Search

Abstract: This study aimed to assess the detection rate of small (<10 mm) pancreas cyst and intrareader reliability for cyst size measurements on transabdominal ultrasonography (US). From 2020 to 2022, 194 pancreas cysts in 173 patients, incidentally detected on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, were evaluated on US by 1 of 2 radiologists (readers 1 and 2). Intrareader agreements of cyst size measurements on US were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Bland-Altman plot was used to visualize the differences between the first and second size measurements in each reader. In this study, readers 1 and 2 evaluated 86 cysts in 76 patients and 108 cysts in 97 patients, respectively. Most of the cysts (191 of 194) were located in the nontail portion of the pancreas. Overall detection rate of pancreas cysts by US was 92.3% (179 of 194). The mean size of measured 179 pancreas cysts was 4.7 ± 1.5 mm. The readers showed excellent intrareader agreements (ICC = 0.925 and 0.960) for cyst size measurements, except for the cysts with size ≤5 mm, where both readers showed good intrareader agreements (ICC = 0.848 and 0.873). The 95% limits of agreement of readers 1 and 2 were 13.8% and 14.9% of the mean, respectively. Therefore, transabdominal US could be a reliable follow-up imaging modality for small (<10 mm) nontail pancreas cysts incidentally detected on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, especially for the cysts with size between 5 and 10 mm. Size changes of the pancreas cysts approximately less than 15% may be within the measurement error., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Serous cystic neoplasms (SCNs) are treated as benign lesions. It is widely known that SCN rarely have a connection with the main pancreatic duct (MPD), which helps differentiate them from other cystic lesions, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). However, very rare cases where the SCN appears connected to the MPD cause diagnostic confusion., Patient Concerns: We present 2 patients with SCN (1 male, 54, and 1 female, 42). Both patients were asymptomatic, without abnormal laboratory results., Diagnosis: In both cases, abdominopelvic computed tomography and pancreatic magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed a multilobulated cystic lesion in communication with the MPD. Since the size of each patient's lesion was >3 cm and there was connectivity with the MPD, it was strongly suspected to be a branch duct-type IPMN with worrisome features rather than SCN and surgical intervention was considered., Interventions: Both neoplasms were misdiagnosed as IPMN due to appearing connected with the MPD on radiologic imaging. Surgery was performed., Outcomes: A final diagnosis of microcystic serous cystadenoma of the pancreas without connectivity of MPD was confirmed in both patients., Lessons: An unnecessary surgery was performed due to atypical radiologic features in which the pancreatic duct seems to be connected to the pancreatic cystic lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, leading to misdiagnosis of SCN as IPMN. Particular attention should be paid to interpretation of clinicoradiologic findings of pancreatic cystic lesions, especially to the decision of surgical intervention. Also, awareness of presence of the atypical radiologic features of SCN may broaden the knowledge base of radiologists., Lessons: An unnecessary surgery was performed due to atypical radiologic features in which the pancreatic duct seems to be connected to the pancreatic cystic lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, leading to misdiagnosis of SCN as IPMN. Particular attention should be paid to interpretation of clinicoradiologic findings of pancreatic cystic lesions, especially to the decision of surgical intervention. Also, awareness of presence of the atypical radiologic features of SCN may broaden the knowledge base of radiologists., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)