Determination of arterial invasion in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: what is the best diagnostic criterion on CT?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the diagnostic performance and interobserver variability in the determination of arterial invasion in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and determine the best CT imaging criterion.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 128 patients with PDAC (73 men and 55 women) who underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced CT. Five board-certified radiologists (expert) and four fellows (non-expert]) independently assessed the arterial invasion (celiac, superior mesenteric, splenic, and common hepatic arteries) using a 6-point score: 1, no tumor contact; 2, hazy attenuation ≤ 180°; 3, hazy attenuation > 180°; 4, solid soft tissue contact ≤ 180°; 5, solid soft tissue contact > 180°; and 6, contour irregularity. ROC analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and determine the best diagnostic criterion for arterial invasion, with pathological or surgical findings as references. Interobserver variability was assessed using Fleiss's ĸ statistics.

RESULTS

Among the 128 patients, 35.2% (n = 45/128) received neoadjuvant treatment (NTx). Solid soft tissue contact ≤ 180° was the best diagnostic criterion for arterial invasion as defined by the Youden Index both in patients who did and did not receive NTx (sensitivity, 100% vs. 100%; specificity, 90% vs. 93%; and AUC, 0.96 vs. 0.98, respectively). Interobserver variability among the non-expert was not inferior to that among the expert (ĸ = 0.61 vs 0.61; p = .39 and ĸ = 0.59 vs 0.51; p < .001 in patients treated with and without NTx, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Solid soft tissue contact ≤ 180° was the best diagnostic criterion for the determination of arterial invasion in PDAC. Considerable interobserver variability was seen among the radiologists.

KEY POINTS

• Solid soft tissue contact ≤ 180° was the best diagnostic criterion for the determination of arterial invasion in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. • Interobserver agreement among non-expert radiologists was almost comparable to that among expert radiologists.