Advancements of molecular imaging and radiomics in pancreatic carcinoma

Table 1 Summary of sensitivity and specificity of different imaging modalities for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer[16]

Year	Study type	Pancreatic cancer–all (n)	18F-FDG PET-CT		CT		MRI		EUS
			Sens	Spec	Sens	Spec	Sens	Spec	Sens	Spec
2016	Retrospective study	139-139	0.78	–	0.76	–	–	–	–	–
2014	Retrospective study	33–52	1	0.9	0.92	0.5	0.89	0.75	1	0.88
2009	Meta-analysis	38571	0.9	0.8	–	–	–	–	0.81	0.93
2017	Meta-analysis	3567–5399	0.89	0.7	0.9	0.87	0.93	0.89	0.91	0.86
2014	Retrospective study	80–91	0.68	0.73	–	–	–	–	–	–
2018	Prospective study	278–583	0.93	0.76	0.89	0.71	–	–	–	–
2015	Retrospective study	50–70	0.92	0.65	0.82	0.65	–	–	–	–

¹The study included a total of 3857 patients, but we were unable to obtain the specific number of pancreatic cancer.

This table is adopted from[16]. Sens: Sensitivity, Spec: Specificity. PET: Positron emission tomography; CT: Computed tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound.

Table 2 Summary of the main clinical key points of the two EANM/ENETS recommended radiopharmaceuticals[17]

Clinical key points
Radiopharmaceuticals	Main indication	Diagnostic accuracy	False positive findings
68Ga-TATE, TOC, NOC	Staging and restaging any non-insulinoma panNET case; detection of the unknown primary tumour site or early relapse; evaluation in-vivo SRE; selection for PRRT and/or cold SSA	Sensitivity: 86% to 100%; specificity: from 79% to 100%	Pancreatic uncinate process, accessory spleens (including intra-pancreatic, splenules, infectious/inflammatory findings, non-neuroendocrine tumours)
18F-FDG	High grade G2, G3 and NEC; prognosis; rapid tumour progression in earlier diagnosed G1–G2 tumours	Sensitivity: 40% in G1, 60% in G2; 95% in G3 patients	Infectious/inflammatory findings, non-neuroendocrine tumours

This table is adopted from[17]. TATE: Tyr(3)-octreotate; NOC: 1-Nal(3)-octreotide; TOC: D-Phe1-Tyr(3)-octreotide; NEC: Neuroendocrine carcinomas.