| Literature DB >> 30637259 |
Xu Ren1, Chun-Lan Zhu2, Xu-Fu Qin2, Hong Jiang3, Tian Xia4, Yong-Ping Qu5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct (IPNB) is pathologically similar to intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). However, there are several significant differences between them. The rate of IPMN associated with extrapancreatic malignancies has been reported to range from 10%-40%, and it may occasionally be complicated with the presence of fistulas. IPMN associated with malignant IPNB is extremely rare and only nine cases have been reported in the literature. CASEEntities:
Keywords: Case report; Co-occurrence; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Extrapancreatic malignancies; Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas; Intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct; Pancreatobiliary fistula; SpyGlass cholangiopancreatoscopy
Year: 2019 PMID: 30637259 PMCID: PMC6327132 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.337
Figure 1Image acquired during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Duodenoscopy revealed duodenal major papilla with fish eye-like appearance.
Figure 2Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography images. A: Cholangiogram showed common bile duct stricture with proximal bile duct dilation and a metal stent that displaced into the intrahepatic bile duct (indicated by arrows); B: Pancreatography revealed a pancreatobiliary fistula connected to the pancreatic and bile duct (indicated by arrows).
Figure 3SpyGlass images. A: Multiple fish egg-like protrusions in the common bile duct; B: A cauliflower-like protrusion with vascular images in the common bile duct.
Figure 4SpyGlass images. A: Multiple high papillary protrusions in the main pancreatic duct; B: Leaf-like projections with vascular images in the main pancreatic duct.
Reported synchronous intraductal papillary neoplasms in the biliary and pancreatic duct
| Joo et al[ | 2000 | M | 60 | Left IHD | LGD | Branch duct | LGD | No |
| Ishida et al[ | 2002 | M | 67 | B1 | Without dysplasia | Branch duct | Without dysplasia | No |
| Yamaguchi et al[ | 2005 | M | 69 | Left IHD | IC | Branch duct | MIC | No |
| Zalinski et al[ | 2007 | F | 65 | Bilateral | IHD | Main duct | HGD | No |
| Park et al[ | 2010 | M | 67 | Left IHD | LGD | Mixed duct | LGD | No |
| Valente et al[ | 2012 | M | 76 | Right IHD | IC | Branch duct | LGD | No |
| Xu et al[ | 2012 | F | 68 | Left IHD | LGD | Branch duct | Without dysplasia | No |
| Moon et al[ | 2014 | F | 66 | Left IHD | HGD | Main duct | HGD | No |
| Bansal et al[ | 2016 | M | 70 | Right IHD | IC | Main duct | IC | No |
| Ren X et al | 2018 | M | 52 | CBD | MIC | Main duct | LGD | Yes |
IHD: Intrahepatic duct; LGD: Low-grade dysplasia; HGD: High-grade dysplasia; B1: Caudate lobe bile duct; IC: Invasive carcinoma; MIC: Microinvasive carcinoma; CBD: Common bile duct.