| Literature DB >> 25120588 |
Klaus Felix1, Anna Schuck1, Matthias M Gaida2, Ulf Hinz1, Dmitriy Dovzhanskiy1, Jens Werner1.
Abstract
Insufficiency of pancreatic anastomosis with leakage from the pancreatic stump and the development of fistulas account for the majority of surgical complications following pancreatic resection, which are often life threatening. The cause of pancreatic fistulas of the remnant tissue on a molecular level remains unclear. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate risk factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) formation and to define parameters that may predict the resection outcome. Pancreatic resection margins were selected from 31 patients, including 16 individuals without and 15 patients with POPF, to analyze the degree of fibrosis, lipomatous atrophy, inflammatory activity and infiltration. Wound healing factors were assessed by luminex technology using tissue homogenates, while the distribution in situ was assessed using immunohistochemistry. Increased chronic inflammatory infiltration, a higher degree of fibrosis and a reduction in lipomatous atrophy were observed in the samples without anastomotic fistulas. Multiplex analysis of 38 wound healing factors demonstrated significantly higher levels of interleukin (IL)-6, -8 and -12, glucagon-like peptide-1 and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1, -2, -3 and -12 in the group without fistulas, while lower concentrations of IL-10, IL-17 and gastric inhibitory polypeptide were observed. Therefore, the observations of the present study indicated that increased inflammatory infiltration and inflammatory activity, as well as higher concentrations of proinflammatory cytokines and higher MMP levels at the resection margins, predisposed individuals to a lower fistula incidence rate following pancreatic resection.Entities:
Keywords: carcinoma of the pancreas; chronic pancreatitis; pancreatic fistula; postoperative complications; predictive markers
Year: 2014 PMID: 25120588 PMCID: PMC4113644 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2014.1829
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Histological grading scores.
| Grading | Fibrosis | Lipomatous atrophy | Inflammatory infiltration | Inflammatory activity | Microscopic necrosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | No | No | No | No | No |
| 1 | Periductal | Little | Little | little | Single cells |
| 2 | Periductal, intra- and interlobular | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Grouped necrosis |
| 3 | Extensive | Severe | Severe | Severe | Broad |
Figure 1Original grading examples of the histological analysis of the resection edges (hematoxylin and eosin stain; magnification, ×100). (A) Lipomatous atrophy grade 1; (B) lipomatous atrophy grade 3; (C) chronic inflammatory infiltration grade 1; and (D) chronic inflammatory infiltration grade 3.
Figure 2Histopathological scores were assessed with numerical values (0–3) and expressed as the percentage proportion of the experimental group for (A) fibrosis, (B) lipomatous atrophy, (C) inflammatory infiltration, (D) inflammatory activity and (E) necrosis.
Quantitative multiplexing protein analysis.
| No POPF, pg/mg total protein (n=16) | POPF, pg/mg total protein (n=15) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Analyte | Min | Median | Max | Min | Median | Max | P-value |
| IL-1β | 2.2 | 59.0 | 2427 | 13.2 | 71.3 | 1665 | 0.7529 |
| IL-2 | 2.44 | 2.4 | 318.7 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 1845 | 0.8615 |
| IL-4 | 4.7 | 9.6 | 16.7 | 4.6 | 9.2 | 16.7 | 0.8260 |
| IL-5 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 8.9 | 2.2 | 3.2 | 3.62 | 0.5990 |
| IL-6 | 1.7 | 301.3 | 11705 | 0.7 | 64.6 | 20730 | 0.0345 |
| IL-7 | 2.3 | 366 | 4579 | 36.9 | 1788 | 3116 | 0.3106 |
| IL-8 | 3.1 | 218 | 23614 | 2.7 | 46 | 1114 | 0.0029 |
| IL-10 | 2.3 | 8.2 | 26.9 | 69.5 | 881 | 1901 | <0.0001 |
| IL-12 | 3.1 | 331 | 1191 | 3.3 | 10.4 | 33,93 | 0.0045 |
| IL-13 | 50.0 | 90 | 4553 | 49.5 | 103.5 | 4283 | 0.9538 |
| IL-17 | 1.6 | 128.9 | 264.5 | 94.0 | 167.8 | 335 | 0.0399 |
| G-CSF | 1.3 | 301.3 | 2796 | 1.3 | 65 | 2414 | 0.6050 |
| IFN-γ | 0.0 | 370.9 | 12585 | 0.0 | 659.5 | 2714 | 0.3099 |
| GM-CSF | 560.4 | 898 | 2892 | 757.8 | 1057 | 1466 | 0.0570 |
| MCP-1 | 0.1 | 2882 | 34386 | 986.1 | 2901 | 23659 | 0.6334 |
| MIP-1β | 0.0 | 2033 | 8178 | 0.0 | 648.4 | 22307 | 0.1548 |
| TNF-α | 1.2 | 1.9 | 131.6 | 1.2 | 3.3 | 141 | 0.7136 |
| Angiopoietin-2 | 21.8 | 205.6 | 648.1 | 0 | 61.3 | 11684 | 0.1382 |
| Follistatin | 64.7 | 272.9 | 782.4 | 41.0 | 200.3 | 801.2 | 0.2949 |
| HGF | 128.6 | 3216 | 10962 | 132.4 | 3385 | 9905 | 0.8279 |
| PDGF-BB | 8.3 | 21.6 | 381.7 | 2.9 | 17.0 | 158.6 | 0.3365 |
| PECAM-1 | 10751 | 22656 | 22656 | 1528 | 18530 | 22656 | 0.2770 |
| VEGF | 3.6 | 38.5 | 226.4 | 1.0 | 49.2 | 176.8 | 0.3845 |
| C-peptide | 8.5 | 2691 | 2691 | 1.1 | 31.3 | 2691 | 0.0709 |
| Ghrelin | 2.0 | 11.6 | 485.9 | 2.0 | 71.2 | 287.8 | 0.1638 |
| GIP | 0.5 | 2.4 | 6.5 | 0.8 | 4.3 | 6.1 | 0.0225 |
| GLP-1 | 0.5 | 1053 | 1645 | 0.5 | 502.8 | 1409 | 0.0402 |
| Insulin | 0.3 | 2027 | 2027 | 2.6 | 2027 | 2027 | 0.4873 |
| Leptin | 7.9 | 92.1 | 406.6 | 5.4 | 75.9 | 248.5 | 0.1015 |
| PAI-1 | 130 | 1134 | 5712 | 37.2 | 421.8 | 2201 | 0.1149 |
| MMP-1 | 1.0 | 44.69 | 914.8 | 9.886 | 33.58 | 46.91 | 0.0452 |
| MMP-2 | 1473 | 15924 | 23015 | 47.07 | 3344 | 21497 | 0.0049 |
| MMP-3 | 20.24 | 997.5 | 5747 | 0 | 159.8 | 1144 | 0.0012 |
| MMP-7 | 92.55 | 124.6 | 1034 | 95.11 | 113.1 | 136.2 | 0.0880 |
| MMP-8 | 519.2 | 15319 | 88596 | 0 | 10490 | 169078 | 0.6494 |
| MMP-9 | 3904 | 41120 | 5.26×106 | 774 | 29880 | 5.45×106 | 0.9842 |
| MMP-12 | 189.0 | 197.8 | 238.7 | 3.249 | 191.9 | 218.2 | 0.0369 |
| MMP-13 | 82.84 | 105.9 | 240 | 73.6 | 103.6 | 333.5 | 0.9202 |
Concentrations of 38 wound healing analytes in the resection edge tissue following pancreatic surgery. The group without fistulas were compared with the fistula group using range, median and P-values.
Mann-Whitney U-test. The two groups included patients with pancreas head resections and distal pancreatectomy.
Statistically significant differences.
POPF, postoperative pancreatic fistula formation; IL, interleukin; G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; IFN, interferon; GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; MCP, monocyte chemotactic protein; MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; PDGF, platelet-derived growth factor; PECAM, platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; GIP, gastric inhibitory polypeptide; GLP, glucagon-like peptide; PAI, plasminogen activator inhibitor; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; Min, minimum; Max, maximum.
Figure 3Original grading examples from the IHC analysis of the resection margins for MMP-1 (magnification, ×100). (A) Intensity grade 1 (weak); (B) intensity grade 2 (moderate); and (C) intensity grade 3 (strong). MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; IHC, immunohistochemistry.
IHC analysis of the frequency and validation of the biochemical parameters.
| IL-6 | IL-8 | VEGF | MMP-1 | MMP-2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Parameter | Inten | Distrib | Inten | Distrib | Inten | Distrib | Inten | Distrib | Inten | Distrib |
| POPF | ||||||||||
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| | 5 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 9 |
| | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| No POPF | ||||||||||
| | 2 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| | 4 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| P-value | 0.727 | 0.649 | 0.303 | 0.542 | 0.369 | 0.124 | 0.649 | 0.140 | 1.000 | |
| P-value | 0.558 | 0.649 | 0.303 | 0.719 | 0.369 | 0.469 | 0.276 | 1.000 | ||
| Int. × distrb | 0.337 | 0.470 | 0.47 | |||||||
Staining distributions and intensities were graded as described in the material and methods.
Fisher’s exact test;
exact Cochran-Armitage trend test in cases of three or four categories.
IL, interleukin; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; POPF, postoperative pancreatic fistula formation; Inten, intensity; Distrib, distribution; IHC, immunohistochemistry. The values in bold indicate statistically significant differences or close to being significant. Int × distrb is an additional scoring option in our analysis supporting the significance of the individual validations for intensity and for distribution.