Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma And Mass-forming Focal Pancreatitis: The Retrospective Research Of Their Morphological Performance And The Study Of Their Water/Fat Content

Pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common malignant tumors. Mass-forming focal pancreatitis (MFP) is a special kind of chronic pancreatitis, its clinical manifestations and its imaging features are very familiar with PDAC, so it is difficult to make exact preoperative diagnosis. However their prognosis are different. The diagnosis and differential diagnosis has important significance to the clinical treatment and prognosis. This study through analysis the imaging morphological manifestations of PDAC and MFP in CT and MRI and pathological morphology to show there features. And furthermore, through the 3.0 T MR IDEAL sequence analysis there water fat proportion. Our aim is to explore the feature of PDAC and MFP in image morphological and chemical composition, improving the understanding of both of them.Partâ… :Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma and Mass-forming Focal Pancreatitis: the Morphological Performance of CT and MRIObjective: To discuss the value of conventional CT and MRI in diagnosis of PDAC and MFP. Methord: To retrospectively analyze the materials of clinical manifestation, CT and MRI of who were suffered with PDAC and MFP.A total of 48 patients, who were proved by histopathology. There are 35 patients with PDAC (age range 37⁷3years,including 21males and 14 females, the mean age 55 years);13 patients with MFP(age range 43⁶7years,including 8 males and 5 females, the mean age 55 years).Result: There is no obvious difference of patients with PDAC or MFP. The primary clinical performance is abdominal pain, some patients appear icteric. Among 35 patients, there are 6 patients with low cell differentiation,27 with moderately cell differentiation,2 with well cell differentiation. The ways of enhancement of PDAC and MFP have no statistically significant (P = 0.35) .To compare binarily the way of enhancement of different pathological grades, there is no statistical significance of Low differentiation and moderately differentiation (P=0.42), while there is statistically significance of moderately differentiation and well differentiation (P=0.01). The vascular invasion of PDAC has no statistically significance with it of MFP (P=0.68). There is statistically significance between patients with poorly differentiated PDAC and those with moderately differentiated PDAC (P = 0.001) and the same result between poorly and well differentiated (P = 0.036). Conclusion: The ways of enhancement and the vascular invasion of PDAC and MFP have no obvious difference. To some certain the ways of enhancement shows the differentiation of PDAC, and so with the vascular invasion.Partâ…¡: Water/Fat Content Analysis of Normal Pancreas by IDEAL Sequence of 3.0 T Magnetic ResonanceObjective: Analysis the range of water fat content of normal pancreas and the difference of water fat content of head and body of normal pancreas. Methord: 20 healthy volunteers between October 2010 to December 2010(age range 23⁵5years, mean age 43years, including 8 males and 12 females) scaned by GE 3.0 T MR IDEAL sequence. Measure the signal strength of outcome images, carry on the water fat content analysis. Two kinds of formula, the fist is WF1=S_W/S_F,, the other is WF2=(S_IP+S_OP)/(S_IP-S_OP). S_W is the signal strength of water, S_F is the signal strength of fat, S_IP is the signal strength of in-phase, S_OP is the signal strength of opposite phase. Result: Use the fist formula reward results: the head of pancreas WF1=7.97±0.95,the body and tail of pancreas WF1=8.04±0.81; Use the second formula reward results: the head of pancreas WF1=11.51±1.62,the body and tail of pancreas WF1=11.35±1.52. There is no statistical significance of different age, different parts of pancreas. The results through formula 2 are greater than that of using formula 1,and it is statistically different. Conclusion: There is no difference of the water fat percentage of different parts of normal pancreas. There is no difference of water fat percentage between the age of 23⁵5.Partâ…¢: Water/Fat Content Analysis of PDAC and MFP by IDEAL Sequence of 3.0 T Magnetic ResonanceObjective: Analysis the range of water fat rate of patients with PDAC and MFP, and value it. Methord: 21 patients with PDAC or MFP between September 2010 to January 2011.13 patients with PDAC (age range 43⁶7years, mean age54years, including 7 males and 6 females), 8patients with MFP (age range 47⁶0years, mean age 55 years, including 4 males and 4 females), scaned by GE 3.0 T MR IDEAL sequence. Measure the signal strength of outcome images, carry on the water fat content analysis. Two kinds of formula, the fist is WF1=S_W/S_F,, the other is WF2=(S_IP+S_OP)/(S_IP-S_OP). S_W is the signal strength of water, S_F is the signal strength of fat, S_IP is the signal strength of in-phase, S_OP is the signal strength of opposite phase. Result: Use the fist formula reward results: PDAC: PDACWF1=9.94±4.30,MFPWF1=5.08±1.39; Use the second formula reward results: PDACWF2=13.87±6.63,MFPWF2=5.73±1.82.There is statistical significance between PDAC and MFP (P<0.5). The results through formula 2 are greater than that of using formula 1, and it is statistically different. Conclusion: The water fat percentage of pancreas with PDAC is different from that with MFP. It has certain guiding significance for diagnosis.