Pancreatic Cyst

Variant: 1 Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst less than or equal to 2.5 cm in size. Initial evaluation.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen endoscopic	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. No high-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
US abdomen endoscopic	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. High-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen endoscopic	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Incidentally detected main pancreatic duct dilation greater than 7 mm in size. Suspected main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). Initial evaluation.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen endoscopic	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Follow-up imaging of pancreatic cyst.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen endoscopic	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst less than or equal to 2.5 cm in size. Initial evaluation.

Variant 1: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst less than or equal to 2.5 cm in size. Initial evaluation.
A. CT Abdomen

Variant 1: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst less than or equal to 2.5 cm in size. Initial evaluation.
B. MRI Abdomen with MRCP

Variant 1: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst less than or equal to 2.5 cm in size. Initial evaluation.
C. US Abdomen Endoscopic

Variant 2: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. No high-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.

Variant 2: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. No high-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.
A. CT Abdomen

Variant 2: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. No high-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.
B. MRI Abdomen with MRCP

Variant 2: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. No high-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.
C. US Abdomen Endoscopic

Variant 3: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. High-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.

Variant 3: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. High-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.
A. CT Abdomen

Variant 3: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. High-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.
B. MRI Abdomen with MRCP

Variant 3: Incidentally detected pancreatic cyst greater than 2.5 cm in size. High-risk stigmata or worrisome features. Initial evaluation.
C. US Abdomen Endoscopic

Variant 4: Incidentally detected main pancreatic duct dilation greater than 7 mm in size. Suspected main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). Initial evaluation.

Variant 4: Incidentally detected main pancreatic duct dilation greater than 7 mm in size. Suspected main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). Initial evaluation.
A. CT Abdomen

Variant 4: Incidentally detected main pancreatic duct dilation greater than 7 mm in size. Suspected main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). Initial evaluation.
B. MRI Abdomen with MRCP

Variant 5: Follow-up imaging of pancreatic cyst.

Variant 5: Follow-up imaging of pancreatic cyst.
A. CT Abdomen

Variant 5: Follow-up imaging of pancreatic cyst.
B. MRI Abdomen with MRCP

Variant 5: Follow-up imaging of pancreatic cyst.
C. US Abdomen Endoscopic

Summary of Recommendations

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.

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

References

1.	Buerke B, Domagk D, Heindel W, Wessling J. Diagnostic and radiological management of cystic pancreatic lesions: important features for radiologists. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 67(8):727-37, 2012 Aug.
2.	Laffan TA, Horton KM, Klein AP, et al. Prevalence of unsuspected pancreatic cysts on MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 191(3):802-7, 2008 Sep.
3.	Zaheer A, Pokharel SS, Wolfgang C, Fishman EK, Horton KM. Incidentally detected cystic lesions of the pancreas on CT: review of literature and management suggestions. [Review]. Abdom Imaging. 38(2):331-41, 2013 Apr.
4.	Freeny PC, Saunders MD. Moving beyond morphology: new insights into the characterization and management of cystic pancreatic lesions. [Review]. Radiology. 272(2):345-63, 2014 Aug.
5.	Moris M, Bridges MD, Pooley RA, et al. Association Between Advances in High-Resolution Cross-Section Imaging Technologies and Increase in Prevalence of Pancreatic Cysts From 2005 to 2014. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 14(4):585-593.e3, 2016 Apr.
6.	Pinho DF, Rofsky NM, Pedrosa I. Incidental pancreatic cysts: role of magnetic resonance imaging. [Review]. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 23(2):117-28, 2014 Apr.
7.	Megibow AJ, Baker ME, Morgan DE, et al. Management of Incidental Pancreatic Cysts: A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 14(7):911-923, 2017 Jul.
8.	Tanaka M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Adsay V, et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 12(3):183-97, 2012 May-Jun.
9.	Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Clinical Guidelines Committee, American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology. 148(4):819-22; quize12-3, 2015 Apr.
10.	Tanaka M, Chari S, Adsay V, et al. International consensus guidelines for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. [Review] [86 refs]. Pancreatology. 6(1-2):17-32, 2006.
11.	Sahora K, Crippa S, Zamboni G, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas with concurrent pancreatic and periampullary neoplasms. Eur J Surg Oncol. 42(2):197-204, 2016 Feb.
12.	Schmid RM, Siveke JT. Approach to cystic lesions of the pancreas. [Review]. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift. 164(3-4):44-50, 2014 Feb.
13.	Tanaka M, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Kamisawa T, et al. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas. [Review]. Pancreatology. 17(5):738-753, 2017 Sep - Oct.
14.	Flusberg M, Paroder V, Kobi M, Rozenblit AM, Chernyak V. Patients 65 years and older with incidental pancreatic cysts: Is there a relationship between all-cause mortality and imaging follow-up?. Eur J Radiol. 85(6):1115-20, 2016 Jun.
15.	Sahani DV, Kadavigere R, Blake M, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Lauwers GY, Hahn PF. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of pancreas: multi-detector row CT with 2D curved reformations--correlation with MRCP. Radiology. 238(2):560-9, 2006 Feb.
16.	Matsumoto T, Aramaki M, Yada K, et al. Optimal management of the branch duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 36(3):261-5, 2003 Mar.
17.	Pausawasdi N, Heidt D, Kwon R, Simeone D, Scheiman J. Long-term follow-up of patients with incidentally discovered pancreatic cystic neoplasms evaluated by endoscopic ultrasound. Surgery. 147(1):13-20, 2010 Jan.
18.	Song SJ, Lee JM, Kim YJ, et al. Differentiation of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms from other pancreatic cystic masses: comparison of multirow-detector CT and MR imaging using ROC analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 26(1):86-93, 2007 Jul.
19.	NCCN Guidelines For Patients. Pancreatic Cancer. Version 1.2017. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/pancreatic/files/assets/common/downloads/files/pancreatic.pdf.
20.	Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the society of abdominal radiology and the american pancreatic association. Gastroenterology. 146(1):291-304.e1, 2014 Jan.
21.	Galvin A, Sutherland T, Little AF. Part 1: CT characterisation of pancreatic neoplasms: a pictorial essay. Insights Into Imaging. 2(4):379-388, 2011 Aug.
22.	Sainani NI, Saokar A, Deshpande V, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Hahn P, Sahani DV. Comparative performance of MDCT and MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography in characterizing small pancreatic cysts. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 193(3):722-31, 2009 Sep.
23.	Chiang AL, Lee LS. Clinical approach to incidental pancreatic cysts. [Review]. World J Gastroenterol. 22(3):1236-45, 2016 Jan 21.
24.	Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Hong HS, Kim KA. Relative accuracy of CT and MRI in the differentiation of benign from malignant pancreatic cystic lesions. Clinical Radiology. 66(4):315-21, 2011 Apr.
25.	Theisen BK, Wald AI, Singhi AD. Molecular Diagnostics in the Evaluation of Pancreatic Cysts. [Review]. Surg Pathol Clin. 9(3):441-56, 2016 Sep.
26.	de Oliveira PB, Puchnick A, Szejnfeld J, Goldman SM. Prevalence of incidental pancreatic cysts on 3 tesla magnetic resonance. PLoS ONE. 10(3):e0121317, 2015.
27.	Manfredi R, Bonatti M, D'Onofrio M, et al. Incidentally discovered benign pancreatic cystic neoplasms not communicating with the ductal system: MR/MRCP imaging appearance and evolution. Radiol Med (Torino). 118(2):163-80, 2013 Mar.
28.	Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, de Lima-Filho ER, Kemp R, Dos Santos JS. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration on incidental pancreatic cysts. A prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 49(1):114-20, 2014 Jan.
29.	Cocieru A, Brandwein S, Saldinger PF. The role of endoscopic ultrasound and cyst fluid analysis in the initial evaluation and follow-up of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions. HPB. 13(7):459-62, 2011 Jul.
30.	Matthaei H, Feldmann G, Lingohr P, Kalff JC. Molecular diagnostics of pancreatic cysts. [Review]. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 398(8):1021-7, 2013 Dec.
31.	Scheiman JM, Hwang JH, Moayyedi P. American gastroenterological association technical review on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. [Review]. Gastroenterology. 148(4):824-48.e22, 2015 Apr.
32.	Gore RM, Wenzke DR, Thakrar KH, Newmark GM, Mehta UK, Berlin JW. The incidental cystic pancreas mass: a practical approach. [Review]. Cancer Imaging. 12:414-21, 2012 Sep 28.
33.	Macari M, Lee T, Kim S, et al. Is gadolinium necessary for MRI follow-up evaluation of cystic lesions in the pancreas? Preliminary results. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 192(1):159-64, 2009 Jan.
34.	Pozzi-Mucelli RM, Rinta-Kiikka I, Wunsche K, et al. Pancreatic MRI for the surveillance of cystic neoplasms: comparison of a short with a comprehensive imaging protocol. European Radiology. 27(1):41-50, 2017 Jan.
35.	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