Chronic Pancreatitis
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Relative Radiation Level |
| MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP | Usually Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| US abdomen endoscopic | May Be Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP | May Be Appropriate | O |
| US abdomen | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Relative Radiation Level |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP | May Be Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP | May Be Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) | ☢☢☢☢ |
| US abdomen | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| US abdomen endoscopic | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
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)
OR
- 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).
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
D. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP
E. MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP
F. US abdomen
G. US abdomen endoscopic
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
D. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP
E. MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP
F. US abdomen
G. US abdomen endoscopic
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 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. |
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.” |
||
| 1. | Cohen SM, Kent TS. Etiology, Diagnosis, and Modern Management of Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review. JJAMA Surg. 158(6):652-661, 2023 06 01. | |
| 2. | Ketwaroo GA, Freedman SD, Sheth SG. Approach to patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. [Review]. Pancreas. 44(2):173-80, 2015 Mar.Pancreas. 44(2):173-80, 2015 Mar. | |
| 3. | Whitcomb DC, Shimosegawa T, Chari ST, et al. International consensus statements on early chronic Pancreatitis. Recommendations from the working group for the international consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with The International Association of Pancreatology, American Pancreatic Association, Japan Pancreas Society, PancreasFest Working Group and European Pancreatic Club. Pancreatology 18:516-527, 2018 Jul. | |
| 4. | Etemad B, Whitcomb DC. Chronic pancreatitis: diagnosis, classification, and new genetic developments. Gastroenterology 120:682-707, 2001 Feb. | |
| 5. | Schneider A, Löhr JM, Singer MV. The M-ANNHEIM classification of chronic pancreatitis: introduction of a unifying classification system based on a review of previous classifications of the disease. J Gastroenterol. 2007 Feb;42(2):101-19. | |
| 6. | Conwell DL, Lee LS, Yadav D, et al. American Pancreatic Association Practice Guidelines in Chronic Pancreatitis: evidence-based report on diagnostic guidelines. Pancreas. 43(8):1143-62, 2014 Nov. | |
| 7. | Sankaran SJ, Xiao AY, Wu LM, Windsor JA, Forsmark CE, Petrov MS. Frequency of progression from acute to chronic pancreatitis and risk factors: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 149:1490-1500.e1, 2015 Nov. | |
| 8. | Löhr JM, Dominguez-Munoz E, Rosendahl J, et al. United European Gastroenterology evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of chronic pancreatitis (HaPanEU). United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Mar;5(2):153-199. | |
| 9. | Bieliuniene E, Brondum Frokjaer J, Pockevicius A, et al. CT- and MRI-Based Assessment of Body Composition and Pancreatic Fibrosis Reveals High Incidence of Clinically Significant Metabolic Changes That Affect the Quality of Life and Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer. Medicina (Kaunas). 55(10), 2019 Sep 27. | |
| 10. | Wilcox CM, Yadav D, Ye T, et al. Chronic pancreatitis pain pattern and severity are independent of abdominal imaging findings. Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 13(3):552-60; quiz e28-9, 2015 Mar.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 13(3):552-60; quiz e28-9, 2015 Mar. | |
| 11. | Duggan SN, Ni Chonchubhair HM, Lawal O, O'Connor DB, Conlon KC. Chronic pancreatitis: A diagnostic dilemma. [Review]. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 22(7):2304-13, 2016 Feb 21.World J Gastroenterol. 22(7):2304-13, 2016 Feb 21. | |
| 12. | Bouça-Machado T, Bouwense SAW, Brand M, et al. Position statement on the definition, incidence, diagnosis and outcome of acute on chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2023 Mar;23(2):S1424-3903(23)00035-2. | |
| 13. | Szucs A, Marjai T, Szentesi A, et al. Chronic pancreatitis: Multicentre prospective data collection and analysis by the Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 12(2):e0171420, 2017.PLoS ONE. 12(2):e0171420, 2017. | |
| 14. | Singh VK, Yadav D, Garg PK. Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Pancreatitis: A Review. [Review]. JAMA. 322(24):2422-2434, 2019 Dec 24. | |
| 15. | Sharma D, Mallick B, Samanta J, Gupta V, Sinha SK, Kochhar R. Acute-on-Chronic Pancreatitis: Analysis of Clinical Profile and Outcome. Cureus 13:e14242, 2021 Apr. | |
| 16. | Liu J, Wang C, Chen Z, Dai Q, Bai J, Cui YF. Analysis of risk factors related to acute exacerbation in patients with chronic pancreatitis: a retrospective study of 313 cases from a single center in China. BMC Gastroenterol 24:436, 2024 Nov. | |
| 17. | Akshintala VS, Hutfless SM, Yadav D, et al. A population-based study of severity in patients with acute on chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 42:1245-50, 2013 Nov. | |
| 18. | Laaninen M, Bläuer M, Sand J, Nordback I, Laukkarinen J. Difference in Early Activation of NF-?B and MCP-1 in Acinar-Cell-Rich versus Fibrotic Human Pancreas Exposed to Surgical Trauma and Hypoxia. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2014:460363, 2014 . | |
| 19. | Limon O, Sahin E, Kantar FU, Oray D, Ugurhan AA. A rare entity in ED: Normal lipase level in acute pancreatitis. Turk J Emerg Med 16:32-4, 2016 Mar. | |
| 20. | Porter KK, Zaheer A, Kamel IR, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pancreatitis. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S316-S30. | |
| 21. | Merdrignac A, Sulpice L, Rayar M, et al. Pancreatic head cancer in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International. 13(2):192-7, 2014 Apr.Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 13(2):192-7, 2014 Apr. | |
| 22. | Tirkes T. Chronic Pancreatitis: What the Clinician Wants to Know from MR Imaging. [Review]. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America. 26(3):451-461, 2018 Aug.Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 26(3):451-461, 2018 Aug. | |
| 23. | Qayyum A, Tamm EP, Kamel IR, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S560-S69. | |
| 24. | Hegyi P, Párniczky A, Lerch MM, et al. International Consensus Guidelines for Risk Factors in Chronic Pancreatitis. Recommendations from the working group for the international consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with the International Association of Pancreatology, the American Pancreatic Association, the Japan Pancreas Society, and European Pancreatic Club. Pancreatology 20:579-585, 2020 Jun. | |
| 25. | Beyer G, Habtezion A, Werner J, Lerch MM, Mayerle J. Chronic pancreatitis. [Review]. Lancet. 396(10249):499-512, 2020 08 15. | |
| 26. | Issa Y, Kempeneers MA, van Santvoort HC, Bollen TL, Bipat S, Boermeester MA. Diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur Radiol. 27(9):3820-3844, 2017 Sep. | |
| 27. | Issa Y, van Santvoort HC, Fockens P, et al. Diagnosis and treatment in chronic pancreatitis: an international survey and case vignette study. HPB. 19(11):978-985, 2017 11. | |
| 28. | Hoffmeister A, Mayerle J, Beglinger C, et al. English language version of the S3-consensus guidelines on chronic pancreatitis: Definition, aetiology, diagnostic examinations, medical, endoscopic and surgical management of chronic pancreatitis. Z Gastroenterol. 2015 Dec;53(12):1447-95. | |
| 29. | Strand DS, Law RJ, Yang D, Elmunzer BJ. AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Endoscopic Approach to Recurrent Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis: Expert Review. [Review]. Gastroenterology. 163(4):1107-1114, 2022 10.Gastroenterology. 163(4):1107-1114, 2022 10. | |
| 30. | Shintani S, Inatomi O, Hiroe K, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-shear wave elastography in multiple pancreatic regions for chronic pancreatitis based on the Rosemont criteria. Journal of Medical Ultrasonics. 50(4):485-492, 2023 Oct.J Med Ultrason (2001). 50(4):485-492, 2023 Oct. | |
| 31. | Madzak A, Olesen SS, Wathle GK, Haldorsen IS, Drewes AM, Frøkjær JB. Secretin-Stimulated Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of the Benign Pancreatic Disorders: Systematic Review and Proposal for a Standardized Protocol. Pancreas. 2016 Sep;45(8):1092-103. | |
| 32. | Frokjaer JB, Akisik F, Farooq A, et al. Guidelines for the Diagnostic Cross Sectional Imaging and Severity Scoring of Chronic Pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 18(7):764-773, 2018 Oct. | |
| 33. | Tirkes T, Yadav D, Conwell DL, et al. Multiparametric MRI Scoring System of the Pancreas for the Diagnosis of Chronic Pancreatitis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2025 May;61(5):2183-2194. | |
| 34. | Frulloni L, Falconi M, Gabbrielli A, et al. Italian consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis. Dig Liver Dis. 2010 Nov;42 Suppl 6():S381-406. | |
| 35. | Nordaas IK, Dimcevski G, Gilja OH, Havre RF, Haldorsen IS, Engjom T. Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography Scores in Chronic Pancreatitis. Pancreas. 50(4):549-555, 2021 04 01. | |
| 36. | Anaizi A, Hart PA, Conwell DL. Diagnosing Chronic Pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2017 Jul;62(7):1713-1720. | |
| 37. | Wolske KM, Ponnatapura J, Kolokythas O, Burke LMB, Tappouni R, Lalwani N. Chronic Pancreatitis or Pancreatic Tumor? A Problem-solving Approach. [Review]. Radiographics. 39(7):1965-1982, 2019 Nov-Dec. | |
| 38. | Srisajjakul S, Prapaisilp P, Bangchokdee S. CT and MR features that can help to differentiate between focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. [Review]. Radiol Med (Torino). 125(4):356-364, 2020 Apr. | |
| 39. | Tirkes T, Shah ZK, Takahashi N, et al. Inter-observer variability of radiologists for Cambridge classification of chronic pancreatitis using CT and MRCP: results from a large multi-center study. Abdom Radiol. 45(5):1481-1487, 2020 05. | |
| 40. | Swensson J, Akisik F, Collins D, Olesen SS, Drewes AM, Frokjaer JB. Is Cambridge scoring in chronic pancreatitis the same using ERCP and MRCP?: A need for revision of standards. Abdom Radiol. 46(2):647-654, 2021 02. | |
| 41. | Tirkes T, Yadav D, Conwell DL, et al. Diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis using semi-quantitative MRI features of the pancreatic parenchyma: results from the multi-institutional MINIMAP study. Abdom Radiol. 48(10):3162-3173, 2023 10. | |
| 42. | Liu C, Shi Y, Lan G, Xu Y, Yang F. Evaluation of Pancreatic Fibrosis Grading by Multiparametric Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 54(5):1417-1429, 2021 11. | |
| 43. | Steinkohl E, Olesen SS, Hansen TM, Drewes AM, Frokjaer JB. T1 relaxation times and MR elastography-derived stiffness: new potential imaging biomarkers for the assessment of chronic pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol. 46(12):5598-5608, 2021 12. | |
| 44. | Steinkohl E, Olesen SS, Hansen TM, Drewes AM, Frokjaer JB. Quantification of parenchymal fibrosis in chronic pancreatitis: relation to atrophy and pancreatic function. Acta Radiol. 64(3):936-944, 2023 Mar. | |
| 45. | Tirkes T, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Detection of exocrine dysfunction by MRI in patients with early chronic pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol. 42(2):544-551, 2017 02. | |
| 46. | Cheng M, Gromski MA, Fogel EL, DeWitt JM, Patel AA, Tirkes T. T1 mapping for the diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis: correlation with Cambridge classification system. Br J Radiol. 94(1121):20200685, 2021 May 01. | |
| 47. | Tirkes T, Dasyam AK, Shah ZK, et al. T1 signal intensity ratio of the pancreas as an imaging biomarker for the staging of chronic pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol. 47(10):3507-3519, 2022 10. | |
| 48. | Parakh A, Tirkes T. Advanced imaging techniques for chronic pancreatitis. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 45(5):1420-1438, 2020 05. | |
| 49. | Olesen SS, Steinkohl E, Hansen TM, Drewes AM, Frokjaer JB. Single- and multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing and severity grading of chronic pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol. 48(2):630-641, 2023 02. | |
| 50. | Tirkes T, Shah ZK, Takahashi N, et al. Reporting Standards for Chronic Pancreatitis by Using CT, MRI, and MR Cholangiopancreatography: The Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer. Radiology. 290(1):207-215, 2019 01. | |
| 51. | Razek AAKA, Elfar E, Abubacker S. Interobserver agreement of computed tomography reporting standards for chronic pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol. 44(7):2459-2465, 2019 07. | |
| 52. | Andersen PL, Madzak A, Olesen SS, Drewes AM, Frokjaer JB. Quantification of parenchymal calcifications in chronic pancreatitis: relation to atrophy, ductal changes, fibrosis and clinical parameters. Scand J Gastroenterol. 53(2):218-224, 2018 Feb. | |
| 53. | Zeng XP, Zhu XY, Li BR, et al. Spatial Distribution of Pancreatic Stones in Chronic Pancreatitis. Pancreas. 47(7):864-870, 2018 08. | |
| 54. | Anderson SW, Soto JA. Pancreatic duct evaluation: accuracy of portal venous phase 64 MDCT. Abdominal Imaging. 34(1):55-63, 2009 Jan-Feb.Abdom Imaging. 34(1):55-63, 2009 Jan-Feb. | |
| 55. | Dasyam AK, Shah ZK, Tirkes T, Dasyam N, Borhani AA. Cross-sectional imaging-based severity scoring of chronic pancreatitis: why it is necessary and how it can be done. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 45(5):1447-1457, 2020 05. | |
| 56. | Borgbjerg J, Steinkohl E, Olesen SS, et al. Inter- and intra-observer variability of computed tomography-based parenchymal- and ductal diameters in chronic pancreatitis: a multi-observer international study. Abdom Radiol. 48(1):306-317, 2023 01. | |
| 57. | Ramsey ML, Conwell DL, Hart PA. Complications of Chronic Pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2017 Jul;62(7):1745-1750. | |
| 58. | Lalwani N, Mannelli L, Ganeshan DM, et al. Uncommon pancreatic tumors and pseudotumors. Abdom Imaging. 2015 Jan;40(1):167-80. | |
| 59. | Almeida RR, Lo GC, Patino M, Bizzo B, Canellas R, Sahani DV. Advances in Pancreatic CT Imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jul;211(1):52-66. | |
| 60. | Narang M, Singh A, Mahapatra SJ, et al. Utility of dual-energy CT and advanced multiparametric MRI based imaging biomarkers of pancreatic fibrosis in grading the severity of chronic pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol. 49(10):3528-3539, 2024 Oct. | |
| 61. | Dasyam AK, Vipperla K, Slivka A, et al. Computed tomography based scoring system in a prospectively ascertained cohort of patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 19(8):1027-1033, 2019 Dec. | |
| 62. | Miller FH, Lopes Vendrami C, Hammond NA, Mittal PK, Nikolaidis P, Jawahar A. Pancreatic Cancer and Its Mimics. Radiographics. 2023 Nov;43(11):e230054. | |
| 63. | Inomata N, Masuda A, Yamakawa K, et al. Lobularity rather than hyperechoic foci/stranding on endoscopic ultrasonography is associated with more severe histological features in chronic pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 38(1):103-111, 2023 Jan. | |
| 64. | Trikudanathan G, Vega-Peralta J, Malli A, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) for Non-Calcific Chronic Pancreatitis (NCCP) Based on Histopathology. Am J Gastroenterol. 111(4):568-74, 2016 Apr. | |
| 65. | Mel Wilcox C, Gress T, Boermeester M, et al. International consensus guidelines on the role of diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound in the management of chronic pancreatitis. Recommendations from the working group for the international consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with the International Association of Pancreatology, the American Pancreatic Association, the Japan Pancreas Society, and European Pancreatic Club. Pancreatology. 20(5):822-827, 2020 Jul. | |
| 66. | Majumder S, Chari ST. Chronic pancreatitis. [Review]. Lancet. 387(10031):1957-66, 2016 May 07. | |
| 67. | Catalano MF, Sahai A, Levy M, et al. EUS-based criteria for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis: the Rosemont classification. Gastrointest Endosc. 69(7):1251-61, 2009 Jun. | |
| 68. | Yamamiya A, Irisawa A, Abe Y, et al. Diagnosing chronic pancreatitis by endoscopic ultrasound assessing the association between ultrasound and pathological findings: A narrative review. DEN Open. 2023 Apr;3(1):e164. | |
| 69. | Sato A, Irisawa A, Bhutani MS, et al. Significance of normal appearance on endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018;7(2):110-118. | |
| 70. | Yamashita Y, Tanioka K, Kawaji Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography shear wave as a predictive factor of endocrine/exocrine dysfunction in chronic pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 36(2):391-396, 2021 Feb. | |
| 71. | Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Nieto Bsn L, et al. Pancreatic Elastography Predicts Endoscopic Secretin-Pancreatic Function Test Result in Patients With Early Changes of Chronic Pancreatitis: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Observational Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 117(8):1264-1268, 2022 08 01. | |
| 72. | D'Aversa F, Ainora ME, Mignini I, et al. The Gemelli Ultrasound Chronic Pancreatitis Score: A Non-invasive Tool for the Diagnosis of Chronic Pancreatitis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 48(4):685-693, 2022 04. | |
| 73. | Ito T, Ikeura T, Tanaka T, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography findings in early chronic pancreatitis diagnosed according to the Japanese Diagnostic Criteria. Pancreatology. 20(4):596-601, 2020 Jun. | |
| 74. | Engjom T, Sangnes DA, Havre RF, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Transabdominal Ultrasound in Chronic Pancreatitis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 43(4):735-743, 2017 04. | |
| 75. | Kawada N, Tanaka S. Elastography for the pancreas: Current status and future perspective. [Review]. World J Gastroenterol. 22(14):3712-24, 2016 Apr 14. | |
| 76. | Saftoiu A, Vilmann P, Dietrich CF, et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS in differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 82(1):59-69, 2015 Jul. | |
| 77. | Shanbhogue KP, Pourvaziri A, Jeyaraj SK, Kambadakone A. Endoscopic and surgical treatment options for chronic pancreatitis: an imaging perspective. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 45(5):1397-1409, 2020 05. | |
| 78. | Sandrasegaran K, Heller MT, Panda A, Shetty A, Menias CO. MRI in acute pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020 May;45(5):1232-1242. | |
| 79. | Turkvatan A, Erden A, Turkoglu MA, Secil M, Yener O. Imaging of acute pancreatitis and its complications. Part 1: acute pancreatitis. [Review]. Diagn Interv Imaging. 96(2):151-60, 2015 Feb. | |
| 80. | Kaczmarek DJ, Nattermann J, Strassburg CP, Weismuller TJ. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage and Treatment of Symptomatic Pancreatic Fluid Collection following Acute or Acute-on-Chronic Pancreatitis - A Single Center Case Series. Zentralbl Chir. 143(6):577-585, 2018 Dec. | |
| 81. | Fung C, Svystun O, Fouladi DF, Kawamoto S. CT imaging, classification, and complications of acute pancreatitis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020 May;45(5):1243-1252. |
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.