Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract views: 280 PDF Downloads: 346 PDF Downloads: 137
Abstract
Aim: to follow up patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis (PCP) to assess their outcome and identify an optimal surveillance interval.
Methods: data obtained prospectively were analyzed in a retrospective manner. Patients with clinical evidence of chronic pancreatitis (abdominal pain in the epigastrium, steatorrhea, and diabetes mellitus), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria > 4, and EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) were included. A pseudotumor was defined as a non-neoplastic space-occupying lesion, a cause of chronic pancreatitis that may mimic changes typical of pancreatic cancer on CT or endoscopic ultrasound but without histological evidence. A real tumor was defined as a neoplastic space-occupying lesion because of pancreatic cancer confirmed by histology.
Results: thirty-five patients with chronic pancreatitis were included, 26 (74.2%) of whom were men. Nine (25.7%) patients were diagnosed with PCP and two (2/35; 5.7%) patients with PCP were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer on follow-up. The time between the diagnosis of PCP and pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 35 and 30 days in the two patients. Definitive diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma was made by surgery. In the remaining six patients with PCP, the median of follow-up was 11 months (range 1–22 months) and they showed no evidence of malignancy on surveillance. In the follow-up of patients without PCP but with chronic pancreatitis, none were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. According to our data, older patients with chronic pancreatitis are at risk of PCP.
Conclusion: according to characteristics of patient, detection of PCP should lead a surveillance program for pancreatic cancer with EUS-FNA in < 1 month or directly to surgical resection.
Core tip: actually, there are no clear recommendations for follow-up of patients with chronic pancreatitis and solid pancreatic mass lesions. We followed-up patients with chronic pancreatitis and solid pancreatic mass lesions and we assessed the final outcome and identified an optimal surveillance interval. We found that almost one-third of patients with chronic pancreatitis had PCP, and 22.2% had unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma less than 2 mo after the initial diagnosis. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration can miss malignancy in nearly 25% of patients with PCP.
References
2. Balthazar E. J. Pancreatitis associated with pancreatic carcinoma. Preoperative diagnosis: role of CT imaging in detection and evaluation / E. J. Balthazar // Pancreatology. – 2005. – Vol. 5. – P. 330–344.
3. Brimiene V. Differential diagnosis between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: a prospective study of 156 patients / V. Brimiene, G. Brimas, K. Strupas // Medicina (Kaunas). – 2011. – Vol. 47. – P. 154–162.
4. Burski C. Diagnosing cancer in chronic pancreatitis: the struggle persists / C. Burski, S. Varadarajulu, J. Trevino // Gastrointest. Endosc. – 2012. – Vol. 75. – P. AB193.
5. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound in discrimination between focal pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer / M. Hocke, E. Schulze, P. Gottschalk [et al.] // World J. Gastroenterol. – 2006. – Vol. 12. – P. 246–250.
6. Early detection of pancreatic cancer in patients with chronic pancreatitis: diagnostic utility of a K-ras point mutation in the pancreatic juice / P. E. Queneau, G. L. Adessi, P. Thibault [et al.] // Am. J. Gastroenterol. – 2001. – Vol. 96. – P. 700–704.
7. Endoscopic ultrasonographic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer complicating chronic pancreatitis / M. Barthet, I. Portal, J. Boujaoude [et al.] // Endoscopy. – 1996. – Vol. 28. – P. 487–491.
8. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of lymph nodes and pancreatic masses: a multicenter study / M. Giovannini, B. Thomas, B. Erwan [et al.] // World J. Gastroenterol. – 2009. – Vol. 15. – P. 1587–1593.
9. Endoscopic ultrasound for differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic lesions, confirmed by surgery / B. Brand, T. Pfaff, K. F. Binmoeller [et al.] // Scand. J. Gastroenterol. – 2000. – Vol. 35. – P. 1221–1228.
10. Farrell J. J. Diagnosing pancreatic malignancy in the setting of chronic pancreatitis: is there room for improvement? / J. J. Farrell // Gastrointest. Endosc. – 2005. – Vol. 62. – P. 737–741.
11. Feldman M. Sleissenger and Fordtran's gastrointestinal and liver disease / M. Feldman, L. Friedman, L. Brand. – 9th ed. – Philadelphia : Saunders Elsevier, 2010. – P. 985–1014.
12. Harewood G. C. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic masses / G. C. Harewood, M. J. Wiersema // Am. J. Gastroenterol. – 2002. – Vol. 97. – P. 1386–1391.
13. Histopathologic correlates of noncalcific chronic pancreatitis by EUS: a prospective tissue characterization study / S. Varadarajulu, I. Eltoum, A. Tamhane, M. A. Eloubeidi // Gastrointest. Endosc. – 2007. – Vol. 66. – P. 501–509.
14. Howes N. Risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in chronic pancreatitis / N. Howes, J. P. Neoptolemos // Gut. – 2002. – Vol. 51. – P. 765–766.
15. The inherited genetics of pancreatic cancer and prospects for secondary screening / L. J. Vitone, W. Greenhalf, C. D. McFaul [et al.] // Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. – 2006. – Vol. 20. – P. 253–283.
16. Pancreatic cancer screening: state of the art / C. Gemmel, A. Eickhoff, L. Helmstädter, J. F. Riemann // Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. – 2009. – Vol. 3. – P. 89–96.
17. Pancreatic pseudotumors: non-neoplastic solid lesions of the pancreas that clinically mimic pancreas cancer / N. V. Adsay, O. Basturk, D. S. Klimstra, G. Klöppel // Semin. Diagn. Pathol. – 2004. – Vol. 21. – P. 260–267.
18. Pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. International Pancreatitis Study Group / A. B. Lowenfels, P. Maisonneuve, G. Cavallini [et al.] // N. Engl. J. Med. – 1993. – Vol. 328. – P. 1433–1437.
19. Role and limitations of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of patients with pancreatic lesions / C. Pery, G. Meurette, C. Ansquer [et al.] // Gastroenterol. Clin. Biol. – 2010. – Vol. 34. – P. 465–474.