Abstract:Objective To evaluate characteristic clinical and imaging findings of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NET) in dual-phase contrast enhancement MSCT.Methods The dual-phase contrast enhancement MSCT images of 23 lesions in 20 patients with histologically confirmed pancreatic NET were studied retrospectively.Their clinical presentations,imaging characters as well as the intensities of lesions and normal pancreas in each phase were measured,and the following indices were calculated.First,the absolute enhancement of lesions,including the increasing of CT value of the maximum enhancement area within a tumor in arterial phase,that was named A1 in short,and that of the minimum enhancement area was labeled as A2.The same ROI measured increasing CT values in portal venous phase was labeled as V1 and V2 respectively.Secondly,the relatively enhancement indices comparing with the normal pancreas in the same patient within the same phase were calculated.This included the differences between the maximum,as well as the minimum,enhancement areas of tumors and the normal pancreas in arterial phase,which was named as AP1 and AP2 respectively,and those differences in portal venous phase,which were labeled as VP1 and VP2 respectively.All of the tumors were graded as G1 to G3 according to the WHO classification in 2010.A Kruskal Wallis test were performed to compare differences of tumor diameters and the enhancement indices.The change trend of enhancement indices varying with pathology grading were described.Fisher exact test was used to find differences of clinical and imaging characters.Results Twenty-three lesions in 20 patients included 13 lesions in grade 1 (G1),8 in G2,and 2 in G3.Among the 10 patients with G1 NET,7 of them had no endocrine symptoms,while the other 3 had endocrine symptoms.Six of them had no abdominal pain,while 4 of them complained of it.All of the 10 patients with G1 NET had no hepatic metastasis.Among 8 patients with G2 NET,4 of them were with endocrine abnormality,and the other 4 were not.Five of them complained of abdominal pain while the other 3 did not.Six of them had no hepatic metastasis,and 2 of them had.Both of the 2 patients with NET in G3 did not have any endocrine abnormality,and one of them complained abdominal pain.Both of them were with hepatic metastasis.There was no difference between groups that whether or not endocrine syndrome and abdominal pain was presented (x2 =2.238,0.713,P =0.318,1.000),while hepatic metastasis was of significant differences (x2 =9.516,P =0.003).Tumor location,distinct outline,necrosis and/or calcification were not significantly different.Tumor enhancement showed a probable trend of decrease in group of higher grade.A1 decreased from (126.4 ± 45.7)HU to (38.7± 8.5)HU (x2 =7.254,P=0.027),A2 decreased from (94.1 ±31.1)HU to (22.8 ± 14.0) HU (x2 =7.323,P =0.026) and AP1 dropped from 80.6 HU(-21.8 — 169.7 HU) to -36.7 HU(-41.6—-31.7 HU) (x2 =6.778,P =0.034).All of the indices mentioned above were of significant difference and the other indices showed no significant difference (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions Quantitative assessment of their enhancement patterns may provide useful information to preoperative grading of pancreatic NET,and tumors in a higher grade may show poorer enhancement.

Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinomas: Differentiation from Adenocarcinomas with Neuroendocrine Differentiation Based on Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT Findings of Hepatic Metastases

Differentiating Hepatic Metastases Of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Cancer And Adenocarcinoma Using Enhanced Ct

Comparison of CT Features of Hepatic Metastases of Gastro-entero-pancreatic Adenocarcinomas with and Without Neuroendocrine Differentiation

Dynamic Enhanced CT: is There a Difference Between Liver Metastases of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor and Adenocarcinoma

Machine Learning Methods Based on CT Features Differentiate G1/G2 from G3 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Utility of CT in Differentiating Liver Metastases of Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms from Poorly-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Characterization of Single Lesion Nonfunctioning Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinoma Via Computed Tomography

Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Computed Tomography Features And The Correlation To Pathological Tumor Grade

CT evaluation of gastroenteric neuroendocrine tumors: relationship between ct features and the pathologic classification.

Quantitative analysis of enhanced CT in differentiating well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas

The differentiation of pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: the values of CT imaging features and texture analysis

Differentiation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinoma from Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging: the Value of Contrast-Enhanced and Diffusion Weighted Imaging

Comparative Diagnostic Evaluation with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms

CT features of primary hepatic neuroendocrine carcinoma

Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography for the Differential Diagnosis of Hypovascular Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors from Chronic Mass-Forming Pancreatitis.

Differential Diagnosis of Nonhypervascular Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms from Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas, Based on Computed Tomography Radiological Features and Texture Analysis.

Dual-phase contrast enhancement multi-slice CT in grading pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Value of computed tomography evaluation in pathologic classification and prognosis prediction of gastric neuroendocrine tumors

MRI features and pathological grading of hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm

Preliminary study on the relationship between the contrast‐enhanced ultrasonography of liver metastasis and the differentiation degree of neuroendocrine tumors

Imaging Appearance of Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Carcinomas