UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 93

of 'Clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and staging of exocrine pancreatic cancer'

93
TI
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association.
AU
Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, Fishman EK, Hough DM, Lu DS, Macari M, Megibow AJ, Miller FH, Mortele KJ, Merchant NB, Minter RM, Tamm EP, Sahani DV, Simeone DM
SO
Radiology. 2014;270(1):248.
 
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive malignancy with a high mortality rate. Proper determination of the extent of disease on imaging studies at the time of staging is one of the most important steps in optimal patient management. Given the variability in expertise and definition of disease extent among different practitioners as well as frequent lack of complete reporting of pertinent imaging findings at radiologic examinations, adoption of a standardized template for radiology reporting, using universally accepted and agreed on terminology for solid pancreatic neoplasms, is needed. A consensus statement describing a standardized reporting template authored by a multi-institutional group of experts in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that included radiologists, gastroenterologists, and hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons was developed under the joint sponsorship of the Society of Abdominal Radiologists and the American Pancreatic Association. Adoption of this standardized imaging reporting template should improve the decision-making process for the management of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by providing a complete, pertinent, and accurate reporting of disease staging to optimize treatment recommendations that can be offered to the patient. Standardization can also help to facilitate research and clinical trial design by using appropriate and consistent staging by means of resectability status, thus allowing for comparison of results among different institutions.
AD
From the Departments of Radiology (M.M.A., I.R.F.), Surgery (R.M.M., D.M.S.), and Molecular and Integrative Physiology (D.M.S.), University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, University Hospital, Room B1 D502, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; Departments of Internal Medicine (S.T.C.) and Radiology (D.M.H.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (E.K.F.); Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif (D.S.L.); Department of Radiology, New York University Medical Center, New York, NY (M.M., A.J.M.); Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (F.H.M.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (K.J.M.); Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn (N.B.M.); Department
PMID