PURPOSE: Differentiating intra-pancreatic distal bile duct carcinoma invading the pancreas from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) surrounding the distal common bile duct (CBD) can be challenging. Our aim is to identify clinical, morphological, and genetic features characteristic of intra-pancreatic distal bile duct carcinoma. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data of 550 patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy between September 1990 and May 2008 were reviewed. KRAS status was assessed with mass-spectrometric genotyping. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients with intra-pancreatic adenocarcinomas surrounding the CBD were identified; slides were available for 80. Two relationships with the CBD were recognized as follows: type I (n = 42): cancer grew concentrically around the CBD and type II (n = 38): cancer grew asymmetrically around the CBD. Type I adenocarcinomas were associated with high-grade biliary dysplasia (45 vs. 13 %; p = 0.003); type II were associated with high-grade pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (PanIN-2 or -3) (39 vs. 9 %; p = 0.003). Type I tumors had a better median survival (46 months) compared to type II (23 months) or other PDAC (20 months) (p < 0.001). Mutated KRAS was identified in 3/26 (11 %) type I and 20/21 (95 %) type II cancers (p < 0.001). There may be poorer survival in the presence of a KRAS mutation than wild-type KRAS (22.9 vs. 41.6 months; p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Distal periductal adenocarcinomas fall into two distinct groups with biologic, morphologic and genetic differences. Those growing symmetrically around the CBD are more likely to be intra-pancreatic distal bile duct carcinomas and are associated with improved survival whereas cancers with asymmetric growth are more likely to have KRAS mutations and to be PDACs. These findings facilitate a more accurate histopathological diagnosis, which could improve patient selection for therapeutic trials.
PURPOSE: Differentiating intra-pancreatic distal bile duct carcinoma invading the pancreas from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) surrounding the distal common bile duct (CBD) can be challenging. Our aim is to identify clinical, morphological, and genetic features characteristic of intra-pancreatic distal bile duct carcinoma. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data of 550 patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy between September 1990 and May 2008 were reviewed. KRAS status was assessed with mass-spectrometric genotyping. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients with intra-pancreatic adenocarcinomas surrounding the CBD were identified; slides were available for 80. Two relationships with the CBD were recognized as follows: type I (n = 42): cancer grew concentrically around the CBD and type II (n = 38): cancer grew asymmetrically around the CBD. Type I adenocarcinomas were associated with high-grade biliary dysplasia (45 vs. 13 %; p = 0.003); type II were associated with high-grade pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (PanIN-2 or -3) (39 vs. 9 %; p = 0.003). Type I tumors had a better median survival (46 months) compared to type II (23 months) or other PDAC (20 months) (p < 0.001). Mutated KRAS was identified in 3/26 (11 %) type I and 20/21 (95 %) type II cancers (p < 0.001). There may be poorer survival in the presence of a KRAS mutation than wild-type KRAS (22.9 vs. 41.6 months; p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Distal periductal adenocarcinomas fall into two distinct groups with biologic, morphologic and genetic differences. Those growing symmetrically around the CBD are more likely to be intra-pancreatic distal bile duct carcinomas and are associated with improved survival whereas cancers with asymmetric growth are more likely to have KRAS mutations and to be PDACs. These findings facilitate a more accurate histopathological diagnosis, which could improve patient selection for therapeutic trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Intra-pancreatic distal bile duct carcinoma; KRAS; Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: A M Rijken; J Hu; E J Perlman; L A Morsberger; P Long; S E Kern; R H Hruban; C J Yeo; C A Griffin Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: Juan Valle; Harpreet Wasan; Daniel H Palmer; David Cunningham; Alan Anthoney; Anthony Maraveyas; Srinivasan Madhusudan; Tim Iveson; Sharon Hughes; Stephen P Pereira; Michael Roughton; John Bridgewater Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Taylor S Riall; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Jordan M Winter; Kurtis A Campbell; Ralph H Hruban; David Chang; Charles J Yeo Journal: Surgery Date: 2006-08-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Peter J Allen; Anne S Reiner; Mithat Gonen; David K Klimstra; Leslie H Blumgart; Murray F Brennan; Michael D'Angelica; Ronald Dematteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2008 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: A Nakeeb; H A Pitt; T A Sohn; J Coleman; R A Abrams; S Piantadosi; R H Hruban; K D Lillemoe; C J Yeo; J L Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michelle L DeOliveira; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Farin Kamangar; Jordan M Winter; Keith D Lillemoe; Michael A Choti; Charles J Yeo; Richard D Schulick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Matthew H Kulke; Margaret A Tempero; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna R Hollis; Hedy L Kindler; Michael Cusnir; Peter C Enzinger; Stefan M Gorsch; Richard M Goldberg; Robert J Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Raul S Gonzalez; Pelin Bagci; Olca Basturk; Michelle D Reid; Serdar Balci; Jessica H Knight; So Yeon Kong; Bahar Memis; Kee-Taek Jang; Nobuyuki Ohike; Takuma Tajiri; Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Grace E Kim; Jeanette D Cheng; N Volkan Adsay Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 7.842