Evidence Hub

Differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma using CT characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yoon SB, Jeon TY, Moon SH, Shin DW, Lee SM, Choi MH, Min JH, Kim MJ

European radiology, 2023

869 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine informational CT findings for distinguishing autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to review their diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS: A systematic and detailed literature review was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. Similar descriptors to embody the identical image finding were labeled as a single CT characteristic. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) of each CT characteristic using a bivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS: A total of 145 various descriptors from 15 studies (including 562 AIP and 869 PDAC patients) were categorized into 16 CT characteristics. According to the pooled DOR, 16 CT characteristics were classified into three groups (suggesting AIP, suggesting PDAC, and not informational). Seven characteristics suggesting AIP were diffuse pancreatic enlargement (DOR, 48), delayed homogeneous enhancement (DOR, 46), capsule-like rim (DOR, 34), multiple pancreatic masses (DOR, 16), renal involvement (DOR, 15), retroperitoneal fibrosis (DOR, 13), and bile duct involvement (DOR, 8). Delayed homogeneous enhancement showed a pooled sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%. The other six characteristics showed relatively low sensitivity (12-63%) but high specificity (93-99%). Four characteristics suggesting PDAC were discrete pancreatic mass (DOR, 23), pancreatic duct cutoff (DOR, 16), upstream main pancreatic duct dilatation (DOR, 8), and upstream parenchymal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 869 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free