BACKGROUND: International consensus guidelines 2012 for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN), defined two characteristics: high-risk stigmata (HRS) and worrisome features (WF). Patients with WF require detailed examination including cytology. However, routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for cytology is not recommended in the guidelines due to risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Our aim was to clarify what types of IPMN were susceptible for PEP and gain benefit of ERCP. PATIENTS/ METHODS: We examined 138 consecutive IPMN patients who underwent ERCP in our hospital, retrospectively. Patients were classified into HRS, WF and the others (N) based on imaging findings before ERCP. We assessed pancreatic juice cytology, PEP frequency and rate of malignant IPMN at 12 months after ERCP. RESULTS: The rates of cytological malignancy were 0% (N), 4.8% (WF) and 19.5% (HRS). The PEP frequency was 14.5%, and these risk factors were branch duct (BD)-IPMN, body/tail cysts and brush cytology by multivariate logistic analysis. The rates of malignant IPMN were 0% (N), 16.4% (WF) and 48.8% (HRS). Furthermore, we examined patients with WF in detail. The PEP frequency/rate of malignancy were 3.6%/23.1% in patients with main pancreatic duct (MPD) dilatation (5-9 mm), and the sensitivity of cytology was 33.3%. On the other hand, the PEP frequency/rate of malignancy were 17.2%/0% in patients with BD-IPMN fulfilling only cyst size over 30 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Routine ERCP for IPMN, especially for BD-IPMN, is not recommended. ERCP may be beneficial for WF patients with MPD dilatation based on a balance between PEP risk and presence of malignancy.
BACKGROUND: International consensus guidelines 2012 for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN), defined two characteristics: high-risk stigmata (HRS) and worrisome features (WF). Patients with WF require detailed examination including cytology. However, routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for cytology is not recommended in the guidelines due to risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Our aim was to clarify what types of IPMN were susceptible for PEP and gain benefit of ERCP. PATIENTS/ METHODS: We examined 138 consecutive IPMN patients who underwent ERCP in our hospital, retrospectively. Patients were classified into HRS, WF and the others (N) based on imaging findings before ERCP. We assessed pancreatic juice cytology, PEP frequency and rate of malignant IPMN at 12 months after ERCP. RESULTS: The rates of cytological malignancy were 0% (N), 4.8% (WF) and 19.5% (HRS). The PEP frequency was 14.5%, and these risk factors were branch duct (BD)-IPMN, body/tail cysts and brush cytology by multivariate logistic analysis. The rates of malignant IPMN were 0% (N), 16.4% (WF) and 48.8% (HRS). Furthermore, we examined patients with WF in detail. The PEP frequency/rate of malignancy were 3.6%/23.1% in patients with main pancreatic duct (MPD) dilatation (5-9 mm), and the sensitivity of cytology was 33.3%. On the other hand, the PEP frequency/rate of malignancy were 17.2%/0% in patients with BD-IPMN fulfilling only cyst size over 30 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Routine ERCP for IPMN, especially for BD-IPMN, is not recommended. ERCP may be beneficial for WF patients with MPD dilatation based on a balance between PEP risk and presence of malignancy.