INTRODUCTION: The Sendai Consensus Guidelines (SCG) was formulated in 2006 to guide the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). The main area of controversy is the criteria for selection of branch duct (BD)-IPMN for resection. Although these guidelines have gained widespread acceptance, there is limited data to date supporting its use. This systematic review is performed to evaluate the utility of the Sendai Consensus Guidelines (SCG) for BD-IPMN. METHODS: Studies evaluating the clinical utility of the SCG in surgically resected neoplasms were identified. The SCG were retrospectively applied to all resected neoplasms in these studies. BD-IPMNs which met the criteria for resection were termed SCG+ve and those for surveillance were termed SCG-ve. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included, of which, 9 were suitable for pooled analysis. There were 690 surgically resected BD-IPMNs, of which, 24% were malignant. Five hundred one BD-IPMNs were classified as SCG+ve and 189 were SCG-ve. The positive predictive value (PPV) of SCG+ve neoplasms ranged from 11 to 52% and the NPV of SCG-ve neoplasms ranged from 90 to 100%. Overall, there were 150/501 (29.9%) of malignant BD-IPMNs in the SCG+ve group and 171/189 (90%) of benign BD-IPMNs in the SCG-ve group. Of the 18 reported malignant (11 invasive) BD-IPMNs in the SCG-ve group, 17 (including all 11 invasive) were from a single study. When the results from this single study were excluded, 170/171 (99%) of SCG-ve BD-IPMNs were benign. CONCLUSION: The results of this review confirm the limitations of the SCG for BD-IPMN. The PPV of the SCG in predicting a malignant BD-IPMN was low and some malignant lesions may be missed based on these guidelines.
INTRODUCTION: The Sendai Consensus Guidelines (SCG) was formulated in 2006 to guide the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). The main area of controversy is the criteria for selection of branch duct (BD)-IPMN for resection. Although these guidelines have gained widespread acceptance, there is limited data to date supporting its use. This systematic review is performed to evaluate the utility of the Sendai Consensus Guidelines (SCG) for BD-IPMN. METHODS: Studies evaluating the clinical utility of the SCG in surgically resected neoplasms were identified. The SCG were retrospectively applied to all resected neoplasms in these studies. BD-IPMNs which met the criteria for resection were termed SCG+ve and those for surveillance were termed SCG-ve. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included, of which, 9 were suitable for pooled analysis. There were 690 surgically resected BD-IPMNs, of which, 24% were malignant. Five hundred one BD-IPMNs were classified as SCG+ve and 189 were SCG-ve. The positive predictive value (PPV) of SCG+ve neoplasms ranged from 11 to 52% and the NPV of SCG-ve neoplasms ranged from 90 to 100%. Overall, there were 150/501 (29.9%) of malignant BD-IPMNs in the SCG+ve group and 171/189 (90%) of benign BD-IPMNs in the SCG-ve group. Of the 18 reported malignant (11 invasive) BD-IPMNs in the SCG-ve group, 17 (including all 11 invasive) were from a single study. When the results from this single study were excluded, 170/171 (99%) of SCG-ve BD-IPMNs were benign. CONCLUSION: The results of this review confirm the limitations of the SCG for BD-IPMN. The PPV of the SCG in predicting a malignant BD-IPMN was low and some malignant lesions may be missed based on these guidelines.
Authors: Klaus Sahora; Mari Mino-Kenudson; William Brugge; Sarah P Thayer; Cristina R Ferrone; Dushyant Sahani; Martha B Pitman; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Carlos F Fernandez-del Castillo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Camilo Correa-Gallego; Murray F Brennan; Yuman Fong; T Peter Kingham; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael I DʼAngelica; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Molly M Cone; Jennifer D Rea; Brian S Diggs; Kevin G Billingsley; Brett C Sheppard Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Brian K P Goh; Yu-Meng Tan; Peng-Chung Cheow; Yaw-Fui Alexander Chung; Pierce K H Chow; Wai-Keong Wong; London L P J Ooi Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ralph H Hruban; Kyoichi Takaori; David S Klimstra; N Volkan Adsay; Jorge Albores-Saavedra; Andrew V Biankin; Sandra A Biankin; Carolyn Compton; Noriyoshi Fukushima; Toru Furukawa; Michael Goggins; Yo Kato; Gunter Klöppel; Daniel S Longnecker; Jutta Lüttges; Anirban Maitra; G Johan A Offerhaus; Michio Shimizu; Suguru Yonezawa Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Stefan Fritz; Miriam Klauss; Frank Bergmann; Thilo Hackert; Werner Hartwig; Oliver Strobel; Bogata D Bundy; Markus W Büchler; Jens Werner Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Volkan Adsay; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Toru Furukawa; Olca Basturk; Giuseppe Zamboni; Giovanni Marchegiani; Claudio Bassi; Roberto Salvia; Giuseppe Malleo; Salvatore Paiella; Christopher L Wolfgang; Hanno Matthaei; G Johan Offerhaus; Mustapha Adham; Marco J Bruno; Michelle D Reid; Alyssa Krasinskas; Günter Klöppel; Nobuyuki Ohike; Takuma Tajiri; Kee-Taek Jang; Juan Carlos Roa; Peter Allen; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo; Jin-Young Jang; David S Klimstra; Ralph H Hruban Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Alan R Penheiter; Dinesh K Deelchand; Emily Kittelson; Sibel Erdogan Damgard; Stephen J Murphy; Daniel R O'Brien; William R Bamlet; Marie R Passow; Thomas C Smyrk; Fergus J Couch; George Vasmatzis; John D Port; Małgorzata Marjańska; Stephanie K Carlson Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Yazan S Khaled; Muhammed Mohsin; Kavi Fatania; Ada Yee; Robert Adair; Maria Sheridan; Christian Macutkiewicz; Amer Aldouri; Andrew M Smith Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.647