Abstract
Chronic pancreatitis is an inflammatory condition of the pancreas with clinical manifestations ranging from abdominal pain, acute pancreatitis, exocrine and/or endocrine dysfunction, and pancreatic cancer. There is a need for longitudinal studies in well-phenotyped patients to ascertain the utility of cross-sectional imaging findings of chronic pancreatitis for diagnosis and assessment of disease severity. CT and MR cholangiopancreatography are the most common cross-sectional imaging studies performed for the evaluation of chronic pancreatitis. Currently, there are no universal reporting standards for chronic pancreatitis. Several features of chronic pancreatitis are applied clinically, such as calcifications, parenchymal T1 signal changes, focal or diffuse gland atrophy, or irregular contour of the gland. Such findings have not been incorporated into standardized diagnostic criteria. There is also lack of consensus on quantification of disease severity in chronic pancreatitis, other than by using ductal features alone as described in the Cambridge classification. The Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer (CPDPC) was established by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Cancer Institute in 2015 to undertake collaborative studies on chronic pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. CPDPC investigators from the Adult Chronic Pancreatitis Working Group were tasked with development of a new consensus approach to reporting features of chronic pancreatitis aimed to standardize diagnosis and assessment of disease severity for clinical trials. This consensus statement presents and defines features of chronic pancreatitis along with recommended reporting metrics.
© RSNA, 2018
Online supplemental material is available for this article.
See also the editorial by Megibow in this issue.
Summary
New cross-sectional imaging feature definitions and standardized reporting recommendations for chronic pancreatitis will allow a more standardized approach to diagnosis and assessment of disease severity for clinical trials.
Implications for Patient Care
■ This consensus document identifies, defines, and provides metrics for reporting features of chronic pancreatitis that will allow a more standardized approach to diagnosis and assessment of disease severity.
■ Standardized definitions and reporting of chronic pancreatitis on imaging studies will facilitate classification of disease severity and longitudinal assessment in clinical trials.
Introduction
Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an inflammatory condition of the pancreas. Clinical manifestations of CP include one or more of the following: abdominal pain, which is often chronic and debilitating; episode(s) of acute pancreatitis; endocrine and/or exocrine insufficiency; and in some cases, development of pancreatic cancer. CP has a profound impact on the patient’s quality of life (1). The natural course of CP is highly variable and no validated tools exist to predict disease progression in individual patients. There are no specific therapies available for treatment or prevention of this disease. Mechanistic definition and conceptual framework for disease evolution recently proposed based on international consensus (2) provides an opportunity to conduct translational and interventional studies to generate empirical data to advance the field.
The histologic hallmarks of CP include fibrosis, chronic inflammation, and loss of acinar cells. Because histologic diagnosis is rarely pursued given the potential for complications, there is a need for a noninvasive biomarker of pancreatic fibrosis. This biomarker can be used in future trials to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic agents, which may slow the progression or reverse the fibrosis observed in CP.
Cross-sectional imaging is the most commonly used method to establish a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and CP. Among cross-sectional imaging studies, CT is readily available and performed often in the setting of acute pancreatitis. It is widely acknowledged that MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography is more sensitive than is CT for detection of ductal and subtle parenchymal changes, especially during early stages of CP (3,4). However, the two modalities are complementary because CT is the modality of choice for evaluation of parenchymal and ductal calcifications.
Currently, no standardized reporting system for CT, MRI, or MR cholangiopancreatography is universally used. The Cambridge classification (Table 1) (5), which was developed for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, has been suggested for translational use in CT and MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography interpretation by recent guidelines of the American Pancreatic Association (6). Although useful, the Cambridge classification only acknowledges ductal changes (7,8). Hence, the contribution of parenchymal observations is not captured.
Table 1:
Cambridge Classification
Note.—CP = chronic pancreatitis, PD = pancreatic duct.
Technical advances continue to improve image contrast and resolution in CT, MRI, and MR cholangiopancreatography. MR cholangiopancreatography sequences are commonly performed with a pre- and postcontrast MRI of the abdomen (9). MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography thus provides information on both ductal and parenchymal features of CP, such as T1 signal changes, focal or diffuse gland atrophy, and irregular contour of the pancreatic duct (PD). These parenchymal findings specific to cross-sectional imaging do not contribute to the Cambridge classification, and their composite value has not been captured in any other widely accepted classification system.
To address this gap in practice, radiologists from the Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer (CPDPC) in collaboration with medical pancreatologists hereby propose a new reporting standard aimed at defining features of CP to promote standardized reporting at CT, MRI, and MR cholangiopancreatography. The features defined in this consensus document are primarily intended for use in the adult clinical trial population. The reporting recommendations detailed in this article represent expert consensus and have been applied in a pilot project of approximately 150 patients prospectively accrued for the North American Pancreatitis Study 2 (NAPS2) (8,10,11). The purpose of this article is to describe the rationale, define features of CP, and provide reporting recommendations for CT, MRI, and MR cholangiopancreatography in adult patients with CP enrolled in clinical trials.
Background and History of the CPDPC
The CPDPC was established by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Cancer Institute in 2015 with the express intent of promoting collaborative studies on CP, diabetes mellitus, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (12). The consortium includes nine adult clinical centers (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa; Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; Indiana University, Indianapolis, Ind; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Stanford University, Stanford, Calif; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif; University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla; Baylor University, Waco, Tex), one pediatric consortium (International Study Group of Pediatric Pancreatitis: In Search for a Cure [INSPPIRE]), and one data coordinating center (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex). The consortium is composed of several working groups and committees organized to achieve its research goals.
Rationale for Standardized Reporting in CP
As previously stated, imaging provides comprehensive information about pancreatic composition and volume, ductal changes, and calcifications. Serial imaging is well suited as a noninvasive test for longitudinal monitoring. There is currently no imaging classification for diagnosis and disease severity that incorporates parenchymal and ductal abnormalities. Studies evaluating the T1 signal of the pancreas demonstrated correlation with exocrine insufficiency of the pancreas (3,13). T1 mapping, extracellular volume fraction, and diffusion-weighted imaging have been shown to be useful quantitative imaging parameters for diagnosis and severity of CP (4,14–16). As therapeutic drugs emerge for clinical trials, definitions of disease and severity are needed for longitudinal markers and therapeutic targets. Precise and standardized communication between the radiologist and clinicians promotes reproducibility of diagnosis and longitudinal monitoring. It is with communication in mind that the CPDPC proposes standardized definitions and reporting recommendations based on available evidence and expert consensus. Imaging data points described in this article will be validated for prognostic and therapeutic assessment of patients participating in longitudinal studies of CPDPC, potentially establishing CT, MRI, or MR cholangiopancreatography as a useful biomarker for progression of CP.
Imaging Techniques
To facilitate accurate interpretation, there must be adherence to proper image acquisition technique. Although a detailed discussion of imaging techniques is beyond the scope of this article, Table 2 provides some minimum technical parameters for CT, MRI, and MR cholangiopancreatography. Administration of secretin is highly encouraged if available at the institution where the MR cholangiopancreatography is being performed.
Table 2:
Guidelines for Imaging of CP by Using MRI, MR Cholangiopancreatography, and CT
Note.—CP = chronic pancreatitis, 3D = three-dimensional, 2D = two-dimensional.
Development of a Standardized Reporting Method
The following sections define modality-specific features and make reporting recommendations for CT, CT and MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography, and MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography. The consortium studies will collect data on all these imaging findings. We aim to report the diagnostic and prognostic utility of these imaging findings in future publications. There is no widely accepted interobserver variability data on assessment of cross-sectional imaging findings. It is advised that a single radiologist perform a longitudinal assessment by using the proposed system until interrater reliability information is available on the application of features.
Standard Definitions and Reporting Recommendations of CP Findings at CT
See Tables 3 and 4, Figure 1, and Figures E1–E10 (online).
Table 3:
Guidelines for Reporting Imaging Findings for CT, CT and MRI, and MRI or MR Cholangiopancreatography
Note.—PD = pancreatic duct.
*See also Figure 1 and Figures E1–E10 (online).
† See also Figure 2 and Figures E1–E10 (online).
Table 4:
Standard CT Data Points and Findings for CP
Note.—CP = chronic pancreatitis, PD = pancreatic duct.
Figure 1a:
Images in a 49-year-old patient with history of alcohol abuse, chronic pancreatitis (CP), and cirrhosis. (a) Oblique axial contrast material–enhanced CT image shows moderately to markedly irregular pancreatic duct (PD) contour (white arrow) and stricture in pancreatic neck causing upstream ductal dilatation (black arrow). Distribution of findings is greater than 70% because there are features of CP involving entire gland. Relatively less enhancement of parenchyma is shown in region of head compared with body and tail. Delayed enhancement pattern is nonspecific; however, it can be seen with fibrosis. (b) Oblique coronal contrast-enhanced CT image shows head, neck, and body of pancreas with more than seven coarse calcifications (arrow). Largest PD caliber is measured as shown with white line. (c) Axial contrast-enhanced CT image shows measurement of pancreatic thickness in patient with PD dilatation, measured perpendicular to longitudinal axis of parenchyma at level of lateral margin of adjacent vertebral body (VB) or upstream to PD calculus or stricture. Splenic vein (SV) and artery in measurement should be avoided.
Figure 1b:
Images in a 49-year-old patient with history of alcohol abuse, chronic pancreatitis (CP), and cirrhosis. (a) Oblique axial contrast material–enhanced CT image shows moderately to markedly irregular pancreatic duct (PD) contour (white arrow) and stricture in pancreatic neck causing upstream ductal dilatation (black arrow). Distribution of findings is greater than 70% because there are features of CP involving entire gland. Relatively less enhancement of parenchyma is shown in region of head compared with body and tail. Delayed enhancement pattern is nonspecific; however, it can be seen with fibrosis. (b) Oblique coronal contrast-enhanced CT image shows head, neck, and body of pancreas with more than seven coarse calcifications (arrow). Largest PD caliber is measured as shown with white line. (c) Axial contrast-enhanced CT image shows measurement of pancreatic thickness in patient with PD dilatation, measured perpendicular to longitudinal axis of parenchyma at level of lateral margin of adjacent vertebral body (VB) or upstream to PD calculus or stricture. Splenic vein (SV) and artery in measurement should be avoided.
Figure 1c:
Images in a 49-year-old patient with history of alcohol abuse, chronic pancreatitis (CP), and cirrhosis. (a) Oblique axial contrast material–enhanced CT image shows moderately to markedly irregular pancreatic duct (PD) contour (white arrow) and stricture in pancreatic neck causing upstream ductal dilatation (black arrow). Distribution of findings is greater than 70% because there are features of CP involving entire gland. Relatively less enhancement of parenchyma is shown in region of head compared with body and tail. Delayed enhancement pattern is nonspecific; however, it can be seen with fibrosis. (b) Oblique coronal contrast-enhanced CT image shows head, neck, and body of pancreas with more than seven coarse calcifications (arrow). Largest PD caliber is measured as shown with white line. (c) Axial contrast-enhanced CT image shows measurement of pancreatic thickness in patient with PD dilatation, measured perpendicular to longitudinal axis of parenchyma at level of lateral margin of adjacent vertebral body (VB) or upstream to PD calculus or stricture. Splenic vein (SV) and artery in measurement should be avoided.
Both the size and number of pancreatic calcifications should be graded because the degree of calcification in CP may parallel the course of the disease (17,18). Coarse pancreatic calcifications are accepted as a definite sign of CP (19,20). Senescent pancreatic parenchymal calcifications are usually 1–3 mm and may not always imply CP. Senescent calcifications are seen in peripheral ducts and lack association with clinical signs and symptoms of CP, hypercalcemia, or alcoholism (21). Innumerable punctate calcifications, on the other hand, strongly suggest CP. Calcification seen in CP has rarely been scored and/or graded. Selection of seven as the number of coarse calcifications to discriminate more severe from less severe CP is somewhat arbitrary but provides distinction. A cutoff of 50 punctate calcifications was chosen as a surrogate for innumerable calcifications.
Standard Definitions and Reporting Recommendations of CP Findings at CT and/or MRI
See Tables 3–5, Figure 2, and Figures E1–E10 (online).
Table 5:
Standard MRI or MR Cholangiopancreatography Data Points and Findings for CP
Note.—CP = chronic pancreatitis, PD = pancreatic duct.
Figure 2a:
Images in a 47-year-old woman with chronic abdominal pain suspected of pancreatic origin. (a) Coronal thick-slab MR cholangiopancreatography image 10 minutes after secretin administration is shown, with pancreatic juice filling third portion of duodenum. The first, second, and third portions of duodenum are labeled as 1, 2, and 3. Main pancreatic duct (PD) diameter is 2.5 mm (arrowhead). There are at least four abnormal side-branches (arrows) consistent with Cambridge classification 2. Main PD contour is smooth with no PD strictures. (b) Axial unenhanced gradient-echo image shows region-of-interest measurement (circles) of T1-weighted signal in pancreas (arrow), spleen, paraspinal muscle, and liver.
Figure 2b:
Images in a 47-year-old woman with chronic abdominal pain suspected of pancreatic origin. (a) Coronal thick-slab MR cholangiopancreatography image 10 minutes after secretin administration is shown, with pancreatic juice filling third portion of duodenum. The first, second, and third portions of duodenum are labeled as 1, 2, and 3. Main pancreatic duct (PD) diameter is 2.5 mm (arrowhead). There are at least four abnormal side-branches (arrows) consistent with Cambridge classification 2. Main PD contour is smooth with no PD strictures. (b) Axial unenhanced gradient-echo image shows region-of-interest measurement (circles) of T1-weighted signal in pancreas (arrow), spleen, paraspinal muscle, and liver.
PD caliber and contour.—The PD caliber must be described. The upper limit of normal PD diameter in previous publications ranges from 2 mm to 8 mm (22,23). There is no universally accepted measurement for PD dilation, but a diameter of greater than 3 mm in the head and greater than 2 mm upstream to the head is often considered dilated (22). PD caliber of less than 3.5 mm is defined as normal in the current standards (6). However, the PD can be labeled as dilated if the PD is less than 3.5 mm, but this finding is seen upstream to a stricture or obstructing calculus. As an example, a 3-mm PD upstream to an obstructing calculus with the downstream PD measuring 1–2 mm is considered dilated.
PD contour is a subjective assessment; however, it is an important feature of CP. Main PD contour irregularity has been described as a cardinal sign of CP in the Cambridge classification. It implies the presence of periductal fibrosis—a definite histopathologic sign of CP—and is associated with stasis within the duct leading to stone formation and obstruction, which further results in atrophy and fibrosis. Mild contour irregularity was taken as “moderate” equivalent of Cambridge classification and moderate to severe contour irregularity as the “marked” category equivalent. Given the subjective nature of this assessment, differentiation should be limited to mild versus moderate to severe contour irregularity and not between moderate and severe irregularity. PD contour irregularity is considered as moderate or marked if at least three discrete sites of luminal narrowing exceeding 50% are present.
PD narrowing.—Narrowing of the PD can be due to stricture or calculus in the absence of malignancy. If multiple foci of PD narrowing are present, then the most downstream one closest to ampulla should be documented. The pancreatic head is defined as the parenchyma within the duodenal C-loop lying to the right of the left border of the superior mesenteric vein (including the neck and the uncinate process). The pancreatic body is defined as the section from the left border of the superior mesenteric vein and the left border of the aorta. There is no consensus in the literature about the boundary of the tail; however, the College of American Pathologists describes the pancreatic tail from the left border of the aorta to the splenic hilum (24).
Pancreatic thickness.—It has been shown that pancreatic volume is decreased in patients with exocrine and/or endocrine insufficiency, and CP may be diagnosed based on atrophy in the absence of other changes (25–27). Certainly, volumetric assessment would be better than measuring thickness at the head, body, and tail, but it requires postprocessing and is impractical. According to one study (13), 21.8 mm was the mean thickness in patients with a normal pancreatic function test result. Normal pancreatic thickness varies with age, and lower values in the older adult population down to 14 mm can be considered normal (28,29). Although the superior mesenteric artery has been commonly used as a landmark for pancreatic body diameter measurements, the left margin of the vertebral body is considered a more practical landmark for cross-sectional imaging (28,30). The superior mesenteric artery was used as the landmark for the pancreatic body predominantly with US-based studies (31–33). It is uncommon for the superior mesenteric artery to be visualized in the same section as the pancreatic body in axial sectioning, but it is far more likely that a lumbar vertebral body and the pancreatic body are invariably found on the same axial section. Measurement of the pancreatic body should be performed at the level of the left margin of the vertebral body with thickness of 21 mm, 14 mm, and 7 mm serving as the thresholds for varying degrees of atrophy (28). Although a measure of the pancreas in the head-to-tail dimension could also be used, the anatomic landmark of the body is more reliable than is the head and the tail (25,26).
Distribution of findings.—Features of CP can be seen as a diffuse or localized process. The extent of involvement should be graded because exocrine and/or endocrine insufficiency can vary in proportion to disease burden and distribution.
Documenting pancreatic operations.—Any prior pancreatic surgery should be documented if identified or known.
Standard Definitions and Reporting Recommendations of CP Findings at MRI and MR Cholangiopancreatography
See Tables 3 and 5, Figure 2, and Figures E1–E10 (online).
To allow some degree of interchangeability of MRI and CT, some of the reporting scores were made comparable to allow meaningful assessment of disease stability or progression whether a patient undergoes CT, MRI, or MR cholangiopancreatography at different time points. However, there are two major differences between the guidelines of these modalities.
First, instead of calcifications (a feature detected by using CT with high sensitivity), we will focus on the detection of parenchymal fibrosis. Based on the literature, parenchymal T1 signal intensity changes (3) and parenchymal enhancement pattern during the arterial and venous phases (13,34) are features that have been shown to reflect tissue inflammation and/or fibrosis.
Second, ductal morphology is far better evaluated with MR cholangiopancreatography than with CT, especially with administration of secretin (34–38). Hence, elements from the Cambridge classification have been adopted to score ductal morphology.
Reporting of MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography incorporates both ductal and parenchymal findings. Similar to CT, MR findings include both subjective (eg, duct contour irregularity) and objective (quantitative) measurements of the parenchyma (eg, T1 signal intensity and arteriovenous enhancement ratio).
Number of ectatic branch ducts.—The number of ectatic side-branch ducts as described in the Cambridge classification (5) should be documented.
Postsecretin MR cholangiopancreatography findings.—The presence of duodenal filling grade and PD compliance following stimulation with secretin should be reported (13). The exocrine fluid reserve can be assessed with secretin-enhanced MR cholangiopancreatography from normal to complete absence of a pancreatic juice excretion (39). Lack of PD compliance is considered a feature of periductal fibrosis, which is seen with CP.
Pancreatic parenchymal T1 signal and enhancement ratio.—The normal parenchyma of the pancreas has high signal on fat-suppressed T1-weighted images, which is attributed to the higher amount of aqueous protein in the glandular elements, abundance of endoplasmic reticulum of the protein-producing acinar cells, and the presence of paramagnetic ions (eg, manganese). There are several published reports of the T1-weighted signal intensity of the pancreas for CP (3,4,14,15,34,40). Some of these studies demonstrated the correlation of the T1-weighted signal intensity with pancreatic exocrine function measured with the endoscopic pancreatic function tests (3,13). These studies used T1-weighted signal intensity ratio of the pancreas to the spleen, paraspinal muscle, and the liver, all of which have been reported as useful methods for the diagnosis of CP (3,13,15,34,41). Currently, there is no study comparing these methods to determine which reference organ is superior to the others. Additionally, there are instances in which the liver or spleen may have abnormal signal intensity due to iron deposition or other pathologic condition. In the absence of evidence, ratios from all reference organs are encouraged.
Recent studies (4,14) reported high diagnostic potential of MR relaxometry and extracellular volume fraction for detection of the pancreatic fibrosis; however, these pulse sequences are relatively new and not yet available in all institutions.
Pancreatic parenchymal enhancement ratio.—Enhancement ratio is calculated by dividing the signal intensities during the arterial and venous phase obtained as region-of-interest measurements. Fibrosis typically causes a slow and progressive persistent enhancement as opposed to gradual enhancement and subsequent slow washout seen in normal parenchyma. Several studies (13,14,34) have reported the association of pancreatic fibrosis and changes in the enhancement ratio of the pancreas. However, there has not been a prospective study performed on well-phenotyped cohorts.
Application and Validation
As with any new imaging criteria and methodology, validation will be required to determine the reliability and usability. The Adult Chronic Pancreatitis Working Group launched a longitudinal cohort study of adults with CP in 2017 entitled the Prospective Evaluation of Chronic Pancreatitis for Epidemiologic and Translational Studies (PROCEED; clinical trial identification no. NCT03099850). The PROCEED study will enroll control participants and patients with CP or suspected of having CP to accurately define disease progression and to develop a platform for translational and mechanistic studies. The PROCEED and other ancillary studies that derive from PROCEED will initially use the Cambridge classification (Table 1) for primary differentiation of patients who meet other predefined clinical criteria into those with no pancreatitis, suspected CP, and definite CP. The use of radiology features for the final assignment of patient groups is deliberate to provide an unbiased approach. Patients with no pancreatitis will have a normal finding at CT and MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography (Cambridge grade 0), those suspected of having CP will have findings of Cambridge grade 1 or 2 (equivocal or mild) at CT or MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography, and those with definite CP will have pancreatic calcification seen at CT or findings of Cambridge grade 3–4 (moderate or severe) at CT or MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography. The rationale for this simplification is that there are only subtle differences between categories of grade 1 and grade 2 in terms of imaging findings (eg, one to three abnormal side-branch ectasia) and clinical significance (patients in these groups are considered within the suspected CP category). Differentiating features of moderate and severe CP are relatively easier to detect by using both CT and MRI or MR cholangiopancreatography (main duct involvement or irregularity).
Conclusion
The Adult Chronic Pancreatitis Working Group of the CPDPC has proposed new imaging reporting standards for specific features of chronic pancreatitis at CT, MRI, and MR cholangiopancreatography. Standardized qualitative and quantitative features may improve radiologic phenotyping of patients with CP and provide a metric for longitudinal assessment for clinical trials. Future use of these standardized metrics in well-controlled clinical trials will help to validate them and potentially allow for clinical adoption.
SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES
Supported by National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (U01DK108300, U01DK108323, U01DK108306, U01DK108327, and U01DK108288). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest: T.T. disclosed no relevant relationships. Z.K.S. disclosed no relevant relationships. N.T. disclosed no relevant relationships. J.R.G. disclosed no relevant relationships. S.T.C. disclosed no relevant relationships. S.K.V. disclosed no relevant relationships. D.L.C. disclosed no relevant relationships. E.L.F. disclosed no relevant relationships. W.P. disclosed no relevant relationships. M.T. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: has grants/grants pending from Celgene; holds stock/stock options in Metamodix. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. D.Y. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: received royalties from UpToDate. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. A.K.D. disclosed no relevant relationships.
Abbreviations:
- CP
- chronic pancreatitis
- CPDPC
- Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer
- PD
- pancreatic duct
References
- 1.Amann ST, Yadav D, Barmada MM, et al. Physical and mental quality of life in chronic pancreatitis: a case-control study from the North American Pancreatitis Study 2 cohort. Pancreas 2013;42(2):293–300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Whitcomb DC, Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, et al. International consensus statements on early chronic pancreatitis: recommendations from the working group for the international consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with the International Association of Pancreatology, American Pancreatic Association, Japan Pancreas Society, PancreasFest Working Group and European Pancreatic Club. Pancreatology 2018 May 21 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tirkes T, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Detection of exocrine dysfunction by MRI in patients with early chronic pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42(2):544–551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tirkes T, Lin C, Fogel EL, Sherman SS, Wang Q, Sandrasegaran K. T1 mapping for diagnosis of mild chronic pancreatitis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45(4):1171–1176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Axon AT, Classen M, Cotton PB, Cremer M, Freeny PC, Lees WR. Pancreatography in chronic pancreatitis: international definitions. Gut 1984;25(10):1107–1112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Conwell DL, Lee LS, Yadav D, et al. American Pancreatic Association practice guidelines in chronic pancreatitis: evidence-based report on diagnostic guidelines. Pancreas 2014;43(8):1143–1162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Beyer G, Mahajan UM, Budde C, et al. Development and validation of a chronic pancreatitis prognosis score in 2 independent cohorts. Gastroenterology 2017;153(6):1544–1554.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wilcox CM, Yadav D, Ye T, et al. Chronic pancreatitis pain pattern and severity are independent of abdominal imaging findings. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13(3):552–560; quiz e28–e29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tirkes T, Menias CO, Sandrasegaran K. MR imaging techniques for pancreas. Radiol Clin North Am 2012;50(3):379–393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Whitcomb DC, Yadav D, Adam S, et al. Multicenter approach to recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis in the United States: the North American Pancreatitis Study 2 (NAPS2). Pancreatology 2008;8(4-5):520–531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wilcox CM, Sandhu BS, Singh V, et al. Racial differences in the clinical profile, causes, and outcome of chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111(10):1488–1496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer . http://cpdpc.mdanderson.org/index.html. Published 2015. Accessed September 2018.
- 13.Balci NC, Smith A, Momtahen AJ, et al. MRI and S-MRCP findings in patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis: correlation with endoscopic pancreatic function testing (ePFT). J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31(3):601–606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tirkes T, Lin C, Cui E, et al. Quantitative MR evaluation of chronic pancreatitis: extracellular volume fraction and MR relaxometry. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210(3):533–542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Tanaka K, et al. Fibrosis and postoperative fistula of the pancreas: correlation with MR imaging findings—preliminary results. Radiology 2014;270(3):791–799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Akisik MF, Sandrasegaran K, Jennings SG, et al. Diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis by using apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T MR following secretin stimulation. Radiology 2009;252(2):418–425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lankisch PG, Otto J, Erkelenz I, Lembcke B. Pancreatic calcifications: no indicator of severe exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Gastroenterology 1986;90(3):617–621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lesniak RJ, Hohenwalter MD, Taylor AJ. Spectrum of causes of pancreatic calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(1):79–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Andersen PL, Madzak A, Olesen SS, Drewes AM, Frøkjaer JB. Quantification of parenchymal calcifications in chronic pancreatitis: relation to atrophy, ductal changes, fibrosis and clinical parameters. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018;53(2):218–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Klöppel G, Maillet B. Chronic pancreatitis: evolution of the disease. Hepatogastroenterology 1991;38(5):408–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Nagai H, Ohtsubo K. Pancreatic lithiasis in the aged: its clinicopathology and pathogenesis. Gastroenterology 1984;86(2):331–338. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Hadidi A. Pancreatic duct diameter: sonographic measurement in normal subjects. J Clin Ultrasound 1983;11(1):17–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ladas SD, Tassios PS, Giorgiotis K, Rokkas T, Theodosiou P, Raptis SA. Pancreatic duct width: its significance as a diagnostic criterion for pancreatic disease. Hepatogastroenterology 1993;40(1):52–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, et al. The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67(2):93–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gilbeau JP, Poncelet V, Libon E, Derue G, Heller FR. The density, contour, and thickness of the pancreas in diabetics: CT findings in 57 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159(3):527–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Silva ME, Vezozzo DP, Ursich MJ, Rocha DM, Cerri GG, Wajchenberg BL. Ultrasonographic abnormalities of the pancreas in IDDM and NIDDM patients. Diabetes Care 1993;16(9):1296–1297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Goda K, Sasaki E, Nagata K, Fukai M, Ohsawa N, Hahafusa T. Pancreatic volume in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol 2001;38(3):145–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Heuck A, Maubach PA, Reiser M, et al. Age-related morphology of the normal pancreas on computed tomography. Gastrointest Radiol 1987;12(1):18–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sato T, Ito K, Tamada T, et al. Age-related changes in normal adult pancreas: MR imaging evaluation. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(9):2093–2098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Fleischer AC, Parker P, Kirchner SG, James AE, Jr. Sonographic findings of pancreatitis in children. Radiology 1983;146(1):151–155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Altobelli E, Blasetti A, Verrotti A, Di Giandomenico V, Bonomo L, Chiarelli F. Size of pancreas in children and adolescents with type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes. J Clin Ultrasound 1998;26(8):391–395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cuntz U, Frank G, Lehnert P, Fichter M. Interrelationships between the size of the pancreas and the weight of patients with eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord 2000;27(3):297–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Treiber M, Einwächter H, Phillip V, Wagenpfeil S, Schmid RM, Lersch C. Is the size of the pancreas useful in diagnosing chronic pancreatitis? An ultrasound based, retrospective study. Pancreatology 2016;16(5):819–823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Balci NC, Alkaade S, Magas L, Momtahen AJ, Burton FR. Suspected chronic pancreatitis with normal MRCP: findings on MRI in correlation with secretin MRCP. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;27(1):125–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Carbognin G, Pinali L, Girardi V, Casarin A, Mansueto G, Mucelli RP. Collateral branches IPMTs: secretin-enhanced MRCP. Abdom Imaging 2007;32(3):374–380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Fukukura Y, Fujiyoshi F, Sasaki M, Nakajo M. Pancreatic duct: morphologic evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography after secretin stimulation. Radiology 2002;222(3):674–680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Manfredi R, Costamagna G, Brizi MG, et al. Severe chronic pancreatitis versus suspected pancreatic disease: dynamic MR cholangiopancreatography after secretin stimulation. Radiology 2000;214(3):849–855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Trikudanathan G, Walker SP, Munigala S, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MRI with secretin-stimulated MRCP for non-calcific chronic pancreatitis: a comparison with histopathology. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110(11):1598–1606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Cappeliez O, Delhaye M, Devière J, et al. Chronic pancreatitis: evaluation of pancreatic exocrine function with MR pancreatography after secretin stimulation. Radiology 2000;215(2):358–364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Winston CB, Mitchell DG, Outwater EK, Ehrlich SM. Pancreatic signal intensity on T1-weighted fat saturation MR images: clinical correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995;5(3):267–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Gallix BP, Bret PM, Atri M, Lecesne R, Reinhold C. Comparison of qualitative and quantitative measurements on unenhanced T1-weighted fat saturation MR images in predicting pancreatic pathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21(5):583–589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Minagi H, Margolin FR. Pancreatic calcifications. Am J Gastroenterol 1972;57(2):139–145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Sainani NI, Kadiyala V, Mortele K, et al. Evaluation of qualitative magnetic resonance imaging features for diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 2015;44(8):1280–1289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Tamura K, Sutherland DE, Kaneko G. Exocrine function of the heterotopic transplanted pancreas segment: influence of denervation in dogs. Pancreas 1988;3(3):324–331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Edge MD, Hoteit M, Patel AP, Wang X, Baumgarten DA, Cai Q. Clinical significance of main pancreatic duct dilation on computed tomography: single and double duct dilation. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13(11):1701–1705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Luetmer PH, Stephens DH, Ward EM. Chronic pancreatitis: reassessment with current CT. Radiology 1989;171(2):353–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Mortelé KJ, Rocha TC, Streeter JL, Taylor AJ. Multimodality imaging of pancreatic and biliary congenital anomalies. RadioGraphics 2006;26(3):715–731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Stevens T, Conwell DL, Zuccaro G. Pathogenesis of chronic pancreatitis: an evidence-based review of past theories and recent developments. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99(11):2256–2270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.