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 pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis and two (2/35; 5.7%) patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer on follow-up. The time between the diagnosis of pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 35 and 30 d in the two patients. Definitive diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma was made by surgery. In the remaining six patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis, the median of follow-up was 11 mo (range 1-22 mo) and they showed no evidence of malignancy on surveillance. In the follow-up of patients without pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis but with chronic pancreatitis, none were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. According to our data, older patients with chronic pancreatitis are at risk of pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: According to characteristics of patient, detection of PCP should lead a surveillance program for pancreatic cancer with EUS-FNA in < 1 mo or directly to surgical resection.
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 pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis and two (2/35; 5.7%) patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer on follow-up. The time between the diagnosis of pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 35 and 30 d in the two patients. Definitive diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma was made by surgery. In the remaining six patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis, the median of follow-up was 11 mo (range 1-22 mo) and they showed no evidence of malignancy on surveillance. In the follow-up of patients without pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis but with chronic pancreatitis, none were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. According to our data, older patients with chronic pancreatitis are at risk of pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: According to characteristics of patient, detection of PCP should lead a surveillance program for pancreatic cancer with EUS-FNA in < 1 mo or directly to surgical resection.
Authors: Randall E Brand; Markus M Lerch; Wendy S Rubinstein; John P Neoptolemos; David C Whitcomb; Ralph H Hruban; Teresa A Brentnall; Henry T Lynch; Marcia I Canto Journal: Gut Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Christian Gemmel; Axel Eickhoff; Lars Helmstädter; Jürgen F Riemann Journal: Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Michael Hocke; Ewald Schulze; Peter Gottschalk; Theodor Topalidis; Christoph F Dietrich Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-01-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Louis J Vitone; William Greenhalf; Christopher D McFaul; Paula Ghaneh; John P Neoptolemos Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.043