAC cases arose from side-branch IPMNs (7877/9786). In the oldest cohort evaluated (mean age = 75 years), this estimate was 76% (14,227/18,714). In a secondary analysis, we found that if an upper limit threshold of 10% for side-branch IPMN–associated PDAC was imposed, the model-predicted rate of malignancy for side-branch IPMNs would be less than 0.24% over a 5-year time horizon, substantially lower than most literature-based estimates. CONCLUSION. Our results suggest that reported malignancy risks associated with side-branch IPMNs are likely to be overestimates and imply the presence of verification bias.

The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information.A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery.Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale).Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy rates of unenhanced sonography, contrast-enhanced sonography, and MRI in displaying the anatomic features of cystic pancreatic masses larger than 1.5 mm in diameter.Unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sonographic and MRI examinations of 33 patients who underwent resection of a cystic pancreatic mass were retrospectively reviewed. Two radiologists blinded to the final histologic diagnosis reviewed the images, specifically assessing the presence of intralesional mural nodules and septa. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were calculated on the basis of correlation with surgical findings. Results of unenhanced sonography, contrast-enhanced sonography, and MRI were compared by McNemar test. Correlation of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sonographic versus pathologic results was established with Spearman's test. Interobserver variability was determined.Contrast-enhanced sonography correctly depicted intralesional septa in 14 of 15 lesions (sensitivity, 93.3%; specificity, 88.8%; positive predictive value, 87.5%; negative predictive value, 94.1%; accuracy, 90.9%) and nodules in six of eight lesions (sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 96%; positive predictive value, 85.7%; negative predictive value, 92.3%; accuracy, 90.9%). MRI correctly depicted intralesional septa in 14 of 15 lesions (sensitivity, 93.3%; specificity, 61.1%; positive predictive value, 66.6%; negative predictive value, 91.6%; accuracy, 75.7%) and nodules in seven of eight lesions (sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 80%; positive predictive value, 58.3%; negative predictive value, 95.2%; accuracy, 81.8%). The difference between the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced sonography and that of MRI was not significant (p = 0.05, McNemar test) in the identification of septa and nodules. The correlation between contrast-enhanced sonographic findings and pathologic results (Rs = 0.93; p0.001) was significantly better than that between sonographic and pathologic results (Rs = 0.52; p0.0001). Interobserver agreement had a kappa value of 0.86-0.94.Contrast-enhanced sonography compares favorably with MRI in displaying the anatomic features of cystic pancreatic masses seen on transabdominal sonography.

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the capabilities of CT to accurately characterize cystic tumors of the pancreas. Method: Two observers retrospectively evaluated the CT exams of 100 cystic masses of the pancreas, with pathological confirmation. The two observers, blinded about clinical information and the final diagnosis, tried to categorize the lesions according to well established morphologic features. Statistical analysis was performed to measure the agreement between each radiologist and the consensus diagnosis and to evaluate the usefulness of certain CT findings in differentiating one type of cystic pancreatic neoplasm from another. Results: Serous cystadenoma was better diagnosed by CT [Youden misclassification index (Ymi) = 0.72] than mucinous cystic tumor (Ymi = 0.44) and solid pseudopapillary tumor (cystic variant) (Ymi = 0.47). Conclusion: As patients with previous history of pancreatitis were excluded from the study, CT findings allowed correct characterization of only 60% of cystic pancreatic masses. Among the remaining 40%, 15-20% of the wrong diagnoses could not be corrected by means of CT, given the patterns shown by the tumors. In 20-25% of the cases, a nonspecific diagnosis of cystic mass was made. Index Terms: Pancreas, cysts-Pancreas, diseases-Computed tomography.