Browse

Small(≤3 cm) Solid Pseudopapillary Tumors of the Pancreas at Multiphasic Multidetector CT

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorBaek, Jee Hyun-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jeong Min-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Seung Ho-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Soo Jin-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jae Young-
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Byung-Ihn-
dc.contributor.authorHan, Joon Koo-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Se Hyung-
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-02T02:08:45Z-
dc.date.available2012-07-02T02:08:45Z-
dc.date.issued2010-10-
dc.identifier.citationRADIOLOGY; Vol.257, no.1; 97-106ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn0033-8419-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/78054-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To analyze the imaging features of small (≤3 cm) solid pseudopapillary tumors (SPTs) seen at multiphasic multidetector computed tomography (CT) in comparison with those of larger SPTs. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. CT images of 42 histopathologically proven SPTs in the pancreas were retrospectively reviewed. Two radiologists in consensus analyzed the CT findings for the shape, location, diameter, ratio of solid-to-cystic components, border and margin, enhancement pattern, and enhancement grade of the tumors, as well as the presence of calcification, dilatation of the pancreatic duct, and parenchymal atrophy. Then, according to the feature analysis results, the reviewers classified all SPTs as typical or atypical; they also subdivided all SPTs into small (≤3 cm) and large SPTs (>3 cm) depending on the tumor size. Differences in the morphologic features between small SPTs and large typical and atypical SPTs were statistically evaluated by using the Fisher exact test; differences in attenuation between the pre- and postcontrast images and in the dynamic enhancement pattern according to nodule size (≤3 cm versus >3 cm) were evaluated by using the chi(2) test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Results: There were 20 typical SPTs and 22 atypical SPTs. Of the 22 atypical SPTs, 12 (54%) were 3 cm or smaller in diameter and 10 (45%) were larger than 3 cm in diameter. Small atypical SPTs usually appeared as solid tumors with a sharp margin and without accompanying pancreatic duct dilatation or parenchymal atrophy. They also showed weak enhancement during the pancreatic phase and a gradually increasing enhancement pattern. All typical SPTs were larger than 3 cm and appeared as well-defined cystic and solid masses with heterogeneous enhancement, while all large atypical SPTs appeared as calcified solid masses or large cystic masses. Conclusion: The imaging features of small SPTs are different from those of large SPTs, and small SPTs frequently appear as purely solid tumors with a sharp margin and gradual enhancement.ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherRADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICAko_KR
dc.titleSmall(≤3 cm) Solid Pseudopapillary Tumors of the Pancreas at Multiphasic Multidetector CTko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor백지현-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이정민-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김승호-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김수진-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김세형-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이재영-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor한준구-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor최병인-
dc.identifier.doi10.1148/radiol.10092089-
dc.citation.journaltitleRADIOLOGY-
dc.description.citedreferenceYao XZ, 2010, PANCREAS, V39, P486, DOI 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181bd6839-
dc.description.citedreferenceReddy S, 2009, J AM COLL SURGEONS, V208, P950, DOI 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.01.044-
dc.description.citedreferenceREDDY S, 2009, J AM COLL SURGEONS, V208, P957-
dc.description.citedreferenceHU SF, 2009, CLIN ONCOL CANC RES, V6, P155, DOI 10.1007/s11805-009-0155-2-
dc.description.citedreferenceAdsay NV, 2008, J GASTROINTEST SURG, V12, P401, DOI 10.1007/s11605-007-0348-z-
dc.description.citedreferenceMachado MCC, 2008, SURGERY, V143, P29, DOI 10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.030-
dc.description.citedreferencePelaez-Luna M, 2007, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V102, P2157, DOI 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01480.x-
dc.description.citedreferenceDECASTRO SM, 2007, WORLD J SURG, V31, P1130-
dc.description.citedreferenceSeo HE, 2006, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V40, P919-
dc.description.citedreferenceChung EM, 2006, RADIOGRAPHICS, V26, P1211, DOI 10.1148/rg.264065012-
dc.description.citedreferenceCHOI JY, 2006, AM J ROENTGENOL, V187, pW178-
dc.description.citedreferenceChari ST, 2005, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V129, P504, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.05.007-
dc.description.citedreferencePapavramidis T, 2005, J AM COLL SURGEONS, V200, P965, DOI 10.1016/j.jmacollsurg.2005.02.011-
dc.description.citedreferenceDamiano J, 2004, DIABETES METAB, V30, P203-
dc.description.citedreferenceColeman KM, 2003, RADIOGRAPHICS, V23, P1644, DOI 10.1148/rg.236035006-
dc.description.citedreferenceCantisani V, 2003, AM J ROENTGENOL, V181, P395-
dc.description.citedreferenceProkesch RW, 2002, RADIOLOGY, V224, P764, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2243011284-
dc.description.citedreferenceSheth S, 2002, AM J ROENTGENOL, V179-
dc.description.citedreferenceMartin RCG, 2002, ANN SURG ONCOL, V9, P35-
dc.description.citedreferenceLee KS, 2001, J MATER SCI LETT, V20, P1229-
dc.description.citedreferenceDiMagno EP, 1999, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V117, P1464-
dc.description.citedreferenceJung SE, 1999, WORLD J SURG, V23, P233-
dc.description.citedreferenceBektas H, 1999, LANGENBECK ARCH SURG, V384, P39-
dc.description.citedreferenceBuetow PC, 1996, RADIOLOGY, V199, P707-
dc.description.citedreferenceSCLAFANI LM, 1991, CANCER, V68, P153-
dc.description.citedreferenceCHOI BI, 1988, RADIOLOGY, V166, P413-
dc.description.citedreferenceCOMPAGNO J, 1979, LAB INVEST, V40, P248-
dc.description.tc6-
Appears in Collections:
College of Medicine/School of Medicine (의과대학/대학원)Radiology (영상의학전공)Journal Papers (저널논문_영상의학전공)
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse