18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography enhances computed tomography diagnosis of malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18-FDG PET) in distinguishing benign from malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the pancreas and its contribution to surgical decision making. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Pancreatic IPMNs are increasingly recognized, often as incidental findings, especially in people over age 70 and 80. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) are unreliable in discriminating a benign from a malignant neoplasm. 18-FDG PET as imaging procedure based on the increased glucose uptake by tumor cells has been suggested for diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: From January 1998 to December 2005, 64 patients with suspected IPMNs were prospectively investigated with 18-FDG PET in addition to conventional imaging techniques [helical-CT in all and MR and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in 60]. 18-FDG PET was analyzed visually and semiquantitatively using the standard uptake value (SUV). The validation of the diagnosis was made by a surgical procedure (n = 44), a percutaneous biopsy (n = 2), main duct cytology (n = 1), or follow-up (n = 17). Mean and median follow-up times were 25 and 27.5 months, respectively (range, 12-90 months). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (42%) were asymptomatic. Forty-two patients underwent pancreatic resection, 2 palliative surgery, and 20 did not undergo surgery. An adenoma was diagnosed in 13 patients, a borderline tumor in 8, a carcinoma in situ in 5, and an invasive cancer in 21; in 17 patients a tumor sampling was not performed and therefore the histology remained undetermined. Positive criteria of increased uptake on 18-FDG PET was absent in 13 of 13 adenomas and 7 of 8 borderline IPMNs, but was present in 4 of 5 carcinoma in situ (80%) and in 20 of 21 invasive cancers (95%). Conventional imaging technique was strongly suggestive of malignancy in 2 of 5 carcinomas in situ and in 13 of 21 invasive carcinomas (62%). Furthermore, conventional imaging had findings that would be considered falsely positive in 1 of 13 adenomas (8%) and in 3 of 8 borderline neoplasms (37.5%). Therefore, positive 18-FDG PET influenced surgical decision making in 10 patients with malignant IPMN. Furthermore, negative findings on 18-FDG PET prompted us to use a more limited resection in 15 patients, and offered a follow-up strategy in 18 patients (3 positive at CT scan) for the future development of a malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: 18-FDG PET is more accurate than conventional imaging techniques (CT and MR) in distinguishing benign from malignant (invasive and noninvasive) IPMNs. 18-FDG PET seems to be much better than conventional imaging techniques in selecting IPMNs patients, especially when old and asymptomatic, for surgical treatment or follow-up.