"Mass-forming" pancreatitis masquerades as pancreatic carcinoma

Clinical Value of Mean Platelet Volume to Platelet Ratio (MPR) in Distinguishing Mass-Forming Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Correctly distinguishing mass-forming chronic pancreatitis (MFCP) from pancreatic cancer (PC) is of clinical significance to determine optimal therapy and improve the prognosis of patients. According to research, inflammation status in PC is different from that in MFCP. Mean platelet volume/platelet ratio (MPR) is a platelet-related inflammation index which has been proven to be valuable in the diagnosis and prognosis of various malignant cancers due to the change in mean platelet volume and platelet count under abnormal inflammatory conditions caused by tumors. Thus, we conducted this study to investigate the clinical value of MPR in distinguishing MFCP from PC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 422 patients who were suspected to have PC during imaging examination at our department from January 2012 to December 2021. Included patients were divided into the PC (n = 383) and MFCP groups (n = 39), according to their pathological diagnosis. Clinical data including MPR were compared within these two groups and the diagnostic value was explored using logistic regression. The ROC curve between MPR and PC occurrence was drawn and an optimal cut-off value was obtained. Propensity score matching was applied to match MFCP patients with PC patients according to their age and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9). Differences in MPR between groups were compared to verify our findings.

RESULTS

The area under the ROC curve between MPR and PC occurrence was 0.728 (95%CI: 0.652-0.805) and the optimal cut-off value was 0.045 with a 69.2% sensitivity and 68.0% accuracy. For all the included patients, MPRs in the MFCP and PC groups were 0.04 (0.04, 0.06) and 0.06 (0.04, 0.07), respectively (p = 0.005). In patients with matching propensity scores, MPRs in the MFCP and PC groups were 0.04 (0.03, 0.06) and 0.06 (0.05, 0.08), respectively (p = 0.005). Multiple logistic regression in all included patients and matched patients confirmed MPR and CA19-9 as independent risk markers in distinguishing PC. Combining CA19-9 with MPR can increase the sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosing PC to 93.2% and 89.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MPR in PC patients is significantly higher than that in MFCP patients and may be adopted as a potential indicator to distinguish MFCP and PC. Its differential diagnosis capacity can be improved if combined with CA19-9.

Evaluation of pCLE in the bile duct: final results of EMID study : pCLE: impact in the management of bile duct strictures

INTRODUCTION

Pre-operative histology of bile duct stenosis is associated with low accuracy. Probe confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) enables optical biopsy or in vivo histology. The definitive results of the EMID study are presented here, comparing optical biopsies with definitive histology.

AIMS AND METHODS

Sixty one patients with a biliary stricture without any previous histology were included (July 2007-May 2012). An endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) had to be conducted before the ERCP procedure. pCLE was done using CholangioFlex during the ERCP procedure. Results were compared to those of definitive histology obtained by biopsy or surgery in case of malignant lesions, and by surgery or 1-year follow-up in case of benign lesions.

RESULTS

Six patients were excluded because no definitive histology was available. There were 41 malignant lesions and 14 benign lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy with combination of pCLE with endobiliary and EUS biopsies were 100, 71, 91, 100, and 93%, respectively (with a significant increase of accuracy compared with endobiliary and EUS biopsies without pCLE, p = 0.03). 19 patients had a biliary stricture without individualized mass (6 malignant lesions, 13 benign lesions). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for pCLE were 83, 77, 62, 91, and 79%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for combination of pCLE with endobiliary and EUS biopsies were 100, 69, 60, 100, and 79%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The addition of a pCLE procedure in the diagnostic histologic examination of a biliary stricture permits a significant increase in diagnostic reliability and allows for a VPN of 100%.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma versus chronic pancreatitis: differentiation with triple-phase helical CT

BACKGROUND

Chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic adenocarcinoma often show similar clinical and imaging appearances. This study aims to differentiate chronic pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma by defining enhancement patterns in both pathologic conditions during triple-phase helical CT.

METHODS

The study included 42 patients with chronic pancreatitis and 85 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. CT images obtained according to protocol A (scan delays, 30, 60, and 150 s; 300 mg I/mL contrast material) or protocol B (scan delays, 40, 70, and 150 s; 370 mg I/mL contrast material) were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean contrast enhancement value of normal pancreas peaked in the first phase (early-washout pattern) while that of chronic pancreatitis peaked in the second phase (delayed-washout pattern), and that of pancreatic adenocarcinoma gradually rose (increasing pattern) in both protocols. Diagnostic indices for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were 82.4% and 94.1% for sensitivity, 83% and 83% for specificity, 82.7% and 90.4% for accuracy in protocols A and B, respectively, when differentiation between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed based on time-attenuation curve patterns.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that time attenuation curves obtained from triple-phase helical CT in protocol B provide useful information in differentiating chronic pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Carcinoma of the head of the pancreas versus chronic pancreatitis: diagnostic dilemma with significant consequences

Although carcinoma of the head of the pancreas and chronic pancreatitis are usually easy to distinguish on clinical presentation and subsequent investigation, there can be enough overlap in the presenting features and on imaging studies that differentiation is sometimes extremely difficult. As this confusion may lead to either major pancreatic resection for benign disease, or rejection of surgery for a potentially curable lesion, all attempts to arrive at a correct diagnosis should be pursued. This article provides an update of investigative techniques in pancreatic disease, and offers an algorithm for the clinical approach to the patient who appears to present with this diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma.