Santana – Vela IA, Onofre – Castillo JJ, Córdova – Chávez NA, Valdés – Martínez FJ, Cuituny – Romero AK, Torres – Gómez E

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 30-39
PDF size: 928.36 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of death due to in the United States. In Mexico it is fifth in incidence of malignant neoplasms in men and seventh in women.
Objective. Evaluate the effectiveness of evaluating the pancreatic phase by tomography with contrast medium, in identification of pancreatic neoplasms.
Material and methods. A descriptive, observational study of a diagnostic test. We studied patients with diagnosis confirmed by pathology of pancreatic cancer and performed computed tomography with intravenous contrast on them between January 2006 and September 2012. We evaluated the behavior of the lesion with the intravenous contrast medium in pancreatic phase.
Results. Sixteen patients were studied; we analyzed sensitivity and specificity of evaluation of the pancreatic phase in identification of neoplasms (93 and 0%, respectively) compared with histopathological diagnosis.
Discussion. Computed tomography with intravenous contrast medium, with the proper injection time, is a fundamental tool in identification of pancreatic neoplasms. It improves the quality of treatment by revealing the extent of involvement and offering a real prognosis of the status of the disease.
Conclusions. Computed tomography with use of intravenous contrast, carefully timed, maximizes the difference in attenuation between a probable neoplastic lesion and normal pancreatic parenchyma.

REFERENCES

1. Perez R, Sahani D. Adenocarcinoma de páncreas. Anales de Radiología México 2009;1:21-31.

2. Del Cura JL, Pedraza S, Gayete A. Radiología de las enfermedades del páncreas. En: Radiología Esencial. Madrid: Panamericana, 2010:553-60.

3. Brennan D, Zamboni G, Raptopoulos V, Kruskal J. Comprehensive preoperative assessment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 64-section volumetric CT. Radiographics 2007;27:1653-66.

4. Federle M. Hepatobiliary and pancreas. En: Diagnostic imaging. Abdomen. Utah: Amirsys, 2004. Parte II sección 3.II-3-51.

5. Low G, Panu A, Millo N, Leen E. Multimodality Imaging of Neoplastic and Nonneoplastic Solid Lesions of the Pancreas. Radiographics 2011;31:993–1015.

6. Koelblinger C, Ba-Ssalamah A, Goetzinger P, Puchner S, Weber M, Sahora K, et al. Gadobenate Dimeglumine– enhanced 3.0-T MR Imaging versus Multiphasic 64–Detector Row CT:Prospective Evaluation in Patients Suspected of Having Pancreatic Cancer. Radiology 2011;259:757-66.

7. Soriano A, Castells A, Ayuso C, Ayuso JR, De Caralt MT, Gines M, et al. Preoperative Staging and Tumor Resectability Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer: Prospective Study comparing Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Helical Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Angiography. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2004;99:492-501.

8. Horton KM, Fishman EK. Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: CT imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2002:40:1263-72.

9. Marin D, Nelson R, Barnhart H, Schindera S, Ho L, Jaffe T, et al. Detection of Pancreatic Tumors, Image Quality, and Radiation Dose during the Pancreatic Parenchymal Phase: Effect of a Low-Tube-Voltage, High-Tube-Current CT Technique Preliminary Results. Radiology 2010;25:450-9.

10. Legmann P, Vignaux O, Dousset B, Baraza A, Pallazzo L, Dumontier I, et al. PancreaticTumors: Comparison of Dual-Phase Helical CT and Endoscopic Sonography. AJR 1998;170:1315-22.

11. Eltoum I, Eloubeidi M, Chhieng, D, Tamhane A, Crowe R, Jhala D, et al. Cytologic Grade Independently Predicts Survival of Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;124:697-707.