Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 19, Issue 9, pp 1603–1609 | Cite as

Pancreatic Resection for Side-Branch Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (SB-IPMN): a Contemporary Single-Institution Experience

  • John D. Dortch
  • John A. Stauffer
  • Horacio J. Asbun
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Given the malignant potential of main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (M-IPMN), surgical resection is generally indicated. With regard to side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (SB-IPMN), resection vs. observation is a topic of debate. Further review of SB-IPMN is necessary to clarify appropriate management. The primary focus of this project is to determine the incidence of malignant final pathology for patients undergoing surgery for isolated SB-IPMN with non-malignant fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. We also sought to describe the relationship between factors considered in the international consensus guidelines and final pathologic outcome.

Methods

The study is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgical resection for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) from 2002 to 2013 at our institution. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of isolated SB-IPMN and FNA results for non-malignant cytology were selected among this surgical cohort for further analysis of preoperative clinical characteristics and outcomes.

Results

A total of 137 patients undergoing resection for IPMN were identified. Of these, 81 patients (59 %) had a component of M-IPMN or invasive disease on FNA, leaving 66 (46 %) patients with SB-IPMN and non-malignant cytology. Invasive adenocarcinoma was found in 8/66 (12 %) patients and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in 4/66 (8 %) patients. The mean [SD] diameter of benign SB-IPMN was 2.0 cm [1.1] (range 0.3–5.7) vs. that of HGD/invasive disease which was 3.1 cm [1.3] (range 1.5–6.0; P = 0.014). Of the 12 patients found to have HGD or invasive disease, symptoms, mural nodules, and septations were found in 7 (58 %), 5 (42 %), and 6 (50 %), respectively. Tumor staging were as follows: IA (2), IB (2), 2A (4), and 2B (1).

Conclusion

With proper selection criteria, SB-IPMN is associated with a low rate of invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at the time of resection. Nevertheless, given the demonstrated incidence of malignancy, appropriate operative candidates should undergo resection.

Keywords

Pancreas Pancreatectomy Pancreas surgery Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm Side-branch IPMN 

Notes

Financial and Material Support

No external financial or material support was provided for this study.

Study Funding

None

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interest.

Authors’ Contribution

Dr. Dortch had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data, accuracy of the data analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. Dortch, Stauffer, and Asbun are responsible for the concept and design of the study and the critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dortch, Stauffer, Asbun, Bhupendra Rawal, and M.S. are responsible for the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.

References

  1. 1.
    Brugge WR, Lauwers GY, Sahani D, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Warshaw AL. Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(12):1218–1226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tanaka M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Adsay V, et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012;12(3):183–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tanaka M. International consensus guidelines for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 2007;104(9):1338–1343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walsh RM, Vogt DP, Henderson JM, et al. Management of suspected pancreatic cystic neoplasms based on cyst size. Surgery. 2008;144(4):677–684; discussion 684–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wong J, Weber J, Centeno BA, et al. High-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma are frequent in side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm measuring less than 3 cm on endoscopic ultrasound. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(1):78–84; discussion p 84–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maguchi H, Tanno S, Mizuno N, et al. Natural history of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: a multicenter study in Japan. Pancreas. 2011;40(3):364–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schnelldorfer T, Sarr MG, Nagorney DM, et al. Experience with 208 resections for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas. Arch Surg. 2008;143(7):639–646; discussion 646.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ono J, Yaeger KA, Genevay M, Mino-Kenudson M, Brugge WR, Pitman MB. Cytological analysis of small branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms provides a more accurate risk assessment of malignancy than symptoms. Cytojournal. 2011;8:21.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritz S, Klauss M, Bergmann F, et al., et al. Small (Sendai negative) branch-duct IPMNs: not harmless. Ann Surg. 2012;256(2):313–320.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahora K, Mino-Kenudson M, Brugge W, et al. Branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: does cyst size change the tip of the scale? A critical analysis of the revised international consensus guidelines in a large single-institutional series. Ann Surg. 2013;258(3):466–475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goh BK, Tan DM, Thng CH, et al. Are the Sendai and Fukuoka consensus guidelines for cystic mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas useful in the initial triage of all suspected pancreatic cystic neoplasms? A single-institution experience with 317 surgically treated patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(6):1919–1926.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Correa-Gallego C, Do R, Lafemina J, et al. Predicting dysplasia and invasive carcinoma in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: development of a preoperative nomogram. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(13):4348–4355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salvia R, Partelli S, Crippa S, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas with multifocal involvement of branch ducts. Am J Surg. 2009;198(5):709–714.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pelaez-Luna M, Chari ST, Smyrk TC, et al. Do consensus indications for resection in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm predict malignancy? A study of 147 patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(8):1759–1764.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jang JY, Kim SW, Lee SE, et al. Treatment guidelines for branch duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: when can we operate or observe? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(1):199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goh BK, Tan DM, Ho MM, Lim TK, Chung AY, Ooi LL. Utility of the Sendai consensus guidelines for branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(7):1350–1357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tang RS, Weinberg B, Dawson DW, et al. Evaluation of the guidelines for management of pancreatic branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(7):815–819; quiz 719.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodriguez JR, Salvia R, Crippa S, et al. Branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: observations in 145 patients who underwent resection. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(1):72–79; quiz 309–310.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goh BK. Sendai consensus guidelines for branch-duct IPMN: guidelines are just guidelines. Ann Surg. 2014 Jan 16. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:  10.1097/SLA.0000000000000546.
  20. 20.
    Correa-Gallego C, Brennan MF, Fong Y, et al. Liberal resection for (presumed) Sendai negative branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms—also not harmless. Ann Surg. 2014;259(3):e45.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barron MR, Roch AM, Waters JA, et al. Does preoperative cross-sectional imaging accurately predict main duct involvement in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm? J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(3):447–455; discussion 5455–5456.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kubo H, Nakamura K, Itaba S, et al. Differential diagnosis of cystic tumors of the pancreas by endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopy. 2009;41(8):684–689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamata K, Kitano M, Kudo M, et al. Value of EUS in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Endoscopy. 2014;46(1):22–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ohno E, Hirooka Y, Itoh A, et al. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: differentiation of malignant and benign tumors by endoscopic ultrasound findings of mural nodules. Ann Surg. 2009;249(4):628–634.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • John D. Dortch
    • 1
  • John A. Stauffer
    • 1
  • Horacio J. Asbun
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryMayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations