RESUMEN
Purpose@#Cannulation of the major papilla is the most challenging part of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for which physician-controlled wire-guided cannulation (PCWGC) and assistant-controlled wire-guided cannulation (ACWGC) are used as the cannulation techniques. PCWGC can reportedly save up to about 30% of the labor cost by reducing the number of assistants. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of PCWGC and ACWGC. @*Materials and Methods@#Of the 2151 patients aged >20 years (4193 cases) who underwent ERCP at Yonsei University Medical Center between January 2015 and December 2016, 989 were included in this study. @*Results@#Among efficacy outcomes, cannulation success rate, rate of precut sphincterotomy (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: 21.3% vs.25.9%), bile duct cannulation time (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: median 3.0 minutes vs. 3.6 minutes), and total procedure time (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: median 13.6 minutes vs. 13.1 minutes) were not significantly different. Among safety outcomes, lower rates of postERCP pancreatitis were observed with PCWGC than with ACWGC (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: 5.8% vs. 8.8%, p=0.128). Among other post-ERCP adverse events (bleeding, perforation, and cholangitis), the difference was not significant between the groups. Radiation exposure (total dose area product, PCWGC vs. ACWGC: median 1979.9 µGym2 vs. 2062.0 µGym2 , p=0.194) and ERCP cost excluding labor cost (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: $1576 vs. $1547, p=0.606) were not significantly different. @*Conclusion@#Requiring less assistants, PCWGC showed comparable efficacy and safety to ACWGC. PCWGC can be considered as an alternative option, especially in facilities lacking manpower and resources.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in tumor cells is associated with a poor biliary tract cancer (BTC) prognosis; tumor-infiltrating immune cells in the tumor microenvironment are associated with a better prognosis. The effect of PD-L1 expression on immune cells on survival is unclear. We investigated the relationship between PD-L1 expression in immune cells and BTC prognosis. @*Methods@#PD-L1 expression was evaluated using an anti-PD-L1 22C3 mouse monoclonal primary antibody, and its relationships with clinical characteristics and prognosis were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model to investigate the prognostic performance of PD-L1 in BTC. @*Results@#Among 144 analyzed cases, patients with positive PD-L1 expression in tumor cells and negative PD-L1 expression in immune cells showed poorer overall survival rates than those exhibiting other expressions (tumor cells: hazard ratio [HR]=1.023, p<0.001; immune cells: HR=0.983, p=0.021). PD-L1 expression in tumor cells was an independent predictor of poor overall survival (HR=1.024, p<0.001). In contrast, PD-L1 expression in immune cells was a predictive marker of good prognosis (HR=0.983, p=0.018). @*Conclusions@#PD-L1 expression in immune cells may be used as an independent factor to evaluate the prognosis of patients with BTC.
RESUMEN
Purpose@#Hypoxaemia is a significant adverse event during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under monitored anaesthesia care (MAC); however, no model has been developed to predict hypoxaemia. We aimed to develop and compare logistic regression (LR) and machine learning (ML) models to predict hypoxaemia during ERCP under MAC. @*Materials and Methods@#We collected patient data from our institutional ERCP database. The study population was randomly divided into training and test sets (7:3). Models were fit to training data and evaluated on unseen test data. The training set was further split into k-fold (k=5) for tuning hyperparameters, such as feature selection and early stopping. Models were trained over k loops; the i-th fold was set aside as a validation set in the i-th loop. Model performance was measured using area under the curve (AUC). @*Results@#We identified 6114 cases of ERCP under MAC, with a total hypoxaemia rate of 5.9%. The LR model was established by combining eight variables and had a test AUC of 0.693. The ML and LR models were evaluated on 30 independent data splits. The average test AUC for LR was 0.7230, which improved to 0.7336 by adding eight more variables with an l 1 regularisation-based selection technique and ensembling the LRs and gradient boosting algorithm (GBM). The high-risk group was discriminated using the GBM ensemble model, with a sensitivity and specificity of 63.6% and 72.2%, respectively. @*Conclusion@#We established GBM ensemble model and LR model for risk prediction, which demonstrated good potential for preventing hypoxaemia during ERCP under MAC.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Controversy regarding the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) still exists. Here, we aimed to identify the potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery for resectable PDAC. @*Methods@#We reviewed radiologically resectable PDAC patients who received resection with curative intent at a tertiary hospital in South Korea between January 2012 and August 2019. A total of 202 patients underwent curative resection for resectable PDAC: 167 underwent surgical resection first during this period, and 35 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery. Resectable PDAC patients were subdivided, and 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce selection bias. @*Results@#Compared with the group that received surgery first, the group that received neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery had significantly smaller tumors (22.0 mm vs 27.0 mm, p=0.004), a smaller proportion of patients with postoperative pathologic T stage (p=0.026), a smaller proportion of patients with lymphovascular invasion (20.0% vs 40.7%, p=0.022), and a larger proportion of patients with negative resection margins (74.3% vs 51.5%, p=0.049). After PSM, the group that received neoadjuvant therapy had a significantly longer progression-free survival than those in the group that underwent surgery first (29.6 months vs 15.1 months, p=0.002). Overall survival was not significantly different between the two groups after PSM analysis. @*Conclusions@#We observed significantly better surgical outcomes and progression-free survival with the addition of neoadjuvant therapy to the management of resectable PDAC. However, despite PSM, there was still selection bias due to the use of different regimens between the groups receiving surgery first and neoadjuvant therapy. Large homogeneous samples are needed in the future prospective studies.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Sphincterotomes are essential for endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and can also be used for cannulation in ERCP.A domestic new pull-type sphincterotome (Optimos™, Taewoong, Goyang, Korea) provides acceptable technical feasibility and safety, but there are no comparison results. Thus, this study compared the clinical performance and safety of Optimos™ sphincterotome to a conventional sphincterotome (CleverCut3™, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) in patients who underwent ERCP. @*Methods@#From April 2021 to July 2021, a randomized prospective comparative study was conducted on 104 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP in three medical centers. The primary endpoint was the clinical performance and safety of sphincterotomes during ERCP. @*Results@#One hundred and four patients were assigned randomly to the Optimos™ group (n=51) or CleverCut3™ group (n=53). All demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups except the BMI. The technical success rate for cannulation, performance of EST, and total procedure time were similar in the two groups. The adverse events did not differ, even though two cases of post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in CleverCut3™. On the other hand, in questionnaire analysis, CleverCut™ showed a better user’s convenience (median [interquartile range] 4.0 [3.0-4.0] vs. 3.0 [3.0-4.0], p=0.013) and manipulability (median [interquartile range], 4.0 [3.0-4.0] vs. 3.0 [3.0-4.0], p=0.039) than Optimos™, even though the other profiles did not reveal any differences. @*Conclusions@#New domestic pull-type sphincterotome can offer comparable clinical performance and safety profiles to conventional sphincterotome, but it needs refinements to increase the user’s convenience and manipulability. Further improvement and innovation will be required to advance domestic medical devices.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET) refer to tumors originating from the islet of Langerhans and shows various prognosis based on the presence or absence of symptoms due to hormone secretion, the Ki-67 cell proliferation index, and the histologic grade, and according to the degree of disease progression defined by the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage classification. The purpose of medical treatment for PNET is to control symptoms or inhibit tumor growth. Somatostatin analogues can be administered for the purpose of controlling symptoms caused by the secretion of specific hormones, and are accepted as effective drugs for inhibiting the progression of G1/G2 tumors based on World Health Organization (WHO) classification with a Ki-67 cell proliferation index less than 20%. Among the molecularly targeted agents, everolimus and sunitinib can be considered in patients with WHO G1/G2 PNET showing progression after somatostatin analog therapy. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is generally administered to patients with large tumor volume and rapidly progressing metastatic NET, and etoposide/cisplatin combination therapy has been considered as a standard treatment. For the patient group of Grade 3 PNET (well differentiated) newly classified by the WHO 2017 classification, guidelines for standard treatment have not yet been established. As it has been reported, studies are needed to evaluate the treatment response rate of somatostatin analogues or molecularly targeted therapies for the patient with Grade 3 PNET. It is important to consider a multidisciplinary approach with all possible treatment options including medical treatment, radical resection of primary or metastatic lesions, liver-directed therapies, and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy for the patients with PNET.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#The benefit of second-line chemotherapy (SL) after failed first-line chemotherapy (FL) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has not yet been established. We evaluated the clinical characteristics affecting the benefits of SL compared to best supportive care (BSC), identified the prognostic factors, and ultimately devised a model of clinical parameters to assist in making decision between SL and BSC after the failure of gemcitabine-based FL. @*Methods@#The records of patients who received gemcitabine-based FL for advanced pancreatic cancer at Yonsei University Hospital between January 2010 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Significant clinical parameters were assessed for their potential as predictive factors. @*Results@#SL patients received a longer duration of FL compared with BSC patients with median duration being 16.0 weeks (range, 8.0 to 26.0 weeks) and 8.0 weeks (range, 4.0 to 16.0 weeks), respectively (p<0.001). When the SL group was stratified by their modified overall survival (mOS) (longer and shorter than 6 months), we found significant differences for several clinical factors, namely, metastasis to the peritoneum (p<0.001), number of metastases (p<0.001), thrombotic events (p=0.003), and level of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9; p=0.011). In multivariate analysis, more than one site of metastasis, occurrence of thrombotic event during FL, and a CA19-9 level above 90 U/mL were significant independent prognostic factors for mOS in the SL group (p<0.05). When an attempt was made to devise a prognostic nomogram, Harrell’s C-index of the final prognosis prediction model was 0.62. @*Conclusions@#SL may be beneficial for patients without peritoneal metastasis or thrombotic events who have a single metastasis and a level of CA19-9 less than 90 U/mL. This prognostic nomogram can be used to predict mOS before the administration of SL after the failure of gemcitabine-based FL.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Patients with liver cirrhosis are considered to be at risk for additional adverse events during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The present study was designed as a propensity-score matched analysis to investigate whether cirrhotic liver increases the risk of bleeding complications in patients undergoing ERCP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 8554 patients who underwent ERCP from January 2005 to December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. To adjust for the imbalance between patients with and those without liver cirrhosis, 1:3 propensity score matching was performed according to age and sex. RESULTS: Liver cirrhosis was identified in 264 (3.1%) patients. After propensity score matching, a total of 768 patients were included in each of the cirrhotic (n=192) and non-cirrhotic groups (n=576). Post-procedure bleeding (10.9% vs. 4.7%, p=0.003) was more frequently observed in patients with liver cirrhosis than in those without. In multivariate analyses, liver cirrhosis was identified as an independent risk factor associated with post-ERCP bleeding (p=0.003) after further adjustment for prothrombin time, antiplatelet/coagulant, duration of ERCP, and stent insertion. Child-Pugh (CP) class C was found to be associated with an increased incidence of post-ERCP bleeding in patients with cirrhosis (odds ratio 6.144, 95% confidence interval 1.320–28.606; p=0.021). CONCLUSION: The incidence of post-ERCP bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis was higher than that in patients without liver cirrhosis. In particular, CP class C cirrhosis was significantly associated with post-ERCP bleeding.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Fibrosis , Hemorragia , Incidencia , Cirrosis Hepática , Hígado , Análisis Multivariante , Puntaje de Propensión , Tiempo de Protrombina , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , StentsRESUMEN
Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Complete surgical resection remains the only current curative treatment. Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is considered as unresectable because of involvement of celiac and/or mesenteric vessels. The treatment of LAPC is a challenge. Current guidelines suggest systemic therapy. However, the majority of patients will never experience conversion to surgical resection. Thus, in these patients, ablation is an alternative therapy for local control, which causes local destruction while ideally avoiding injury to surrounding healthy tissue. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is an energy delivery system, effective in ablating tumors by inducing irreversible membrane destruction of cells. IRE demonstrated to be safe in previous studies. However, it is not free from complications, even serious. Here, we reported two cases of the IRE in LAPC patients.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Electroporación , Membranas , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , PronósticoRESUMEN
Serine protease inhibitor Kazal-type 1 (SPINK1) is a gene expressed from pancreatic acinar cell which its mutation is known to be associated with chronic pancreatitis (CP) and pancreatic cancer. We report a case of a 47-years-old female with nausea and weight loss with yellow discoloration of skin. Initial imaging and endoscopic study led us to an impression of chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic cancer with common bile-duct dilation. Biopsy result was confirmed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and additional imaging revealed lymph node and bone metastasis. Our genetic analysis revealed 194+2T>C mutation of SPINK1. Biliary obstruction was successfully decompressed by stent insertion and underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Although there is accumulating evidence of association between SPINK1 mutation and CP, the relationship between SPINK1 mutation and pancreatic cancer in CP patient is an emerging concept. Genetic analysis should be considered in patients with young age especially when diagnosed with both CP and pancreatic cancer.
Asunto(s)
Femenino , Humanos , Células Acinares , Adenocarcinoma , Biopsia , Quimioterapia , Genes vif , Ictericia Obstructiva , Ganglios Linfáticos , Náusea , Metástasis de la Neoplasia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Pancreatitis Crónica , Radioterapia , Serina Proteasas , Piel , Stents , Pérdida de PesoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recent studies have revealed that contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (CEH-EUS) is beneficial in the differential diagnosis of malignant neoplasms of the pancreas and gallbladder from benign masses, in terms of the evaluation of microvasculature and real-time perfusion. In this study, we aimed to prove the clinical value of CEH-EUS in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic and gallbladder masses by direct comparison with that of conventional EUS. METHODS: We reviewed the sonographic images and medical information of 471 patients who underwent conventional EUS and CEH-EUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic and gallbladder masses at a single medical center (Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea) between March 2010 and March 2016. RESULTS: The enhancement pattern of CEH-EUS of the pancreatic solid masses showed higher sensitivity and specificity in differentiating pancreatic adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors (82.0% and 87.9% for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 81.1% and 90.9% for neuroendocrine tumors, respectively), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was higher than that of conventional EUS. The enhancement texture of CEH-EUS of the gallbladder masses showed a higher sensitivity in differentiating malignant masses than that of conventional EUS; however, the difference between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: CEH-EUS can complement conventional EUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic and gallbladder masses, in terms of the limitations of the latter.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Adenocarcinoma , Proteínas del Sistema Complemento , Diagnóstico , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Endosonografía , Vesícula Biliar , Microvasos , Tumores Neuroendocrinos , Páncreas , Perfusión , Curva ROC , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Seúl , UltrasonografíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIMS: We aimed to investigate the incidence of second primary pancreatic cancer (PC) after colorectal cancer (CRC) and to identify risk factors associated with subsequent PC. METHODS: The observed incidence of a subsequent PC in patients with CRC was standardized using a population with CRC from the Korean Central Cancer Registry (KCCR). The expected incidence rate of PC was obtained by assuming that the select group experienced the same cancer incidence as the corresponding general population in the KCCR. RESULTS: The registry included 4,822 patients with CRC aged 45 to 74 years, representing 16,725.1 person-years of follow-up. Thirteen patients (0.3%) were diagnosed with a subsequent PC, and the overall age-adjusted incidence of second primary PC was 269.6 per 100,000 cases. In contrast, the overall incidence of primary PC in the general population was 18.68 per 100,000 individuals. The standardized incidence ratio of subsequent PC was 14.44, which was significantly higher in patients with CRC than in the general population. Sex, diabetes mellitus, smoking, body mass index, and a history of receiving chemotherapy as a treatment for CRC did not increase the risk of subsequent development of PC. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a second primary PC was higher in patients with CRC. Further studies are needed to identify the risk factors and generate a screening strategy for cancer survivors.