Anteroposterior diameter of the pancreas in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and acute pancreatitis on MRI
摘要
This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the anteroposterior diameter of pancreas (ADpancreas) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, and to evaluate their clinical value in diagnosing autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and differentiating it from acute pancreatitis (AP).
Materials and methodsMRI data from 32 patients with clinically confirmed diffuse AIP-1 were retrospectively analyzed. Thirty patients with AP and 32 individuals with normal pancreases were included as control groups. The anteroposterior diameters of the pancreatic head (ADhead), body (ADbody), and tail (ADtail), along with pancreatic volume and the transverse diameter of the first lumbar vertebral body (TDL1), were measured and compared across groups. Diagnostic performance was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
ResultsADhead, ADbody, ADtail, and their ratios to TDL1 were significantly higher in the AIP group compared to the normal pancreas group (P < 0.05). ADbody, ADtail, and their ratios to TDL1 were also significantly higher in the AIP group than in the AP group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in pancreatic volume between the AIP and AP groups (P > 0.05). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for ADhead, ADbody, ADtail, and their ratios to TDL1 in diagnosing AIP were 0.804, 0.773, 0.818, 0.786, 0.727, and 0.810, respectively. In the differential diagnosis of AIP and AP, the AUCs for ADhead, ADbody and ADtail and their ratios to TDL1 were 0.597, 0.708, 0.704, 0.545, 0.673, and 0.667, respectively. A logistic regression model incorporating ADhead, ADbody, and ADtail yielded an AUC of 0.732, which was significantly higher than that of pancreatic volume alone.
ConclusionADbodyand ADtail are valuable and practical adjunctive indicators for differentiating AIP from AP. The combination of ADhead, ADbody, and ADtail demonstrates higher diagnostic efficiency than pancreatic volume alone. These quantitative measurements are best used as supportive findings rather than standalone diagnostic criteria.