Clinical strategies for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic malignancy to avoid unnecessary surgical resection

Primary hepatopancreatobiliary lymphoma: Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management

Primary hepatopancreatobiliary lymphoma (PHPBL) is extremely rare, which is defined as a lympho-proliferative disease confined to the hepatobiliary system and pancreas without any involvement of lymph nodes, bone marrow, or other organs. The clinical and imaging manifestations of PHPBL are variable and non-special, which are akin to those of tumors of the hepatobiliary and pancreatic systems. The overall prognosis and management of PHPBL differ from those of other tumors in the hepatobiliary system and pancreas. Proper diagnosis and prompt treatment are essential for improving clinical outcomes. Due to its rarity, the optimal treatment has not been issued. However, combination chemotherapy is considered as a standard treatment for them. This review provides an overview of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, pathology, and management of PHPBL and offers clinicians the diagnosis and management schedule for PHPBL.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Can Be Used to Rule Out Malignancy in Autoimmune Pancreatitis Patients

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review the suitability of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for ruling out malignancy in autoimmune pancreatitis patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 40 autoimmune pancreatitis patients (type 1:37 patients; type 2: two patients; possible autoimmune pancreatitis: one patient) who received EUS-FNA. Among the 40 autoimmune pancreatitis patients, 34 were not histopathologically diagnosed with autoimmune pancreatitis by EUS-FNA, and they were followed up for more than 6 months in our hospital. Moreover, 14 pancreatic cancer patients who were not diagnosed by EUS-FNA were selected as a control group. These 14 patients constituted 3.9% of the 360 pancreatic cancer patients who received EUS-FNA. We evaluated the prognoses of the 34 autoimmune pancreatitis patients and the clinical differences between these 34 autoimmune pancreatitis patients and the 14 pancreatic cancer patients.

RESULTS

All 34 autoimmune pancreatitis patients showed reduced pancreatic swelling. The main pancreatic duct dilation ( > 3 mm), the diameter of the main pancreatic duct, the capsule-like rim sign, and serum CA19-9 levels were significantly different between the autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer patients (2.9% versus 69.2%, P < .01; 1.7 ± 1.6 mm versus 6.8 ± 5.0 mm, P < .01; 79.4% versus 0%, P < .01; 41.4 ± 79.0 U/mL versus 2079.1 ± 275.3 U/mL, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all pancreatic cancers can be diagnosed by EUS-FNA. Furthermore, other clinical characteristics of pancreatic cancer undiagnosed by EUS-FNA were different from autoimmune pancreatitis undiagnosed by EUS-FNA. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided FNA can be used to rule out malignancy in autoimmune pancreatitis patients.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Serological characteristics of autoimmune pancreatitis and its differential diagnosis from pancreatic cancer by using a combination of carbohydrate antigen 19-9, globulin, eosinophils and hemoglobin

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a special type of chronic pancreatitis, which may be misdiagnosed as pancreatic carcinoma. This study aims to verify new biomarkers for AIP and propose a serological pattern to differentiate AIP from pancreatic adenocarcinoma with routinely performed tests. In this study, data of serum samples were collected and compared between 25 patients with AIP and 100 patients with pancreatic carcinoma. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and logistic regression was performed to evaluate the diagnostic effect of serum parameters in differentiating AIP from pancreatic carcinoma alone or in combination. Among several serum markers observed in the two groups, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (Ca19-9), globulin, eosinophils and hemoglobin were selected as the independent markers. Serum levels of Globulin, Eosinophil percentage in AIP group were significantly higher than in pancreatic cancer group (P<0.05), while hemoglobin and tumor marker CA19-9 levels were lower (P <0.05). The combination of these markers identified patients with AIP with 92% sensitivity and 79% specificity, which indicated relatively high diagnostic value. Elevated serum eosinophils, globulin, together with decreased hemoglobin level can be used as a preoperative indicator for AIP and can help to initiate diagnosis of AIP in time.

Pancreatic Follicular Lymphoma Presenting as Acute Pancreatitis: Report of a Case

Pancreatic B-cell lymphoma is rare; it accounts for 0.2% to 2.0% of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and constitutes less than 0.5% of all pancreatic malignancies. Most histologic types of the pancreatic lymphoma are diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma is quite rare. We report here a case of pancreatic follicular lymphoma that was initially detected by acute pancreatitis. This is the first reported case of pancreatic follicular lymphoma presenting with acute pancreatitis. A 71-year-old woman had epigastric and left upper quadrant abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) revealed features of acute pancreatitis. After standard therapy for pancreatitis, enhanced CT showed a pancreatic tumor (50 × 35 mm) in the body of the pancreas with gradual enhancement. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed a complete interruption of the pancreatic duct in the body, with mild dilation of the duct in the tail of the pancreas. Endoscopic ultrasonography revealed hypervascularity of the pancreatic tumor. The patient underwent distal pancreatectomy to remove the cause of pancreatitis and to disclose the diagnosis. Histologic examination revealed follicular lymphoma of pancreas. Despite recent improvement in clinical strategies, differential diagnosis between pancreatic lymphoma and pancreatic cancer is still difficult without histologic information. Pancreatic lymphoma should be considered as a differential diagnosis in a patient who initially presents with acute pancreatitis.

Diagnostic performance of serum IgG4 level for IgG4-related disease: a meta-analysis

An elevated serum IgG4 level is one of the most useful factors in the diagnosis of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD). In this study, we performed a meta-analysis of the published articles assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serum IgG4 concentrations for IgG4-RD. The databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant studies. Sensitivities and specificities of serum IgG4 in each study were calculated, and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model with a random effects model were employed to obtain the individual and pooled estimates of sensitivities and specificities. In total, twenty-three studies comprising 6048 patients with IgG4-RD were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 85% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 78-90%; the pooled specificity was 93% with a 95% CI of 90-95%. The HSROC curve for quantitative serum IgG4 lies closer to the upper left corner of the plot, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.97), which suggested a high diagnostic accuracy of serum IgG4 for the entity of IgG4-RD. Our study suggests that serum IgG4 has high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of IgG4-RD.

Serum IgG4 and IgG for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The correct diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a clinical challenge. Emerging published data on the accuracy of serum IgG4 and IgG for diagnosing AIP are inconsistent. This study was performed to better elucidate the accuracy of serum IgG4 and IgG in diagnosing AIP.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and some other databases was conducted before October 2014. The methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. Random-effects model was used to summarize the sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies on IgG4 and 8 studies on IgG were included. The summary estimates for serum IgG4 in distinguishing AIP from the overall controls, pancreatic cancer and ordinary chronic pancreatitis were as follows: sensitivity 0.74 (0.70-0.77), 0.73 (0.69-0.77) and 0.76 (0.72-0.80), respectively, specificity, 0.94 (0.93-0.95), 0.93 (0.91-0.95) and 0.96 (0.95-0.97), respectively. The summary estimates for serum IgG in distinguishing AIP from the overall controls and pancreatic cancer were as follows: sensitivity, 0.53 (0.47-0.59) and 0.51 (0.44-0.57), respectively, specificity, 0.87 (0.85-0.89) and 0.94 (0.91-0.96), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of serum IgG in distinguishing AIP from ordinary chronic pancreatitis was 0.657.

CONCLUSIONS

Both serum IgG4 and IgG have high specificity and relatively low sensitivity for diagnosing AIP. Besides, they are useful for distinguishing AIP from pancreatic cancer and ordinary chronic pancreatitis. To better elucidate the usefulness of serum IgG4 and IgG, further studies are needed.

Laparoscopic and Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy Plays a Central Role for the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in a Single-Center Study From Denmark

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to describe the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) in Denmark and to test the usefulness of the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC) on a geographically well-defined cohort.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with AIP at Odense University Hospital from 2007 to 2013 were included (n = 30; mean follow-up, 26.2 months). Data from laparoscopic or percutaneous ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB), resection specimens, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-guided CNB, computed tomography, serum immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), and pancreatography were retrospectively analyzed according to ICDC.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were diagnosed with type 1, 8 with type 2, and 2 with not otherwise specified AIP. Twenty-eight patients (93%) could correctly be classified when ICDC were retrospectively applied. Serum IgG4 was elevated in 44% of type 1 and 0% of type 2. Other organ involvement was observed in 40% of type 1 and 13% of type 2, but inflammatory bowel disease only in type 2 (P = 0.001). One patient had IgG4-related chronic perisplenitis as a hitherto undescribed manifestation of IgG4-related disease. Nineteen (91%) of 21 biopsied patients had diagnostic CNB features of AIP. Computed tomography, EUS, and pancreatography showed features highly suggestive or supportive of AIP in 68%, 72%, and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic or percutaneous ultrasound-guided CNB had the highest sensitivity for AIP. The ICDC could retrospectively correctly diagnose 93% of the patients.

Current status of research on autoimmune pancreatitis

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a form of chronic pancreatitis characterized clinically by frequent presentation with obstructive jaundice, histologically by lymphoplasmacytic infiltration with fibrosis, and therapeutically by a dramatic response to steroids. AIP have recently been classified into two subtypes, lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis (LPSP) and idiopathic duct centric pancreatitis (IDCP). The pathogenesis of AIP may involve genetic susceptibility, autoantibodies, molecular mimicry, imbalance of T-cell-mediated immune regulation, and gene mutation. In this article, we will systematically review typical and atypical clinical, imaging and histopathological features of AIP, with an emphasis placed on the advances in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease.