分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
特别关注
平扫MRI对胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤良恶性壁结节的诊断价值
方旭 边云 陆建平

Cite this article as: FANG X, BIAN Y, LU J P. Diagnostic value of non-contrast MRI in evaluating benign and malignant mural nodules of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2025, 16(5): 8-13.本文引用格式:方旭, 边云, 陆建平. 平扫MRI对胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤良恶性壁结节的诊断价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2025, 16(5): 8-13. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2025.05.002.


[摘要] 目的 探讨基于MRI平扫图像对胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤(intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, IPMN)良恶性壁结节的诊断价值。材料与方法 回顾性分析2013年8月至2024年2月期间在海军军医大学第一附属医院经根治性手术切除后病理确诊胰腺IPMN,通过MRI平扫图像筛选出含有壁结节的238例IPMN患者病历资料。根据IPMN病理学分级标准,将患者分为壁结节良性组(轻度异型增生)和壁结节恶性组(重度异型增生、浸润性癌),采用独立样本t检验、秩和检验、卡方检验进行统计学分析,比较两组MRI平扫影像学特征差异。采用多因素logistic回归分析胰腺IPMN壁结节恶性组的独立预测因素,并构建诊断模型,绘制受试者工作特征曲线,计算曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)。结果 壁结节恶性组的壁结节直径[15.00(10.00,23.00)mm]大于壁结节良性组[7.00(6.00,9.75)mm],差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。壁结节恶性组的特征包括主胰管或混合胰管型IPMN、囊液T1WI高信号、主胰管扩张≥10 mm、囊肿≥40 mm、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩,与壁结节良性组比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。多因素logistic回归分析结果显示,壁结节直径阈值9.5 mm、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩是恶性壁结节的独立预测因素(均P<0.05)。联合三个独立预测因素建立模型诊断壁结节恶性组的AUC为0.851 [95%置信区间(confidence interval, CI):0.802~0.900],敏感度为70.7%,特异度为90.5%。结论 基于MRI平扫图像,壁结节直径阈值9.5 mm、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩是胰腺IPMN恶性壁结节的独立预测因素,三者联合的诊断模型具有良好的诊断效能。
[Abstract] Objective To explore the diagnostic value of non-contrast MRI in evaluating benign and malignant mural nodules of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreas.Materials and Methods Patients with pancreatic IPMN who were pathologically diagnosed after radical surgical resection in the First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University from August 2013 to February 2024 were collected. A total of 238 patients with IPMN containing mural nodules were screened out through non-contrast MRI. According to the pathological grading criteria of IPMN, the patients were divided into the benign mural nodule group (low-grade dysplasia) and the malignant mural nodule group (high-grade dysplasia, invasive carcinoma). Independent sample t-test, rank sum test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis to compare the differences in non-contrast MRI features between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the independent predictors of the malignant mural nodule group of pancreatic IPMN, and a diagnostic model was constructed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.Results The diameter of mural nodules in the malignant mural nodule group [15.00 (10.00, 23.00) mm] was larger than that in the benign mural nodule group [7.00 (6.00, 9.75) mm], and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). In the malignant mural nodule group, the manifestations such as main pancreatic duct or mixed pancreatic duct type, high signal of cystic fluid on T1WI, main pancreatic duct dilation ≥ 10 mm, cysts ≥ 40 mm, thickening of the cyst wall, and abrupt change in caliber of pancreatic duct with distal pancreatic atrophy. There were statistically significant differences when compared with the benign group of mural nodules (all P < 0.05). The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the threshold diameter of mural nodules of 9.5 mm, thickening of the cyst wall, and abrupt change in caliber of pancreatic duct with distal pancreatic atrophy were independent predictors for the malignant mural nodule group (all P < 0.05). A model was established by combining these three independent predictors to diagnose the malignant mural nodule group, and the AUC was 0.851 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.802 to 0.900], with a sensitivity of 70.7% and a specificity of 90.5%.Conclusions The threshold diameter of mural nodules of 9.5 mm, thickening of the cyst wall, and abrupt change in caliber of pancreatic duct with distal pancreatic atrophy are independent predictors for evaluating malignant mural nodules of pancreatic IPMN based on the features of non-contrast MRI. The diagnostic model combining these three factors shows good diagnostic efficacy.
[关键词] 胰腺;导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤;壁结节;磁共振成像
[Keywords] pancreas;intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm;mural nodule;magnetic resonance imaging

方旭    边云    陆建平 *  

海军军医大学第一附属医院(上海长海医院)影像医学科,上海 200433

通信作者:陆建平,E-mail: cjr.lujianping@vip.163.com

作者贡献声明:陆建平设计本研究的方案,对稿件重要内容进行了修改;方旭起草和撰写稿件,获取、分析和解释本研究的数据;边云研究指导,分析或解释本研究的数据,对稿件重要内容进行了修改;陆建平和边云获得了国家自然科学基金项目的资助,方旭获得了上海市卫生健康委员会卫生行业临床研究项目的资助;全体作者都同意发表最后的修改稿,同意对本研究的所有方面负责,确保本研究的准确性和诚信。


基金项目: 国家自然科学基金项目 82171915,82171930,82371955 上海市卫生健康委员会卫生行业临床研究专项 20234Y0296
收稿日期:2024-12-06
接受日期:2025-03-06
中图分类号:R445.2  R735.9 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2025.05.002
本文引用格式:方旭, 边云, 陆建平. 平扫MRI对胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤良恶性壁结节的诊断价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2025, 16(5): 8-13. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2025.05.002.

0 引言

       胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤(intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, IPMN)起源于主胰管或分支胰管上皮,是最常见的胰腺囊性肿瘤[1, 2]。IPMN属于胰腺癌的前驱病变,整体癌变率为12%~68%[3]。产黏液和以乳头状生长是IPMN主要病理学特征,内衬上皮细胞呈高柱状,聚集后形成乳头状赘生物[4],相对应影像学上呈现为囊壁或扩张胰管壁上的实性成分,即壁结节。壁结节与IPMN重度异型增生或浸润性癌具有高度相关性,2017年《修订版胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤诊断福冈国际共识》[5]和2018年《欧洲胰腺囊性肿瘤循证指南》[1]均将强化壁结节≥5 mm为IPMN恶变高危征象之一。然而,我们发现在部分良性IPMN中亦可存在≥5 mm强化壁结节,一项荟萃分析结果显示约25.7%良性IPMN患者具有壁结节[6]。因此,我们推测基于强化壁结节≥5 mm征象评估恶性IPMN可能造成过度诊断。

       超声内镜检查对显示IPMN囊内分隔和壁结节等细小结构具有优势,但是侵入性有创检查,并且高度依赖操作者经验,普及性不佳[7, 8, 9]。基于MRI对囊液的高敏感性和对囊内成分的高分辨率,使得MRI检查在胰腺囊性肿瘤检出率和鉴别能力均优于超声内镜和CT检查[10, 11]。在多项国内外诊疗指南中,MRI均作为胰腺囊性肿瘤首诊和随访的首选影像学检查方式,并依靠IPMN的强化壁结节、主胰管扩张程度、囊肿大小等多种影像学征象来判断病变性质[1, 5, 12, 13]。虽然诊疗指南中强调了增强检查后强化壁结节的重要性,但是针对肾功能不全或对对比剂过敏等具有增强检查禁忌证的患者,则无法通过强化壁结节评估IPMN性质。然而,目前国内外尚缺少关于MRI平扫评估壁结节的大宗病例研究,本研究基于MRI多模态成像优势性,尝试采用相对简便的MRI平扫检查评估壁结节,且能对IPMN良恶性作出准确诊断,既能满足有增强检查禁忌证患者的需求,又能实现一种便捷、准确、经济且完全无创的影像学评估方式。因此,本研究探讨基于MRI平扫图像评估胰腺IPMN良恶性壁结节的诊断价值,为临床随访及术前影像学准确诊断提供依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 研究对象

       本回顾性研究遵循《赫尔辛基宣言》,经上海长海医院医学伦理委员会批准,免除受试者知情同意,批准文号:CHEC2021-163。该研究纳入2013年8月至2024年2月期间在海军军医大学第一附属医院经根治性手术切除后病理确诊的487例胰腺IPMN患者病历资料。纳入标准:(1)术前2周内在院期间行胰腺MRI平扫+增强检查;(2)通过MRI平扫图像评估IPMN含有壁结节的患者。排除标准:(1)病理资料不完整的患者;(2)胰腺合并其他类型肿瘤的患者。收集所有胰腺IPMN患者的基本资料:(1)一般情况,包括年龄、性别;(2)手术方式;(3)病理学结果,根据2019版WHO关于IPMN病理学分级标准分为良性组(轻度异型增生)和恶性组(重度异型增生、浸润性癌)[14]

1.2 胰腺MRI检查

       MRI检查设备为德国西门子公司Avanto 1.5 T、美国通用公司Signa HDXT 3.0 T、Discovery 750 3.0 T扫描仪和8通道体部线圈。扫描序列及参数如下:

       (1)横断面屏气梯度回波脂肪抑制序列T1WI,参数:重复时间2.58 ms,回波时间1.18 ms,层厚3 mm,无层间距,视野440 mm×440 mm,矩阵224×320;(2)横断面呼吸触发脂肪抑制快速自旋回波序列T2WI,参数:重复时间6316 ms,回波时间85 ms,层厚5 mm,层间距1 mm,视野440 mm×440 mm,矩阵224×320。(3)增强扫描:采用高压注射器以2.0 mL/s的流率静脉注入对比剂钆喷酸葡胺注射液(Gd-DTPA,马根维显,拜耳医药,德国),剂量0.2 mL/kg,注射结束后用20 mL生理盐水以同样流率冲洗,分别在20、60、120 s行梯度回波序列屏气扫描动脉期、静脉期、延迟期。

1.3 图像分析

       从纳入患者的胰腺MRI平扫+增强检查中仅筛选出平扫图像,由两名具有十年以上腹部疾病诊断经验的影像学专业副主任医师,在已知所有病例均为胰腺IPMN但未知病理学分级结果的前提下进行独立盲法阅片,结果不一致时由第三名具有二十年以上腹部疾病诊断经验的影像学专业主任医师定性。

       基于2024年发布的《中国胰腺囊性肿瘤影像学诊断规范报告循证学指南》标准[12],分析胰腺IPMN患者的MRI平扫影像学特征:(1)壁结节,定义为位于囊壁或扩张胰管壁上且直径≥3 mm乳头状赘生物[15],MRI表现为T1WI稍低或等信号、T2WI呈充盈缺损的实性成分。(2)肿瘤累及胰管类型,包括分支胰管型、主胰管或混合胰管型。分支胰管型指分支胰管囊状扩张且内径>5 mm,并与主胰管相通且主胰管内径≤5 mm;主胰管型指主胰管节段性或全程扩张,且主胰管内径>5 mm;若同时符合分支胰管型和主胰管型则归类为混合胰管型。(3)肿瘤位置,包括胰头颈部、胰体尾部、全胰腺。(4)囊液T1WI高信号,即囊液表现为整体高信号或部分高信号。(5)囊液T2WI信号不均匀。(6)壁结节直径,在T2WI图像测量最长径,若为多发性壁结节,测量最大者。(7)主胰管扩张≥10 mm,在T2WI图像测量取垂直于主胰管长轴的最大径。(8)囊肿≥40 mm,在T2WI图像测量最长径,若为多发性囊肿,测量最大者。(9)囊壁增厚,增厚定义为厚度>2 mm。(10)胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩,指主胰管被肿瘤侵犯后管径突然改变,缺少管径逐渐狭窄过程;远端胰腺萎缩指在同一位置主胰管内径与胰腺实质厚度比值>0.5[16]

1.4 统计学分析

       统计学分析使用SPSS 25.0软件完成。计量资料先进行正态性检验和方差齐性检验,呈正态分布以平均数±标准差表示,两组间比较使用独立样本t检验;呈偏态分布以MQ1,Q3表示,两组间比较使用秩和检验。计数资料以例数(百分比)表示,组间比较使用卡方检验或Fisher确切概率法。将有差异统计学意义的指标纳入多因素logistic回归分析胰腺IPMN壁结节恶性组的独立预测因素,并构建诊断模型。绘制受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线评估诊断效能,并计算曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)、95%置信区间(confidence interval, CI)、敏感度和特异度。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 基本信息

       本研究共入组238例患者病例,男158例、女80例,年龄34~84(63.7±9.1)岁。壁结节良性组和恶性组的患者性别(P=0.579)、年龄(P=0.714)、手术方式(P=0.956)差异均无统计学意义。根据病理结果,良性组74例、恶性组164例,其中恶性组包括重度异型增生45例、浸润性癌119例。患者的基线资料详见表1

表1  患者基本资料
Tab. 1  Basic patient information

2.2 壁结节良性组和恶性组的MRI特征差异比较

       在累及胰管类型方面,壁结节恶性组呈主胰管或混合胰管型多于壁结节良性组,差异有统计学意义(P=0.015)。壁结节恶性组的壁结节直径大于壁结节良性组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。同样,在囊液T1WI高信号、主胰管扩张≥10 mm、囊肿≥40 mm、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩方面,壁结节恶性组均多于壁结节良性组,差异有统计学意义(P值分别为0.040、0.001、0.010、<0.001、<0.001)。肿瘤位置、囊液T2WI信号不均匀方面,两组差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。详见表2图1~2

图1  男,72岁,胰头部混合胰管型导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤伴浸润性癌。1A:T2WI图像示胰头部壁结节呈充盈缺损(箭),直径约38 mm;1B:T2WI图像示胰头部壁结节旁主胰管突然截断,伴远端胰体部胰腺萎缩(箭);1C:T1WI图像示胰头部壁结节呈稍低信号(箭)。
Fig. 1  A 72-year-old male with an of the mixed duct type in the head of the pancreas with invasive carcinoma. 1A: The T2WI shows that the mural nodule in the head of the pancreas presents as a filling defect (arrow), with a diameter of approximately 38 mm; 1B: The T2WI shows that abrupt change in caliber of main pancreatic duct beside the mural nodule in the head of the pancreas with distal pancreatic atrophy (arrow); 1C: The T1WI shows that the mural nodule in the head of the pancreas presents as a slightly low signal (arrow).
表2  壁结节良性组和恶性组的MRI特征比较
Tab. 2  Comparison of MRI features between benign and malignant groups of mural nodules

2.3 壁结节恶性组的独立预测因素分析

       多因素logistic回归分析结果显示,壁结节直径、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩是壁结节恶性组的独立预测因素(风险比分别为1.187、2.527、11.977,95% CI分别为1.105~1.275、1.051~6.076、1.432~100.193,均P<0.05)。详见表3

图2  男,78岁,胰头部分支胰管型导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤伴轻度异型增生。2A:T2WI图像示胰头部壁结节呈充盈缺损(箭),直径约9 mm;2B:T2WI图像示胰头部薄壁囊肿(箭);2C:T1WI图像示胰头部壁结节呈稍低信号(箭)。
Fig. 2  A 78-year-old male with an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the branch duct type in the head of the pancreas with low-grade dysplasia. 2A: The T2WI shows that the mural nodule in the head of the pancreas presents as a filling defect (arrow), with a diameter of approximately 9 mm; 2B: The T2WI shows a thin-walled cyst in the head of the pancreas. (arrow); 2C: The T1WI shows that the mural nodule in the head of the pancreas presents as a slightly low signal (arrow).
表3  壁结节恶性组的多因素logistic回归分析
Tab. 3  Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the malignant group of mural nodules

2.4 诊断效能分析

       壁结节直径的最佳阈值为9.5 mm,诊断壁结节恶性组的AUC为0.828(95% CI:0.774~0.882),敏感度为78.7%,特异度为74.3%;囊壁增厚诊断壁结节恶性组的AUC为0.633(95% CI:0.560~0.706),敏感度为41.5%,特异度为85.1%;胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩诊断壁结节恶性组的AUC为0.603(95% CI:0.530~0.676),敏感度为22.0%,特异度为98.6%;联合上述三个因素的回归模型(-1.936+0.172×壁结节直径+0.927×囊壁增厚+2.483×胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩)诊断壁结节恶性组的AUC为0.851(95% CI:0.802~0.900),敏感度为70.7%,特异度为90.5%(图3)。

图3  壁结节直径、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩及联合模型诊断恶性壁结节的ROC曲线。ROC:受试者操作特征曲线;AUC:曲线下面积
Fig. 3  The ROC curves of mural nodule diameter, thickening of the cyst wall, abrupt change in caliber of pancreatic duct with distal pancreatic atrophy, and the combined model for diagnosing malignant mural nodules. ROC: receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC: area under the curve.

3 讨论

       本研究将胰腺IPMN患者壁结节良性组和恶性组的MRI平扫影像学特征纳入鉴别诊断的预测因素,多因素logistic回归分析结果显示壁结节直径阈值为9.5 mm、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩是壁结节恶性组的独立预测因素,联合上述三个独立预测因素建立的鉴别诊断IPMN壁结节良性组和恶性组模型表现出良好的诊断效能。

3.1 壁结节的影像学和病理学概念

       “壁结节”属于影像学征象术语,是指附着在囊壁或管壁上结节状实性组织,在卵巢囊性肿瘤、囊性肾癌及肺部病变中均有“壁结节”等征象描述[17, 18]。在影像学诊断胰腺IPMN和胰腺黏液性囊性肿瘤时,壁结节是重要的评估指标,认为是与肿瘤重度异型增生或浸润性癌具有高度相关性[19]。胰腺IPMN壁结节对应在病理学大体是位于囊肿壁或胰管壁突向腔内的乳头状赘生物,其镜下表现为高柱状上皮细胞,这些上皮细胞可有不同程度的异型增生,从轻度异型、重度异型到浸润性癌。因此,虽然IPMN影像学上出现壁结节则预示着高度怀疑恶性病变,但不能把壁结节等同于乳头状赘生物发生重度异型增生或浸润性癌[20]

3.2 胰腺IPMN壁结节的诊断价值

       “强化壁结节”这一概念是在2017年《修订版胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤诊断福冈国际共识》中首次提出[5],并将强化壁结节≥5 mm作为IPMN的恶变高危征象和绝对手术指征,强化壁结节<5 mm作为IPMN的恶变可疑征象和相对手术指征。在此之前的2012年版福冈国际共识中仅将壁结节作为恶性IPMN的可疑征象[21],并未强调壁结节是否强化和壁结节的直径。随后有多中心研究提出建议对壁结节的直径进行分层,结果显示壁结节直径5 mm作为最佳阈值诊断恶性IPMN的AUC为0.855,敏感度84.0%,特异度77.7%,并且发现强化壁结节诊断恶性IPMN的优势比20.3,优于单纯壁结节诊断恶性IPMN的优势比19.6[22]。HIRONO等[23]研究中通过超声内镜检查评估分支胰管型IPMN壁结节,壁结节直径最佳阈值为9 mm,预测重度异型或浸润性癌的AUC为0.926,敏感度86.4%,特异度96.6%。需要注意的是,在超声内镜检查中IPMN内部黏液球或蛋白栓形似壁结节,但黏液球或蛋白栓内部无血管成分,增强后无强化,所以在非增强的检查中容易将黏液球或蛋白栓误判为壁结节,导致评估恶性IPMN存在假阳性[24, 25]。由于MRI对囊内成分高分辨率的优势,壁结节在T1WI呈稍低或等信号且T2WI呈充盈缺损,相对于黏液球在T1WI呈低信号、T2WI稍高信号,或蛋白栓在T1WI呈高信号均有较大区别,可有助于鉴别。JEON等[26]研究基于MRI增强联合MRCP评估IPMN特征,发现强化壁结节≥5 mm预测IPMN恶变的独立预测因素,两名观察者的AUC分别为0.80(95% CI:0.75~0.85)和0.79(95% CI:0.73~0.84)。但是目前尚不明确仅依靠MRI平扫和依靠MRI平扫+增强评估壁结节来判断IPMN良恶性诊断效能的对比研究结果,有待笔者后续进一步探索。本研究仅依靠MRI平扫的评估结果来看,壁结节直径最佳阈值9.5 mm作为独立预测因素诊断IPMN恶性的AUC为0.828,敏感度为78.7%,特异度为74.3%,表现出良好的诊断效能,再联合囊壁增厚和胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩的模型可进一步提升其诊断效能。

3.3 其他征象对IPMN恶性壁结节的诊断价值

       囊壁增厚和胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩是本研究另外两项独立预测因素诊断IPMN恶性壁结节,该两项因素均作为2017年《修订版胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤诊断福冈国际共识》中IPMN的恶变可疑征象[5]。一项荟萃分析结果显示囊壁增厚诊断分支胰管型IPMN恶变的特异度为93%,优势比为2.38[27]。笔者推测其病理学机制为IPMN恶性壁结节肿瘤细胞浸润囊壁,囊壁内衬上皮细胞脱落坏死,激发炎性反应后产生纤维性增厚。在一项纳入6项包含胰管突然截断预测分支胰管型IPMN恶变的荟萃分析中,胰管突然截断诊断特异度为92%[27]。与常规胰腺导管腺癌类似,其病理学机制由于IPMN恶性壁结节肿瘤细胞侵犯并阻塞主胰管,造成主胰管截断,上游主胰管扩张,长期胰管高压引起腺泡破裂萎缩[3]。另外,本研究发现壁结节恶性组在主胰管或混合胰管型IPMN、囊液T1WI高信号、主胰管扩张≥10 mm、囊肿≥40 mm均多于壁结节良性组。不同胰管类型的IPMN其恶变率不同,文献报道分支胰管型IPMN恶变率约12%~47%,主胰管或混合胰管型IPMN恶变率约38%~68%[28],所以本研究中壁结节恶性组IPMN以主胰管或混合胰管型为主。有学者对胰腺黏液性囊性肿瘤良恶性患者进行MRI影像学特征对照研究,发现恶性患者囊液T1WI呈高信号占比明显多于良性患者[29],与本研究结果类似,推测可能恶性肿瘤分泌更多高黏稠度的黏液蛋白或侵犯间质血管后破裂导致出血,从而形成囊液T1WI高信号表现[30]。在国际诊疗指南中将主胰管扩张≥10 mm作为IPMN恶变高危征象和绝对手术指征,囊肿≥40 mm作为IPMN的恶变可疑征象和相对手术指征[1, 5],但在本研究中并不是独立预测因素,笔者认为可能本研究纳入IPMN患者均含有壁结节,肿瘤整体基线水平较高。

3.4 局限性及展望

       本研究存在一定的局限性。首先,本研究为单中心回顾性研究,仅纳入含有壁结节且经手术切除的IPMN患者,结果可能存在偏倚,未来还需要进行多中心研究扩大队列进行验证;其次,仅通过壁结节的MRI平扫图像的常规形态学特征进行评估,并没有提取影像组学和深度学习特征分析良性壁结节和恶性壁结节的差异,这将是未来的探索方向,并可能进一步提高诊断效能。

4 结论

       综上所述,壁结节直径阈值9.5 mm、囊壁增厚、胰管突然截断伴远端胰腺萎缩是基于MRI平扫影像学特征评估胰腺IPMN恶性壁结节的独立预测因素,三者联合的诊断模型具有良好的诊断效果,证明了MRI平扫图像对胰腺IPMN良恶性评估的可行性。

[1]
European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas. European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms[J]. Gut, 2018, 67(5): 789-804. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316027.
[2]
VAN HUIJGEVOORT N C M, DEL CHIARO M, WOLFGANG C L, et al. Diagnosis and management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: current evidence and guidelines[J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2019, 16(11): 676-689. DOI: 10.1038/s41575-019-0195-x.
[3]
方旭, 李晶, 王铁功, 等. 胰腺导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤MRI影像特征及恶变风险预测模型建立[J]. 中华胰腺病杂志, 2021, 21(6): 426-432. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115667-20211014-00176.
FANG X, LI J, WANG T G, et al. MRI characteristics and malignancy risk prediction model for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas[J]. Chin J Pancreatol, 2021, 21(6): 426-432. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115667-20211014-00176.
[4]
FLAMMIA F, FUSCO R, TRIGGIANI S, et al. Risk assessment and radiomics analysis in magnetic resonance imaging of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN)[J/OL]. Cancer Control, 2024, 31: 10732748241263644 [2024-11-26]. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11412216. DOI: 10.1177/10732748241263644.
[5]
TANAKA M, FERNÁNDEZ-DEL CASTILLO C, KAMISAWA T, et al. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas[J]. Pancreatology, 2017, 17(5): 738-753. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2017.07.007.
[6]
MARCHEGIANI G, ANDRIANELLO S, BORIN A, et al. Systematic review, meta-analysis, and a high-volume center experience supporting the new role of mural nodules proposed by the updated 2017 international guidelines on IPMN of the pancreas[J]. Surgery, 2018, 163(6): 1272-1279. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.01.009.
[7]
HAKIM S, CORONEL E, NOGUERAS GONZÁLEZ G M, et al. An international study of interobserver variability of "string sign" of pancreatic cysts among experienced endosonographers[J]. Endosc Ultrasound, 2021, 10(1): 39-50. DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_73_20.
[8]
MINELLI C, BALDUCCI F, CAVALLERI C, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: Uncommon imaging presentation, evolution and comparison of guidelines[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol Open, 2023, 11: 100531 [2024-11-26]. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10618428. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100531.
[9]
OHNO E, BALDUZZI A, HIJIOKA S, et al. Association of high-risk stigmata and worrisome features with advanced neoplasia in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN): a systematic review[J]. Pancreatology, 2024, 24(1): 48-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2023.12.002.
[10]
MOHAMED E, JACKSON R, HALLORAN C M, et al. Role of radiological imaging in the diagnosis and characterization of pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review[J]. Pancreas, 2018, 47(9): 1055-1064. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001134.
[11]
MILLER F H, VENDRAMI C L, RECHT H S, et al. Pancreatic cystic lesions and malignancy: assessment, guidelines, and the field defect[J]. Radiographics, 2022, 42(1): 87-105. DOI: 10.1148/rg.210056.
[12]
中国医师协会胰腺病学专业委员会, 国家消化系统疾病临床医学研究中心(上海). 中国胰腺囊性肿瘤影像学诊断规范报告循证学指南[J]. 中华胰腺病杂志, 2024, 24(2): 114-124. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115667-20240226-00045.
Professional Committee of Pancreatic Diseases, Chinese Medical Doctor Association, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases (Shanghai). Evidence-based guidelines for the report of imaging diagnostic criteria for pancreatic cystic tumors in China[J]. Chin J Pancreatol, 2024, 24(2): 114-124. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115667-20240226-00045.
[13]
IMAGING E P O G, FÁBREGA-FOSTER K, KAMEL I R, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® pancreatic cyst[J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2020, 17(5S): S198-S206. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.01.021.
[14]
CENTENO B A, SAIEG M, SIDDIQUI M T, et al. The World Health Organization reporting system for pancreaticobiliary cytopathology: overview and summary[J]. Cancer Cytopathol, 2024, 132(7): 396-418. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22806.
[15]
HECHT E M, KHATRI G, MORGAN D, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas: recommendations for Standardized Imaging and Reporting from the Society of Abdominal Radiology IPMN disease focused panel[J]. Abdom Radiol, 2021, 46(4): 1586-1606. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02853-4.
[16]
FANG X, LIU F, LI J, et al. Computed tomography nomogram to predict a high-risk intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas[J]. Abdom Radiol, 2021, 46(11): 5218-5228. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03247-w.
[17]
HIGASHIYAMA M, KOBAYASHI Y, KASHIMA J, et al. Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung with a mural nodule-like lesion[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2022, 46(11): 1524-1532. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001938.
[18]
ZHU Q Q, LING J, YE J, et al. CT and MRI findings of cystic renal cell carcinoma: comparison with cystic collecting duct carcinoma[J/OL]. Cancer Imaging, 2021, 21(1): 52 [2024-11-26]. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8422719. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-021-00419-1.
[19]
D'ONOFRIO M, TEDESCO G, CARDOBI N, et al. Magnetic resonance (MR) for mural nodule detection studying Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of pancreas: Imaging-pathologic correlation[J]. Pancreatology, 2021, 21(1): 180-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.11.024.
[20]
陆建平. 胰腺病理影像学[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2019: 558-592.
LU J P. Pancreatic pathology and radiology[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, 2019: 558-592.
[21]
TANAKA M, CASTILLO C F, ADSAY V, et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas[J]. Pancreatology, 2012, 12(3): 183-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2012.04.004.
[22]
KIM T H, SONG T J, HWANG J H, et al. Predictors of malignancy in pure branch duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: A nationwide multicenter study[J]. Pancreatology, 2015, 15(4): 405-410. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2015.04.010.
[23]
HIRONO S, KAWAI M, OKADA K I, et al. Factors associated with invasive intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma of the pancreas[J/OL]. JAMA Surg, 2017, 152(3): e165054 [2024-11-26]. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2599144. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5054.
[24]
OHNO E, KAWASHIMA H, ISHIKAWA T, et al. Can contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography accurately diagnose main pancreatic duct involvement in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms?[J]. Pancreatology, 2020, 20(5): 887-894. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.06.004.
[25]
YASHIKA J, OHNO E, ISHIKAWA T, et al. Utility of multiphase contrast enhancement patterns on CEH-EUS for the differential diagnosis of IPMN-derived and conventional pancreatic cancer[J]. Pancreatology, 2021, 21(2): 390-396. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.12.022.
[26]
JEON S K, KIM J H, YOO J, et al. Assessment of malignant potential in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas using MR findings and texture analysis[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(5): 3394-3404. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07425-0.
[27]
ZHAO W J, LIU S L, CONG L, et al. Imaging features for predicting high-grade dysplasia or malignancy in branch duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2022, 29(2): 1297-1312. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10662-2.
[28]
STARK A, DONAHUE T R, REBER H A, et al. Pancreatic cyst disease: a review[J]. JAMA, 2016, 315(17): 1882-1893. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.4690.
[29]
DI PAOLA V, MANFREDI R, MEHRABI S, et al. Pancreatic mucinous cystoadenomas and cystoadenocarcinomas: differential diagnosis by means of MRI[J/OL]. Br J Radiol, 2016, 89(1057): 20150536 [2024-11-26]. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4985961. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150536.
[30]
MAMONE G, BARRESI L, TROPEA A, et al. MRI of mucinous pancreatic cystic lesions: a new updated morphological approach for the differential diagnosis[J]. Updates Surg, 2020, 72(3): 617-637. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00800-y.

上一篇 精准医疗驱动下磁共振成像技术在胰腺癌诊疗中的应用与价值
下一篇 三维磁共振弹性成像评价进展期胰腺癌化疗反应及生存期
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2