Screening, Locoregional Assessment, and Surveillance of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Variant: 1 Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	May Be Appropriate	O
US abdomen transabdominal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	May Be Appropriate	O
US abdomen transabdominal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Locoregional disease staging or pretreatment planning or posttreatment evaluation related to neoadjuvant therapy or surgical planning.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen transabdominal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen transabdominal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Alice Fung, MD^a; Atif Zaheer, MD^b; Mustafa R. Bashir, MD^c; Brooks D. Cash, MD^d; E. Gabriela Chiorean, MD^e; Youngjee Choi, MD^f; Aslam Ejaz, MD, MPH^g; Kenneth L. Gage, MD, PhD^h; Gregory K. Russo, MDⁱ; William Small Jr., MD^j; Elainea N. Smith, MD^k; Kiran H. Thakrar, MD^l; Abhinav Vij, MD, MPH^m; Shaun A. Wahab, MDⁿ; David H. Kim, MD^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
E. CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
F. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
G. CT abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
H. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
I. MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
J. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
K. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
L. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
M. MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP

Variant 1: Adult. High-risk screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
N. US abdomen transabdominal

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
E. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
F. MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
G. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
H. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
I. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
J. MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP

Variant 2: Adult. Clinically suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdominal symptomatology. Initial imaging.
K. US abdomen transabdominal

Variant 3: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Locoregional disease staging or pretreatment planning or posttreatment evaluation related to neoadjuvant therapy or surgical planning.

Variant 3: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Locoregional disease staging or pretreatment planning or posttreatment evaluation related to neoadjuvant therapy or surgical planning.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
E. CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
F. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
G. CT abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
H. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
I. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
J. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
K. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
L. MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
M. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
N. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Distant metastatic evaluation. Initial staging or postprocedure surveillance for metastatic disease.
O. US abdomen transabdominal

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73:17-48.
2.	Garces-Descovich A, Beker K, Jaramillo-Cardoso A, James Moser A, Mortele KJ. Applicability of current NCCN Guidelines for pancreatic adenocarcinoma resectability: analysis and pitfalls. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):314-322, 2018 02.
3.	Akita H, Takahashi H, Ohigashi H, et al. FDG-PET predicts treatment efficacy and surgical outcome of pre-operative chemoradiation therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 43(6):1061-1067, 2017 Jun.
4.	Fogelman DR, Varadhachary G. Medical oncology and pancreatic cancer: what the radiologist needs to know. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):383-392, 2018 02.
5.	Barreto SG, Loveday B, Windsor JA, Pandanaboyana S. Detecting tumour response and predicting resectability after neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. [Review]. ANZ J Surg. 89(5):481-487, 2019 05.
6.	Jang JK, Byun JH, Kang JH, et al. CT-determined resectability of borderline resectable and unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma following FOLFIRINOX therapy. Eur Radiol. 31(2):813-823, 2021 Feb.
7.	Wagner M, Antunes C, Pietrasz D, et al. CT evaluation after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur Radiol. 27(7):3104-3116, 2017 Jul.
8.	Hafezi-Nejad N, Fishman EK, Zaheer A. Imaging of post-operative pancreas and complications after pancreatic adenocarcinoma resection. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):476-488, 2018 02.
9.	Kambadakone AR, Zaheer A, Le O, et al. Multi-institutional survey on imaging practice patterns in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):245-252, 2018 02.
10.	Kulkarni NM, Mannelli L, Zins M, et al. White paper on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Part II, update on imaging techniques and screening of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 45(3):729-742, 2020 03.
11.	Canto MI, Almario JA, Schulick RD, et al. Risk of Neoplastic Progression in Individuals at High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Long-term Surveillance. Gastroenterology. 155(3):740-751.e2, 2018 09.
12.	Lorenzo D, Rebours V, Maire F, et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the screening and follow-up of high-risk individuals for familial pancreatic cancer. [Review]. World J Gastroenterol. 25(34):5082-5096, 2019 Sep 14.
13.	Dudley B, Brand RE. Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance and Novel Strategies for Screening. [Review]. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 32(1):13-25, 2022 Jan.
14.	Huang C, Simeone DM, Luk L, et al. Standardization of MRI Screening and Reporting in Individuals With Elevated Risk of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Consensus Statement of the PRECEDE Consortium. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 219(6):903-914, 2022 12.
15.	Klatte DCF, Boekestijn B, Wasser MNJM, et al. Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance in Carriers of a Germline CDKN2A Pathogenic Variant: Yield and Outcomes of a 20-Year Prospective Follow-Up. J Clin Oncol. 40(28):3267-3277, 2022 10 01.
16.	Overbeek KA, Cahen DL, Canto MI, Bruno MJ. Surveillance for neoplasia in the pancreas. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30(6):971-986.
17.	Ohno E, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, et al. Natural history of pancreatic cystic lesions: A multicenter prospective observational study for evaluating the risk of pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 33(1):320-328, 2018 Jan.
18.	Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada KI, et al. Factors Associated With Invasive Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Carcinoma of the Pancreas. JAMA Surg. 152(3):e165054, 2017 03 15.
19.	Lee T, Kim HJ, Park SK, et al. Natural courses of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 402(3):429-437, 2017 May.
20.	Hisada Y, Nagata N, Imbe K, et al. Natural history of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and non-neoplastic cyst: long-term imaging follow-up study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 24(7):401-408, 2017 Jul.
21.	Higashi M, Tanabe M, Onoda H, et al. Incidentally detected pancreatic adenocarcinomas on computed tomography obtained during the follow-up for other diseases. Abdom Radiol. 45(3):774-781, 2020 03.
22.	Singh DP, Sheedy S, Goenka AH, et al. Computerized tomography scan in pre-diagnostic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Stages of progression and potential benefits of early intervention: A retrospective study. Pancreatology. 20(7):1495-1501, 2020 Oct.
23.	Toshima F, Watanabe R, Inoue D, et al. CT Abnormalities of the Pancreas Associated With the Subsequent Diagnosis of Clinical Stage I Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma More Than 1 Year Later: A Case-Control Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 217(6):1353-1364, 2021 12.
24.	Schima W, Bohm G, Rosch CS, Klaus A, Fugger R, Kopf H. Mass-forming pancreatitis versus pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: CT and MR imaging for differentiation. [Review]. Cancer Imaging. 20(1):52, 2020 Jul 23.
25.	Kulkarni NM, Hough DM, Tolat PP, Soloff EV, Kambadakone AR. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: cross-sectional imaging techniques. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):253-263, 2018 02.
26.	Fukukura Y, Kumagae Y, Fujisaki Y, et al. Adding Delayed Phase Images to Dual-Phase Contrast-Enhanced CT Increases Sensitivity for Small Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 217(4):888-897, 2021 10.
27.	Takaji R, Yamada Y, Matsumoto S, et al. Small pancreatic ductal carcinomas on triple-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography: enhanced rims and the pathologic correlation. Abdom Radiol. 43(12):3374-3380, 2018 12.
28.	Fukukura Y, Kumagae Y, Higashi R, et al. Visual enhancement pattern during the delayed phase of enhanced CT as an independent prognostic factor in stage IV pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Pancreatology. 20(6):1155-1163, 2020 Sep.
29.	Jhaveri KS, Babaei Jandaghi A, Thipphavong S, et al. Can preoperative liver MRI with gadoxetic acid help reduce open-close laparotomies for curative intent pancreatic cancer surgery? Cancer Imaging 2021;21:45.
30.	Kawakami S, Fukasawa M, Shimizu T, et al. Diffusion-weighted image improves detectability of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma concomitant with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Medicine (Baltimore). 98(47):e18039, 2019 Nov.
31.	Kulkarni NM, Soloff EV, Tolat PP, et al. White paper on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Part I, AJCC staging system, NCCN guidelines, and borderline resectable disease. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 45(3):716-728, 2020 03.
32.	Nakahodo J, Kikuyama M, Fukumura Y, et al. Focal pancreatic parenchyma atrophy is a harbinger of pancreatic cancer and a clue to the intraductal spreading subtype. Pancreatology. 22(8):1148-1158, 2022 Dec.
33.	Kurita A, Mori Y, Someya Y, et al. High signal intensity on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images is a useful finding for detecting early-stage pancreatic cancer. Abdominal Radiology. 46(10):4817-4827, 2021 10.
34.	Kim M, Mi Jang K, Kim SH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion restriction in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas in comparison with "high-risk stigmata" of the 2012 international consensus guidelines for prediction of the malignancy and invasiveness. Acta Radiologica. 58(10):1157-1166, 2017 Oct.
35.	Heid I, Steiger K, Trajkovic-Arsic M, et al. Co-clinical Assessment of Tumor Cellularity in Pancreatic Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 23(6):1461-1470, 2017 Mar 15.
36.	Chen J, Liu S, Tang Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion MRI for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma characterisation: A meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 139:109672, 2021 Jun.
37.	Sighinolfi M, Quan SY, Lee Y, et al. Fukuoka and AGA Criteria Have Superior Diagnostic Accuracy for Advanced Cystic Neoplasms than Sendai Criteria. Digestive Diseases & Sciences. 62(3):626-632, 2017 03.
38.	Hoffman DH, Ream JM, Hajdu CH, Rosenkrantz AB. Utility of whole-lesion ADC histogram metrics for assessing the malignant potential of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). Abdominal Radiology. 42(4):1222-1228, 2017 04.
39.	Min SK, You Y, Choi DW, et al. Prognosis of pancreatic head cancer with different patterns of lymph node metastasis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 29(9):1004-1013, 2022 Sep.
40.	Dallongeville A, Corno L, Silvera S, Boulay-Coletta I, Zins M. Initial Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer Including Main Differentials. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 40(6):436-468, 2019 Dec.
41.	Bailey JJ, Ellis JH, Davenport MS, et al. Value of pelvis CT during follow-up of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abdom Radiol. 42(1):211-215, 2017 01.
42.	Soloff EV, Al-Hawary MM, Desser TS, Fishman EK, Minter RM, Zins M. Imaging Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer Resectability After Neoadjuvant Therapy: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 218(4):570-581, 2022 04.
43.	Yeh R, Dercle L, Garg I, Wang ZJ, Hough DM, Goenka AH. The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):415-434, 2018 02.
44.	Gnanasegaran G, Agrawal K, Wan S. 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-Computerized Tomography and non-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET-Computerized Tomography in Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Malignancies. [Review]. PET clinics. 17(3):369-388, 2022 Jul.
45.	Moon D, Kim H, Han Y, et al. Preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and standard uptake value of positron emission tomography-computed tomography as prognostic markers in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 29(10):1133-1141, 2022 Oct.
46.	Chikamoto A, Inoue R, Komohara Y, et al. Preoperative High Maximum Standardized Uptake Value in Association with Glucose Transporter 1 Predicts Poor Prognosis in Pancreatic Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 24(7):2040-2046, 2017 Jul.
47.	Zeng P, Ma L, Liu J, Song Z, Liu J, Yuan H. The diagnostic value of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging for distinguishing nonhypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. Eur J Radiol. 150:110261, 2022 May.
48.	Xiao B, Jiang ZQ, Hu JX, Zhang XM, Xu HB. Differentiating pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas by the "Duct-Road Sign": A preliminary magnetic resonance imaging study. Medicine (Baltimore). 98(35):e16960, 2019 Aug.
49.	Shi YJ, Li XT, Zhang XY, et al. Non-gaussian models of 3-Tesla diffusion-weighted MRI for the differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas from neuroendocrine tumors and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms. Magn Reson Imaging. 83:68-76, 2021 11.
50.	Jeon SK, Lee JM, Joo I, et al. Magnetic resonance with diffusion-weighted imaging improves assessment of focal liver lesions in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer on CT. European Radiology. 28(8):3484-3493, 2018 Aug.
51.	Kim HJ, Park MS, Lee JY, et al. Incremental Role of Pancreatic Magnetic Resonance Imaging after Staging Computed Tomography to Evaluate Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res. Treat.. 51(1):24-33, 2019 Jan.
52.	Tanaka S, Fukuda J, Nakao M, et al. Effectiveness of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography for the Characterization of Small and Early Stage Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Ultrasound Med Biol. 46(9):2245-2253, 2020 09.
53.	Wang ZJ, Arif-Tiwari H, Zaheer A, et al. Therapeutic response assessment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: society of abdominal radiology review paper on the role of morphological and functional imaging techniques. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 45(12):4273-4289, 2020 12.
54.	Kim JH, Eun HW, Kim KW, et al. Diagnostic performance of MDCT for predicting important prognostic factors in pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 42(8):1316-22, 2013 Nov.
55.	Zhang L, Zhang ZY, Ni JM, et al. Prediction of Vascular Invasion Using a 3-Point Scale Computed Tomography Grading System in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Correlation With Surgery. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 41(3):394-400, 2017 May/Jun.
56.	Camacho A, Fang J, Cohen MP, Raptopoulos V, Brook OR. Split-bolus pancreas CTA protocol for local staging of pancreatic cancer and detection and characterization of liver lesions. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):340-350, 2018 02.
57.	Yu H, Huang Z, Li M, et al. Differential Diagnosis of Nonhypervascular Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms From Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas, Based on Computed Tomography Radiological Features and Texture Analysis. Acad Radiol. 27(3):332-341, 2020 03.
58.	Sandrasegaran K, Lin Y, Asare-Sawiri M, Taiyini T, Tann M. CT texture analysis of pancreatic cancer. Eur Radiol. 29(3):1067-1073, 2019 Mar.
59.	Reinert CP, Baumgartner K, Hepp T, Bitzer M, Horger M. Complementary role of computed tomography texture analysis for differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the portal-venous enhancement phase. Abdominal Radiology. 45(3):750-758, 2020 03.Abdom Radiol. 45(3):750-758, 2020 03.
60.	Qureshi TA, Gaddam S, Wachsman AM, et al. Predicting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using artificial intelligence analysis of pre-diagnostic computed tomography images. Cancer Biomarkers: Section A of Disease Markers. 33(2):211-217, 2022.Cancer Biomark. 33(2):211-217, 2022.
61.	Patel BN, Olcott EW, Jeffrey RB. Duodenal invasion by pancreatic adenocarcinoma: MDCT diagnosis of an aggressive imaging phenotype and its clinical implications. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(2):332-339, 2018 02.
62.	Guo C, Zhuge X, Wang Q, et al. The differentiation of pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: the values of CT imaging features and texture analysis. Cancer Imaging. 18(1):37, 2018 Oct 17.
63.	Chu LC, Park S, Kawamoto S, et al. Utility of CT Radiomics Features in Differentiation of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma From Normal Pancreatic Tissue. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 213(2):349-357, 2019 08.
64.	Choi SH, Kim HJ, Kim KW, et al. DPC4 gene expression in primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: relationship with CT characteristics. Br J Radiol. 90(1073):20160403, 2017 May.
65.	Khalvati F, Zhang Y, Baig S, et al. Prognostic Value of CT Radiomic Features in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Sci. rep.. 9(1):5449, 2019 04 01.
66.	Borhani AA, Dewan R, Furlan A, et al. Assessment of Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy Using CT Texture Analysis in Patients With Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 214(2):362-369, 2020 02.
67.	Perik TH, van Genugten EAJ, Aarntzen EHJG, Smit EJ, Huisman HJ, Hermans JJ. Quantitative CT perfusion imaging in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 47(9):3101-3117, 2022 Sep.
68.	Kim SI, Shin JY, Park JS, et al. Vascular enhancement pattern of mass in computed tomography may predict chemo-responsiveness in advanced pancreatic cancer. Pancreatology. 17(1):103-108, 2017 Jan - Feb.
69.	Shi H, Wei Y, Cheng S, et al. Survival prediction after upfront surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Radiomic, clinic-pathologic and body composition analysis. Pancreatology. 21(4):731-737, 2021 Jun.
70.	Cassinotto C, Cortade J, Belleannee G, et al. An evaluation of the accuracy of CT when determining resectability of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant treatment. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(4):589-593.
71.	Ferrone CR, Marchegiani G, Hong TS, et al. Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):12-17.
72.	Park SJ, Jang S, Han JK, et al. Preoperative assessment of the resectability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma on CT according to the NCCN Guidelines focusing on SMA/SMV branch invasion. Eur Radiol. 31(9):6889-6897, 2021 Sep.
73.	Jeon SK, Lee JM, Lee ES, et al. How to approach pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant treatment: assessment of resectability using multidetector CT and tumor markers. Eur Radiol. 32(1):56-66, 2022 Jan.
74.	Tabata K, Nishie A, Shimomura Y, et al. Prediction of pathological response to preoperative chemotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron-emission tomography. Clin Radiol. 77(6):436-442, 2022 06.
75.	Wang Z, Chen JQ, Liu JL, Qin XG, Huang Y. FDG-PET in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(29):4808-4817.
76.	Crippa S, Salgarello M, Laiti S, et al. The role of (18)fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in resectable pancreatic cancer. Dig Liver Dis. 46(8):744-9, 2014 Aug.
77.	Pergolini I, Crippa S, Salgarello M, et al. SUVmax after (18)fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography: A tool to define treatment strategies in pancreatic cancer. Dig Liver Dis. 50(1):84-90, 2018 Jan.
78.	Gu X, Zhou R, Li C, et al. Preoperative maximum standardized uptake value and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 were independent predictors of pathological stages and overall survival in Chinese patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma. BMC Cancer. 19(1):456, 2019 May 15.
79.	Ghaneh P, Hanson R, Titman A, et al. PET-PANC: multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and health economic analysis study of the impact of combined modality 18fluorine-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography scanning in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 22(7):1-114, 2018 02.Health Technol Assess. 22(7):1-114, 2018 02.
80.	Garces-Descovich A, Morrison TC, Beker K, Jaramillo-Cardoso A, Moser AJ, Mortele KJ. DWI of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Pilot Study to Estimate the Correlation With Metastatic Disease Potential and Overall Survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 212(2):323-331, 2019 02.
81.	Okada KI, Kawai M, Hirono S, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI predicts the histologic response for neoadjuvant therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a prospective study (DIFFERENT trial). Langenbecks Arch Surg. 405(1):23-33, 2020 Feb.
82.	Yang S, Liu J, Jin H, He X, Nie P, Wang C. Value of magnetic resonance images in preoperative staging and resectability assessment of pancreatic cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. 14(1):155-158, 2018 Jan.
83.	Lee S, Kim SH, Park HK, Jang KT, Hwang JA, Kim S. Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Rim Enhancement at MR Imaging Predicts Prognosis after Curative Resection. Radiology. 288(2):456-466, 2018 08.
84.	Jia H, Li J, Huang W, Lin G. Multimodel magnetic resonance imaging of mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis: differential diagnosis with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. BMC med. imaging. 21(1):149, 2021 10 15.
85.	Lu S, Liang J, Liao S, Wu D, Wu F, Li H. Use of MRI signal intensity ratio to differentiate between autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clin Radiol. 77(1):e84-e91, 2022 01.
86.	Yoon SB, Jeon TY, Moon SH, Lee SM, Kim MH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of MRI features for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur Radiol. 32(10):6691-6701, 2022 Oct.
87.	Ha J, Choi SH, Kim KW, Kim JH, Kim HJ. MRI features for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Dig Liver Dis. 54(7):849-856, 2022 07.
88.	Leeuw D, Pranger BK, de Jong KP, Pennings JP, de Meijer VE, Erdmann JI. Routine Chest Computed Tomography for Staging of Pancreatic Head Carcinoma. Pancreas. 49(3):387-392, 2020 03.
89.	Suker M, Groot Koerkamp B, Nuyttens JJ, et al. The yield of chest computed tomography in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol. 122(3):450-456, 2020 Sep.
90.	Zambirinis CP, Midya A, Chakraborty J, et al. Recurrence After Resection of Pancreatic Cancer: Can Radiomics Predict Patients at Greatest Risk of Liver Metastasis?. Ann Surg Oncol. 29(8):4962-4974, 2022 Aug.
91.	Elmi A, Murphy J, Hedgire S, et al. Post-Whipple imaging in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: association with overall survival: a multivariate analysis. Abdom Radiol. 42(8):2101-2107, 2017 08.
92.	Noie T, Harihara Y, Akahane M, et al. Portal encasement: Significant CT findings to diagnose local recurrence after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Pancreatology. 18(8):1005-1011, 2018 Dec.
93.	Chu LC, Wang ZJ, Kambadakone A, et al. Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) recurrence: practice pattern on standardized imaging and reporting from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel on PDAC. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2023;48:318-39.
94.	De Robertis R, Geraci L, Tomaiuolo L, et al. Liver metastases in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a predictive model based on CT texture analysis. Radiol Med (Torino). 127(10):1079-1084, 2022 Oct.
95.	Albano D, Familiari D, Gentile R, et al. Clinical and prognostic value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in restaging of pancreatic cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 39(8):741-746, 2018 Aug.
96.	Duan H, Baratto L, Iagaru A. The Role of PET/CT in the Imaging of Pancreatic Neoplasms. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 40(6):500-508, 2019 Dec.
97.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
98.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.