BACKGROUND & AIMS: The natural history and management of pancreatic cysts, especially for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs), remain uncertain. We developed evidence-based nomograms to assist with clinical decision making. METHODS: We used decision analysis with Markov modeling to compare competing management strategies in a patient with a pancreatic head cyst radiographically suggestive of BD-IPMN, including the following: (1) initial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), (2) yearly noninvasive radiographic surveillance, (3) yearly invasive surveillance with endoscopic ultrasound, and (4) "do nothing." We derived probability estimates from a systematic literature review. The primary outcomes were overall and quality-adjusted survival. We depicted the results in a series of nomograms accounting for age, comorbidities, and cyst size. RESULTS: Initial PD was the dominant strategy to maximize overall survival for any cyst greater than 2 cm, regardless of age or comorbidities. In contrast, surveillance was the dominant strategy for any lesion less than 1 cm. However, when measuring quality-adjusted survival, the do-nothing approach maximized quality of life for all cysts less than 3 cm in patients younger than age 75. Once age exceeded 85 years, noninvasive surveillance dominated. Initial PD did not maximize quality of life in any age group or cyst size. CONCLUSIONS: Management of pancreatic cysts can be guided using novel Markov-based clinical nomograms, and depends on age, cyst size, comorbidities, and whether patients value overall survival vs quality-adjusted survival. For patients focused on overall survival, regardless of quality of life, surgery is optimal for lesions greater than 2 cm. For patients focused on quality-adjusted survival, a 3-cm threshold is more appropriate for surgery except for the extreme elderly.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The natural history and management of pancreatic cysts, especially for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs), remain uncertain. We developed evidence-based nomograms to assist with clinical decision making. METHODS: We used decision analysis with Markov modeling to compare competing management strategies in a patient with a pancreatic head cyst radiographically suggestive of BD-IPMN, including the following: (1) initial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), (2) yearly noninvasive radiographic surveillance, (3) yearly invasive surveillance with endoscopic ultrasound, and (4) "do nothing." We derived probability estimates from a systematic literature review. The primary outcomes were overall and quality-adjusted survival. We depicted the results in a series of nomograms accounting for age, comorbidities, and cyst size. RESULTS: Initial PD was the dominant strategy to maximize overall survival for any cyst greater than 2 cm, regardless of age or comorbidities. In contrast, surveillance was the dominant strategy for any lesion less than 1 cm. However, when measuring quality-adjusted survival, the do-nothing approach maximized quality of life for all cysts less than 3 cm in patients younger than age 75. Once age exceeded 85 years, noninvasive surveillance dominated. Initial PD did not maximize quality of life in any age group or cyst size. CONCLUSIONS: Management of pancreatic cysts can be guided using novel Markov-based clinical nomograms, and depends on age, cyst size, comorbidities, and whether patients value overall survival vs quality-adjusted survival. For patients focused on overall survival, regardless of quality of life, surgery is optimal for lesions greater than 2 cm. For patients focused on quality-adjusted survival, a 3-cm threshold is more appropriate for surgery except for the extreme elderly.
Authors: B Terris; P Ponsot; F Paye; P Hammel; A Sauvanet; G Molas; P Bernades; J Belghiti; P Ruszniewski; J F Fléjou Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: D O'Toole; L Palazzo; R Arotçarena; A Dancour; A Aubert; P Hammel; J Amaris; P Ruszniewski Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J P Neoptolemos; J A Dunn; D D Stocken; J Almond; K Link; H Beger; C Bassi; M Falconi; P Pederzoli; C Dervenis; L Fernandez-Cruz; F Lacaine; A Pap; D Spooner; D J Kerr; H Friess; M W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-11-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E Cuillerier; C Cellier; L Palazzo; J Devière; P Wind; F Rickaert; P H Cugnenc; M Cremer; J P Barbier Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: C Zamora; J Sahel; D G Cantu; L Heyries; J P Bernard; C Bastid; M J Payan; I Sielezneff; L Familiari; B Sastre; M Barthet Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: H Kubo; Y Chijiiwa; K Akahoshi; S Hamada; N Harada; T Sumii; M Takashima; H Nawata Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Reto M Käppeli; Sascha A Müller; Bianka Hummel; Christina Kruse; Philip Müller; Jürgen Fornaro; Alexander Wilhelm; Marcel Zadnikar; Bruno M Schmied; Ignazio Tarantino Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Timothy B Gardner; Lisa M Glass; Kerrington D Smith; Gregory H Ripple; Richard J Barth; David A Klibansky; Thomas A Colacchio; Michael J Tsapakos; Arief A Suriawinata; Gregory J Tsongalis; J Marc Pipas; Stuart R Gordon Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Yousuke Nakai; Takuji Iwashita; Susumu Shinoura; Do H Park; Jason B Samarasena; John G Lee; Kenneth J Chang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 9.427