1398: Small Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas: Sonographic Features in Regular Check-Up Healthy Population and the Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound

Li-Gang Cui,Jin-Rui Wang,Wu Zhang,Li-Ying Miao,Jian-Wen Jia,Ji-Bin Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.06.783
IF: 3.694
2009-01-01
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
Abstract:ObjectiveTo describe sonographic features of small(less than 5.0cm) solid pancreatic pseudopapillary tumors(SPPT) in regular check-up healthy population and to show potential value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound.MethodsRegular check-up sonographic database from 2000 to 2007 was reviewed , and six patients with a surgical pathology-proven SPPT were retrospectively studied for evaluation of sonographic appearances and features. There were 1 male and 5 females with ages from 23 to 35 years. These tumors were detected incidentally by regular check-up sonographic examination, all patients without symptoms except one patient with complaint of discomfort on the left side of the back. Contrast-enhanced sonographic examination was conducted in one patient prior to surgery.ResultsGray scale sonographic imaging features included solid homogenous hypoechoic mass in 2 cases, one of which had a hyperechoic rim, complete cystic echofree mass in 1 case, mixed solid and cystic mass in 2 cases, one of which with central hyperechoic area and one case the lesion just showed a superficial curved hyperechoic rim with posterior shadow. The size of the lesions ranged from 2.5 cm to 5.0 cm in diameter with a mean diameter of 4.2 cm. In one solid appearance tumor with contrast-enhanced imaging, the typical peripheral capsule enhancement and intra-tumor unenhanced area were evidenced in arterial phase.ConclusionsRegular check-up healthy sonographic examination can find relatively small size SPPT and allow diagnosis based on typical imaging features. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound shows greater detail of the tumor capsule and heterogeneous enhancement pattern, which are helpful for diagnosis and differentiation. ObjectiveTo describe sonographic features of small(less than 5.0cm) solid pancreatic pseudopapillary tumors(SPPT) in regular check-up healthy population and to show potential value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound. To describe sonographic features of small(less than 5.0cm) solid pancreatic pseudopapillary tumors(SPPT) in regular check-up healthy population and to show potential value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound. MethodsRegular check-up sonographic database from 2000 to 2007 was reviewed , and six patients with a surgical pathology-proven SPPT were retrospectively studied for evaluation of sonographic appearances and features. There were 1 male and 5 females with ages from 23 to 35 years. These tumors were detected incidentally by regular check-up sonographic examination, all patients without symptoms except one patient with complaint of discomfort on the left side of the back. Contrast-enhanced sonographic examination was conducted in one patient prior to surgery. Regular check-up sonographic database from 2000 to 2007 was reviewed , and six patients with a surgical pathology-proven SPPT were retrospectively studied for evaluation of sonographic appearances and features. There were 1 male and 5 females with ages from 23 to 35 years. These tumors were detected incidentally by regular check-up sonographic examination, all patients without symptoms except one patient with complaint of discomfort on the left side of the back. Contrast-enhanced sonographic examination was conducted in one patient prior to surgery. ResultsGray scale sonographic imaging features included solid homogenous hypoechoic mass in 2 cases, one of which had a hyperechoic rim, complete cystic echofree mass in 1 case, mixed solid and cystic mass in 2 cases, one of which with central hyperechoic area and one case the lesion just showed a superficial curved hyperechoic rim with posterior shadow. The size of the lesions ranged from 2.5 cm to 5.0 cm in diameter with a mean diameter of 4.2 cm. In one solid appearance tumor with contrast-enhanced imaging, the typical peripheral capsule enhancement and intra-tumor unenhanced area were evidenced in arterial phase. Gray scale sonographic imaging features included solid homogenous hypoechoic mass in 2 cases, one of which had a hyperechoic rim, complete cystic echofree mass in 1 case, mixed solid and cystic mass in 2 cases, one of which with central hyperechoic area and one case the lesion just showed a superficial curved hyperechoic rim with posterior shadow. The size of the lesions ranged from 2.5 cm to 5.0 cm in diameter with a mean diameter of 4.2 cm. In one solid appearance tumor with contrast-enhanced imaging, the typical peripheral capsule enhancement and intra-tumor unenhanced area were evidenced in arterial phase. ConclusionsRegular check-up healthy sonographic examination can find relatively small size SPPT and allow diagnosis based on typical imaging features. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound shows greater detail of the tumor capsule and heterogeneous enhancement pattern, which are helpful for diagnosis and differentiation. Regular check-up healthy sonographic examination can find relatively small size SPPT and allow diagnosis based on typical imaging features. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound shows greater detail of the tumor capsule and heterogeneous enhancement pattern, which are helpful for diagnosis and differentiation.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?