1 of 38

HYUN-JUNG JANG, MD & TAE KYOUNG KIM, MD

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, CANADA

UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK/MSH/WCH

Pancreatic neoplasms in multidisciplinary settings:

What is the role of radiologists and how to navigate efficiently prior to surgery?

2 of 38

Surgical resection only offers potentially curative treatment

    • Efforts to increase potential for curative resection
      • Downstaging by neoadjuvant therapy (NAT)
      • Vascular resection and reconstruction

🡪 Detailed vascular assessment is often required even for locally advanced appearing PDAC

Staging of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC)

  • Is it really pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)?
  • Imaging findings, prior imaging, clinical history, CA 19-9

Start staging: Primary focus on RESECTABILITY

YES

3 of 38

Resectable

Borderline resectable

Locally Advanced

(Unresectable)

Metastatic

Consider Neoadjuvant ChemoTx :

High CA 19-9, large tumor, Regional LAP

Neoadjuvant ChemoTx

+/- Chemoradiation

Remain Resectable

Converts to Resectable

Neoadjuvant ChemoTx

+/- Chemoradiation

Surgery

Adapted from Grainne M. CMAJ 2021;193 

4 of 38

Standardized Reporting

  • Circumferential (180°) & longitudinal

A] SMA, CT (celiac trunk), CHA

V] PV, SMV

  • Factors for reconstruction

CHA bifurcation, origin of CT/SMA

Reconstructive patent vessels at both ends

  • Arterial variants & tumor involvement
  • Other: celiac trunk stenosis

Key Points

  • LOCATION: type of surgery

Whipple, Distal or Total pancreatectomy

  • SIZE: prognosis
  • VASCULAR ASSESSMENT
  • LYMPH NODES: Locoregional

*Aortocaval/paraaortic

  • DISTANT METASTASIS

Liver, lung, peritoneum…

What to assess for vessels

  • Tailored to each institutional needs (surgeon’s approach & MCC opinions)
  • Uniform terminology required.

5 of 38

Arterial

  • Abutting SMA or Celiac T
  • CHA involvement (No bifurcation or CT extension)
  • Surgically manageable variant A involvement

Venous

  • Abutting PV or SMV with deformity
  • Encasing/thrombosed PV or SMV but reconstructible
  • Tumoral contact with IVC

  • No A contact
  • No V contact / Abutting PV or SMV without deformity

 

  • Encasing SMA or Celiac T; extensive HA involvement
  • Encasing/occluded PV or SMV, non-reconstructible
  • Tumoral contact with CT AND Aorta

Neither

Borderline Resectable

Resectable

Unresectable

Encasement

Tumoral contact >180°

Abutment

Tumoral contact ≤ 180°

Deformity

[Summarized from NCCN V2.2025 Resectability Criteria]

Understand Evolving nature of resectability criteria

*First branch of SMA: now borderline

Illustration by Connie Choi

Tumor

Vessel

6 of 38

62F. Infiltrative pancreatic neck cancer

Case 1: How do surgeons plan vascular reconstruction based on imaging?

  • SMA encasement (red arrow)

  • Deformity of MPV, SMV (green arrow)

Involving 1st jejunal branch of SMA (red) & SMV (green)

  • Reconstructible, patent vein (arrow) both proximal & distal to the tumor

7 of 38

Pancreaticoduodenectomy

(Whipple Procedure)

Reconstruction of SMA w saph v. jump graft

Reconstruction of SMV

Reconstruction of Splenic V w LRV graft

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

Dividing Duodenum

Tumor

SMA

SMV

Posteriorly situated tumor

Encasing long segment of SMA

Porto-mesenteric vein draping over the tumor & narrowed

8 of 38

Dividing SMA

Dividing MPV/SMV

Dividing Spl v.

En bloc removal of specimen

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

9 of 38

Reconstruction of SMA

(aorta to distal remnant SMA)

using saphenous v. jump graft

Anastomose MPV – distal SMV

Reconnect Splenic V to MPV using left renal vein graft

MPV

SMV

LRV graft

SMA jump graft

Spl V

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

10 of 38

Pancreaticojejunostomy

Choledochojejunostomy

Gastrojejunostomy

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

11 of 38

62M

Infiltrative cancer head to body

Tumor

PV collaterals

Occluded SMV

SMV occlusion

Patent distal V

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

Case 2: How do surgeons plan vascular reconstruction based on imaging?

Tumor encasing long segment of distal PV/Splenic V (red), inferiorly occluding SMV w collaterals (green)

Reconstructible, patent distal SMV

12 of 38

62M

Celiac

CHA

GDA

Spl A

LGA

View from above

Encasing CT & Spl A

Encasing CHA but origin of CT free

No extension to HA bifurcation

LHA

RHA

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

Tumor encasing celiac T & its branches

CT origin

CT

Intact LHA & RHA

Tumor

13 of 38

Total Pancreatectomy

Reconstruction of CT w saph v. graft

Reconstruction of SMV w LRV graft

(includes splenectomy)

Dividing Celiac T

CHA

PV

SMV

Celiac:

Saph. v graft

PV-SMV: LRV graft

SMA free of tumor

CHA

https://pie.med.utoronto.ca/TVASurg

Dividing CHA proximal to tumor

Dividing MPV proximally & SMV distally

New Celiac T connecting

Aorta - remaining CHA

Long venous gap: graft reconstruction

Splenectomy (no need for spl v. recon)

14 of 38

CHALLENGES IN PREOPERATIVE IMAGING OF PDAC

15 of 38

Imaging Assessment in Post-neoadjuvant Therapy (NAT)

  • Imaging performs well in predicting resectability before Tx
  • But no longer reliable after NAT

Attenuation: Post Tx necrosis/edema cannot be differentiated from residual tumor tissue

Tumor size: Tend to be overestimated on CT due to Tx-related necrosis/edema

Reduction of tumor-vessel contiguity compared with pre-NAT:

most significant predictor of R0 (margin negative) resection

regardless of tumor size reduction or current extent of tumor-vessel contact

(* Do not count perivascular reactive halo without solid tissue)

Response to NAT: Do not classify by NCCN/RECIST criteria

No progression of tumor size & CA 19-9

16 of 38

Do not apply RECIST: Reduction of tumor-vessel contact – R0 resection

Restored calibers of A & V (Sure sign of improved vascular involvement)

Pre NAT

Post NAT

Post NAT Response

Pancreatic body cancer

Encasing Celiac T with severe narrowing

Encasing MPV with severe narrowing

Tumor size reduction, not significant by RECIST

Still encasing Celiac T & its branches

Abutting MPV superiorly

17 of 38

Successful Whipple op. with arterial reconstruction.

RHA from SMA (free of tumor)

Spared origin of CT

Arterial Variant & its relation to tumor may open up or deny the opportunity for surgery

Long segment of CHA encasement (red arrow: normally beyond HA bifurcation) but RHA arising from SMA (yellow) free from the tumor

(click cine)

(click cine)

18 of 38

44F. Lynch syndrome. History of ovarian ca 8 YA

NAT 2 mo FU

NAT 13 mo FU

Whipple procedure

No residual tumor Complete Response

Small but measurable residual tumor on CT

Decreased tumor size with improved MPV narrowing

Long segment MPV narrowing

Bulky exophytic pancreatic tumor extending up to hepatic hilum (Biopsy: Acinar cell ca)

(click cine)

(click cine)

Post NAT

What we measure on imaging may not all reflect a tumor

19 of 38

M61. Outside CT small head PDAC without vascular invasion, underlying IPMN

In 2 months: progression of both primary and now obvious liver metastases

Outside: upfront surgery attempted

  • Multiple tiny liver metastases at OR

Aborted Whipple

Early Small Liver Metastasis

(click cine)

Even in retrospect only 1 lesion visible

  • Challenging in preop. PDAC imaging
  • Low sensitivity of CT: only up to 70%
  • Gd-EOB MRI
  • Studies report that it helps reduce futile open & closure laparotomies from unexpected liver metastasis

🡪 Advocates to incorporate in routine preoperative work-ups

20 of 38

65/M. Potentially resectable pancreatic tail cancer.

  • Tiny indeterminate lesion on MRI (not seen on CT)

Atypical hypervascular metastasis? Hemangioma?

T1

T2

DWI

AP

PVP

DP

Hyperintense

Hypervascular

Persistent enhancement

What next?

Defect on HB phase (not shown)

Challenges for characterizing tiny lesions continue with MRI

21 of 38

Metastatic adenocarcinoma

Prevent futile surgery for metastatic PDAC

CEUS-guided biopsy

Gray-scale occult

Tiny washout lesion

Biopsy targeting the washout lesion

CEUS-guided biopsy: useful tool to solve this preoperative dilemma

22 of 38

2 month FU

68M. US for epigastric pain.

Still isoattenuating

Duct 2 mm

Duct 4 mm

CT: No lesion 🡪 recommend FU

Staging CT (proven PDAC on EUS Bx)

EUS +/- biopsy

MRI (or US)

Abrupt MPD cut-off

CT Isoattenuating PDAC

5-10% [30% in ≤2 cm]

Further Work-up, not FU!

Possible nodule

Obstructing mass

Abrupt MPD cut-off: red flag!

  • Abrupt MPD cut-off
  • Atrophy distal to MPD stricture
  • Irregular contour at MPD stricture

Depending on the level of suspicion

23 of 38

Small head PDAC. No vascular invasion. No metastasis on w/u

Successful Whipple op. after stenting

Celiac trunk - checklist on Sagittal!

Whipple terminates current collaterals from SMA to CT at risk of hepatic ischemia

Pre stent

Post stent

Anything else to check before Whipple?

Sagittal: Severe Celiac stenosis

Why did they correct this asymptomatic celiac stenosis preoperatively?

24 of 38

Horn your skills with the following quiz-format case illustrations 🡪

*Different surgical or non-surgical options

  • SCN, MCN, Non-invasive IPMN
  • PNET, Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm
  • Lymphoma, Metastasis
  • Rare primary neoplasms

  • IgG4-related sclerosing disease
  • Mass-forming chronic pancreatitis
  • Acute focal pancreatitis
  • Groove pancreatitis

Neoplasms other than PDAC

Non-neoplastic Mimickers

For Non-PDAC or Indeterminate cases, How should we navigate?

Non-PDAC vs PDAC

Non-surgical vs Surgical

Essential priority of imaging

25 of 38

PDAC or Non-PDAC?

70F. Jaundice

44M. RUQ discomfort. Abnormal LFT.

A

B

Both patients have an Ill-defined hypoattenuation in the pancreatic head.

Biliary dilatation

Mild MPD dilatation

Some halo around the tail

26 of 38

Whipple op.

Focal IgG4-RD (AIP)

  • ERCP: Non-dilated, irregularly narrowed MPD
  • Subtle halo surrounding pancreatic tail
  • Mild thickening & enhancement of CBD

70F. Jaundice

A

Non-surgical disease

PDAC or Non-PDAC?

27 of 38

AP

T1

  • Diffuse T1 hypointensity from inflammation, BUT
  • Hypoenhancing discrete mass (arrow)
  • Abrupt MPD cut-off (arrow) at the mass

Whipple op: Pancreatic adenoca

44M. RUQ discomfort. Abnormal LFT.

B

IgG4??

2ndary inflammatory stranding in cancer may mimic halo sign!

28 of 38

76M. Pain, weight loss, jaundice. CA 19-9 normal.

55M. Pain, weight loss. CA 19-9 normal.

Cystic change, no BD dilatation

Smooth PD groove widening

Infiltrative isoattenuating head lesion causing biliary obstruction

DWI

Paraduodenal (Groove) Pancreatitis

MRI: AP

Discrete head mass infiltrating into the groove

Pancreatic head ca

Peripancreatic & duodenal invasion

small cystic change

Surgical or Non-surgical?

A

B

Both: Soft tissue lesion in the pancreaticoduodenal groove

29 of 38

What would you recommend first?

T1

AP

DP

T2

DWI

ADC

Response to steroid Tx

Focal IgG4-RD (AIP)

61M. Abdominal pain

  • Discrete pancreatic tail mass
  • Hypoenhancement in the AP, progressive DP enhancement
  • Marked restricted diffusion

Serum IgG4

Surgical or Non-surgical

* IgG4-RD generally show strong restricted diffusion, not useful in DDx from PDAC

Helpful sign

Elevated

30 of 38

58M. Abdominal pain.

AP

PVP

Biopsy 🡪 distal pancreatectomy

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

  • No progressive enhancement
  • No halo
  • No other organ involvement
  • Normal serum IgG4

What would you recommend first?

Surgical or Non-surgical

(click cine)

(click cine)

Diffuse hypoattenuation following the contour of pancreatic tail

Biopsy

31 of 38

Next step?

PP

PVP

43F. Incidental pancreatic head mass

  1. 68Gd-DOTATATE PET
  2. MRI
  3. EUS Biopsy
  4. Surgery

Surgical or Non-surgical?

Well-circumscribed, heterogeneous, predominantly hypervascular mass

32 of 38

What additional information did you get from MRI?� �Now what would you recommend?

Serous cystadenoma

(Whipple op. based on MR report of neuroendocrine tumor)

T1

AP

3m

T2

T2

Careful look on T2WI is important!

  1. DOTATATE PET
  2. EUS Biopsy
  3. Surgery
  4. Follow-up MRI
  • T2: Honeycomb-like appearance
  • Bright hyperintensity on heavily T2 thick-slab MRCP

🡪 strong sign of its cystic nature

* On histopathology, septations of SCN are very rich in vascularity, therefore they can mimic hypervascular solid mass.

Hypervascular

33 of 38

67F. Pancreatic mass found on w/u for endometrial ca

7mo later, Jaundice

Whipple op:

Adenoca arising from IPMN

T2

DWI

T1

AP

DP

Reported as serous cystadenoma

  • Central enhancing area interpreted as a large central scar

🡪 Leading GYN team to hold further w/u & follow this lesion.

Invasive soft tissue

What would YOU recommend?

  1. EUS Biopsy
  2. Surgery
  3. FU MRI after treating uterine ca

Surgical or Non-surgical?

MRCP: reminiscent of lobulated microcystic mass

Central solid enhancing area

(click cine)

(click cine)

Keep in mind PDAC is an aggressive malignancy

Any suspicious solid area? 🡪 Prioritize W/U NOT F/U!

34 of 38

52F. Nonspecific abdominal pain

Cystic PNET

AP

DP

CT PVP

T2

Rim-enhancing cystic mass

Your recommendation?

  1. FU CT or MRI
  2. EUS fluid analysis
  3. DOTATATE PET
  4. Surgery

68Gd-DOTATATE PET

35 of 38

AP

DP

DP

61M. Melena. Duodenal mass found on endoscopy

Duodenal Bx

Metastatic RCC

(Right nephrectomy 11 YA)

Liver & pancreas

invading into the duodenum

  • MPD dilatation is not a specific differential point of primary vs mets

  • RCC mets to pancreas tends to occur long after primary resection
  • Heterogeneous hypervascular PC head mass invading into duodenum
  • Suspicious hypervascular liver metastasis
  • MPD dilatation & atrophy

Your top differential dagnosis?

Empty RT renal fossa

36 of 38

Rt. RCC resected 6 YA

US: New pancreatic masses in 1Yr

Metastatic RCC

Remote RCC & recent LMSa

AP

AP

AP

PVP

Metastatic Leiomyosarcoma

EUS Biopsy

RCC 2.5YA on 6m surveillance

Resectable PDAC

Duct Obstructing mass, new in 6 mo

EUS Biopsy

B.

C.

A.

Three different patients with prior history of RCC

Multiple, new, hypervascular

Hypovascular mass

37 of 38

  • Imaging plays a pivotal role for management decision.

Pancreatic neoplasms in multidisciplinary settings

  • Correct recognition of non-surgical disease
  • Guidance to the best next step
  • Detailed vascular assessment is the key for resectability
  • Resectability criteria tailored by institutional MCC
  • Caution on post neoadjuvant imaging interpretation

Knowledge of surgical relevance as well as imaging spectrum required!

38 of 38

Toronto General Hospital

Thank you!