Relative Accuracy of CT and MRI for Characterization of Cystic Pancreatic Masses

Multi-Phase CT-Based Radiomics Nomogram for Discrimination Between Pancreatic Serous Cystic Neoplasm From Mucinous Cystic Neoplasm

Purpose

This study aimed to develop and verify a multi-phase (MP) computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics nomogram to differentiate pancreatic serous cystic neoplasms (SCNs) from mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), and to compare the diagnostic efficacy of radiomics models for different phases of CT scans.

Materials and Methods

A total of 170 patients who underwent surgical resection between January 2011 and December 2018, with pathologically confirmed pancreatic cystic neoplasms (SCN=115, MCN=55) were included in this single-center retrospective study. Radiomics features were extracted from plain scan (PS), arterial phase (AP), and venous phase (VP) CT scans. Algorithms were performed to identify the optimal features to build a radiomics signature (Radscore) for each phase. All features from these three phases were analyzed to develop the MP-Radscore. A combined model comprised the MP-Radscore and imaging features from which a nomogram was developed. The accuracy of the nomogram was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration tests, and decision curve analysis.

Results

For each scan phase, 1218 features were extracted, and the optimal ones were selected to construct the PS-Radscore (11 features), AP-Radscore (11 features), and VP-Radscore (12 features). The MP-Radscore (14 features) achieved better performance based on ROC curve analysis than any single phase did [area under the curve (AUC), training cohort: MP-Radscore 0.89, PS-Radscore 0.78, AP-Radscore 0.83, VP-Radscore 0.85; validation cohort: MP-Radscore 0.88, PS-Radscore 0.77, AP-Radscore 0.83, VP-Radscore 0.84]. The combination nomogram performance was excellent, surpassing those of all other nomograms in both the training cohort (AUC, 0.91) and validation cohort (AUC, 0.90). The nomogram also performed well in the calibration and decision curve analyses.

Conclusions

Radiomics for arterial and venous single-phase models outperformed the plain scan model. The combination nomogram that incorporated the MP-Radscore, tumor location, and cystic number had the best discriminatory performance and showed excellent accuracy for differentiating SCN from MCN.

Discrimination of Pancreatic Serous Cystadenomas From Mucinous Cystadenomas With CT Textural Features: Based on Machine Learning

Objectives: This study was designed to estimate the performance of textural features derived from contrast-enhanced CT in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic serous cystadenomas and pancreatic mucinous cystadenomas.

Methods: Fifty-three patients with pancreatic serous cystadenoma and 25 patients with pancreatic mucinous cystadenoma were included. Textural parameters of the pancreatic neoplasms were extracted using the LIFEx software, and were analyzed using random forest and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) methods. Patients were randomly divided into training and validation sets with a ratio of 4:1; random forest method was adopted to constructed a diagnostic prediction model. Scoring metrics included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC.

Results: Radiomics features extracted from contrast-enhanced CT were able to discriminate pancreatic mucinous cystadenomas from serous cystadenomas in both the training group (slice thickness of 2 mm, AUC 0.77, sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.83, accuracy 0.85; slice thickness of 5 mm, AUC 0.72, sensitivity 0.90, specificity 0.84, accuracy 0.86) and the validation group (slice thickness of 2 mm, AUC 0.66, sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.71, accuracy 0.74; slice thickness of 5 mm, AUC 0.75, sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.83, accuracy 0.83).

Conclusions: In conclusion, our study provided preliminary evidence that textural features derived from CT images were useful in differential diagnosis of pancreatic mucinous cystadenomas and serous cystadenomas, which may provide a non-invasive approach to determine whether surgery is needed in clinical practice. However, multicentre studies with larger sample size are needed to confirm these results.

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.

"Incidentalomas" on abdominal and pelvic CT in emergency radiology: literature review and current management recommendations

The purpose of this article is to familiarize radiologists and clinicians with a subset of common and uncommon incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic computed tomography examinations, including hepatic, splenic, renal, adrenal, pancreatic, aortic/iliac arterial, gynecological, and a few other miscellaneous findings, with an emphasis on "incidentalomas" discovered in the emergency setting. In addition, we will review the complex problem of diagnosing such entities, and provide current management recommendations. Representative case examples, which we have encountered in our clinical practices, will be demonstrated.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology, Carcinoembryonic Antigen, and Amylase in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of cytology, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and amylase levels in the preoperative diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs).

METHODS

An international registry was started in 2005 and included patients with clinically suspected IPMNs. Those who underwent surgery and had preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration were selected for the study.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty patients were included. Cytological analysis for neoplastic cells in IPMNs showed high specificity (87.8%) but low sensitivity (39.4%). The median CEA level was 525.5 ng/mL (n = 78) in IPMNs versus 9.7 ng/mL in nonmucinous cysts (n = 6), showing an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.87. The optimal cutoff CEA value for distinguishing IPMN from nonmucinous cysts was 129 ng/mL. At this level, the sensitivity was 76.9%, and specificity was 83.3%, yielding a positive predictive value of 95.9% and a negative predictive value of 41.9%. Carcinoembryonic antigen was a poor predictor of neoplasia in IPMNs (AUC = 0.55). Amylase did not distinguish IPMNs from mucinous cystadenomas (MCAs) (median, 3759 U/L [n = 28 IPMNs] and 497 U/L [n = 3 MCAs], AUC = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Cytology has a limited role because of its lack of sensitivity. Carcinoembryonic antigen modestly differentiated between mucinous and nonmucinous lesions. Amylase did not distinguish IPMNs versus MCAs.

Moving beyond morphology: new insights into the characterization and management of cystic pancreatic lesions

The frequency of detection of cystic pancreatic lesions with cross-sectional imaging, particularly with multidetector computed tomography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and MR cholangiopancreatography, is increasing, and many of these cystic pancreatic lesions are being detected incidentally in asymptomatic patients. Because there is considerable overlap in the cross-sectional imaging findings of cystic pancreatic lesions, and because many of these lesions being detected are smaller than 3 cm in diameter and lack any specific cross-sectional imaging features, it has become difficult to make informed decisions about patient management when the precise diagnosis remains uncertain. This article presents the limitations of cross-sectional imaging in patients with cystic pancreatic lesions, details advances in knowledge of the genomic and epigenomic changes that lead to progression of carcinogenesis, outlines the current understanding of the natural history of mucinous cystic lesions, and includes the current use and future potential of novel tumor markers and molecular analysis to characterize cystic pancreatic lesions more precisely. The need to move beyond cross-sectional imaging morphology and toward the use of new techniques to diagnose these lesions accurately is emphasized. An algorithm that uses these techniques is proposed and will hopefully lead to improved patient management.

Differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from chronic pancreatitis by PAM4 immunohistochemistry

CONTEXT

PAM4 is a monoclonal antibody that shows high specificity for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its neoplastic precursor lesions. A PAM4-based serum immunoassay is able to detect 71% of early-stage patients and 91% with advanced disease. However, approximately 20% of patients diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis (CP) are also positive for circulating PAM4 antigen. The specificity of the PAM4 antibody is critical to the interpretation of the serum-based and immunohistochemical assays for detection of PDAC.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether PAM4 can differentiate PDAC from nonneoplastic lesions of the pancreas.

DESIGN

Tissue microarrays of PDAC (N = 43) and surgical specimens from CP (N = 32) and benign cystic lesions (N = 19) were evaluated for expression of the PAM4 biomarker, MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9.

RESULTS

PAM4 and monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) to MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9 were each reactive with the majority of PDAC cases; however, PAM4 was the only monoclonal antibody not to react with adjacent, nonneoplastic parenchyma. Although PAM4 labeled 19% (6 of 32) of CP specimens, reactivity was restricted to pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia associated with CP; inflamed tissues were negative in all cases. In contrast, MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9 were detected in 90%, 78%, 97%, and 100% of CP, respectively, with reactivity also present in nonneoplastic inflamed tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

PAM4 was the only monoclonal antibody able to differentiate PDAC (and pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia precursor lesions) from benign, nonneoplastic tissues of the pancreas. These results suggest the use of PAM4 for evaluation of tissue specimens, and support its role as an immunoassay for detection of PDAC.

Imaging of indeterminate pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cystic lesions are an increasing problem and investigation of these cysts can be fraught with difficulty. There is currently no gold standard for diagnosis or surveillance. This review was undertaken to determine the present reliability of the characterisation, assessment of malignant potential and diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions using available imaging modalities.

METHODS

A Medline search using the terms 'pancreatic', 'pancreas', 'cyst', 'cystic', 'lesions', 'imaging', 'PET'. 'CT', 'MRI' and 'EUS' was performed. Publications were screened to include studies examining the performance of CT, MRI, MRCP, EUS and 18-FDG PET in the determination of benign or malignant cysts, cyst morphology and specific diagnoses.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. 18-FDG PET had a sensitivity and specificity of 57.0-94.0% and 65.0-97.0% and an accuracy of 94% in determining benign versus malignant cysts. CT had a sensitivity and specificity of 36.3-71.4% and 63.9-100% in determining benign disease but had an accuracy of making a specific diagnosis of 39.0-44.7%. MRI had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.4-100.0% and 89.7% in assessing main pancreatic duct communication.

CONCLUSION

CT is a good quality initial investigation to be used in conjunction with clinical data. MRCP can add useful information regarding MPD communication but should be used judiciously. PET may have a role in equivocal cases to determine malignancy. Further examination of CT-PET in this patient group is warranted.

Incidentally discovered benign pancreatic cystic neoplasms not communicating with the ductal system: MR/MRCP imaging appearance and evolution

PURPOSE

The authors sought to determine magnetic resonance/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MR/MRCP) imaging features of incidentally discovered benign, noncommunicating cystic neoplasms (BNCNs) of the pancreas to assess their evolution over time and identify MR/MRCP imaging features predictive of tumour growth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study, so informed consent was waived. Sixty-two patients with a diagnosis of BNCN were assessed. Inclusion criteria were incidentally discovered cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with nonmeasurable walls, no mural nodules and no communication with the pancreatic ductal system and who underwent ≥ 1 MR/MRCP examination. Image analysis, performed at diagnosis and during follow-up, included macroscopic pattern (microcystic/macrocystic/mixed), number of cysts (unicystic/oligocystic/multicystic), BNCN maximum diameter and tumour growth rates.

RESULTS

A total of 64 BNCNs was detected. Macroscopic pattern was mixed in 31/64 (48%), microcystic in 28/64 (44%) and macrocystic in 5/64 (8%). BNCNs appeared multicystic in 38/64 (59%) cases, oligocystic in 22/64 (35%) and unicystic in 4/64(6%). All qualitative parameters remained unchanged during follow-up. At diagnosis, the median maximum BNCN diameter was 35.0 mm and 38.0 mm at the final examination (p<0.001). BNCNs showed a tumour growth rate of 2 mm/year.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed and microcystic patterns were the most common, accounting for 48% and 44% of cases, respectively, and showed no change over time. MR/MRCP features predictive of lesion enlargement were a mixed/ macrocystic pattern, and lesion size was >3 cm (both p<0.001).

Prospective evaluation of reader performance on MDCT in characterization of cystic pancreatic lesions and prediction of cyst biologic aggressiveness

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of MDCT features of pancreatic cystic lesions in cyst characterization and in predicting cyst biologic aggressiveness.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, 114 patients (40 men and 74 women; age range, 23-89 years) with 130 cystic lesions (size range, 31-160 mm) in the pancreas underwent contrast-enhanced dual-phase (n = 92) and portal phase (n = 22) examinations with 16- or 64-MDCT scanners. Using defined morphologic features of cystic lesions on MDCT, two readers performed blinded evaluations for cystic characterization and predicting biologic aggressiveness (invasive lesions, carcinoma in situ, and moderate grade dysplasias) before pancreatic surgery. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of MDCT using pathologic evaluation of the surgical specimen as a reference standard.

RESULTS

On the basis of MDCT features, the radiologic accuracy (reader 1 and reader 2) for stratifying lesions into mucinous and nonmucinous subtypes was 85% and 82% and for recognizing cysts with aggressive biology was 86% and 85%, respectively. Predictive values of MDCT were superior for lesions > 30 mm and nonmucinous lesions. Features favoring aggressive biology were main pancreatic duct dilation > 10 mm (p < 0.0001), biliary obstruction (p=0.01), mural nodule (p < 0.0001), main-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (p < 0.0001), and advanced age (p = 0.0001). Sensitivity of detecting morphologic features was higher with the dual-phase pancreatic protocol CT.

CONCLUSION

Morphologic features of pancreatic cystic lesions on MDCT allow reliable characterization into mucinous and nonmucinous subtypes and enable prediction of biologic aggressiveness.

Diagnosis and treatment of cystic pancreatic tumors

Cystic pancreatic tumors (CPTs) have more frequently been identified in the last decade because of increased use of cross-sectional abdominal imaging. Although serous CPTs follow an indolent course and do not necessarily require surgical resection or long-term follow-up, mucinous CPTs (mucinous cystic neoplasms and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms) have a greater risk for malignancy. Although most CPTs are initially detected with imaging modalities such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, these tests alone rarely permit an accurate clinical diagnosis. Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided, fine-needle aspiration allow real-time examination and biopsy analysis of CPTs, which increases diagnostic accuracy because cytopathology features and tumor markers in cyst fluid can be analyzed. Management of patients with mucinous CPTs by surgery or imaging surveillance is controversial, partially because of limited information about disease progression and the complexities of surgical resection. We review approaches to diagnosis and management of common CPTs.

Imaging of benign and malignant cystic pancreatic lesions and a strategy for follow up

Cystic lesions in a variety of organs are being increasingly recognized as an incidental finding on cross-sectional imaging. These lesions can be benign, premalignant or malignant. When these cystic lesions are small it can be difficult to characterize them radiologically. However, with appropriate clinical history and knowledge of typical imaging features of cystic pancreatic lesions this can enable accurate diagnosis and thus guide appropriate treatment. In this review, we provide an overview of the most common types of cystic lesions and their appearance on computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound. We will also discuss the follow up and management strategies of these cystic lesions.

Variability in measurements of pancreatic cyst size among EUS, CT, and magnetic resonance imaging modalities

BACKGROUND

Cyst size is an important factor in the management of pancreatic cysts, both in predicting the need for surgery and the frequency of follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To determine agreement and precision of EUS, CT, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) modalities in the evaluation of pancreatic cyst diameter.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Tertiary-care center, January 2000 to June 2009.

PATIENTS

This study involved 175 patients presenting for EUS evaluation of pancreatic cysts, with size measured by at least two of the aforementioned imaging studies within a 90-day period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Largest cyst diameter from EUS, CT, MRI/MRCP, and surgical pathology.

RESULTS

A total of 175 patients underwent EUS. Seventy-three had CT plus EUS, 33 had MRI/MRCP plus EUS, 23 had MRI/MRCP plus CT, and 15 had all imaging studies, occurring within 90 days of each other. Median size differences between studies: EUS and CT (ie, absolute value of size determined by EUS minus size determined by CT) = 4 mm (range 0-25 mm), EUS and MRI = 4 mm (range 0-17 mm), CT and MRI = 3 mm (range 2-20 mm). Median size differences for surgical pathology specimens compared with results of 12 EUS, 13 CT, and 8 MRI/MRCP studies were as follows: EUS and pathology = 9.5 mm (range 0-20 mm), CT and pathology = 5 mm (range 0-21 mm), MRI and pathology = 5.5 mm (range 2-44 mm).

LIMITATIONS

Interobserver variability and small sample of surgical pathology cysts.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable variation in size estimates of pancreatic cysts by different imaging modalities, which practitioners should take into account when making management decisions. Use of a single imaging modality is recommended during follow-up. The precision of imaging studies for measuring pancreatic cysts must be prospectively defined if change in size is to be reliably used for clinical management.

Improving outcomes for operable pancreatic cancer: is access to safer surgery the problem?

Despite advances in the understanding and treatment of pancreatic cancer in the last two decades, there is a persisting nihilistic attitude among clinicians. An alarmingly high rate of under-utilization of surgical management for operable pancreatic cancer was recently reported in the USA, where more than half of patients with stage 1 operable disease and no other contraindications were not offered surgery as therapy, denying this group of patients a 20% chance of long-term survival. These data indicate that a nihilistic attitude among clinicians may be a significant and reversible cause of the persisting high mortality of patients with pancreatic cancer. This article examines the modern management of pancreatic cancer, in particular, the advances in surgical care that have reduced the mortality of pancreatectomy to almost that of colonic resection, and outlines a strategy for improving outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer now and in the future.

Laparoscopic and Hand-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

With the increased use of CT, discovering incidental pancreatic lesions has become commonplace. Lesions in the distal pancreas lend themselves well to laparoscopic resection. We reviewed our experience with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. During the study period, 32 distal pancreatectomies were performed. There were 20 females. Mean patient age was 58.0 years (range, 23–83 years) and mean body mass index was 29.9 kg/m2 (range, 19.9–44.7 kg/m2). Technique was laparoscopic (25) or hand-assisted (seven) with one conversion in each group. The spleen was preserved in six patients (18.8%). Mean operative time overall was 238 minutes (range, 140–515 minutes); hand-assisted was 222 minutes and laparoscopic was 254 minutes. Estimated blood loss averaged 221 mL (range, 50–1800 mL). Mean tumor size was 2.7 cm (range, 0.6–7 cm). Tumor pathology was serous cystadenoma (10), neuroendocrine tumor (six), mucinous cystic neoplasm (four), intrapapillary mucinous neoplasm (four), adenocarcinoma (three), other (four), and solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (one). Mean length of stay was 5 days (range, 3–11 days). Complications were pancreatic fistula (six), wound infection (two), pulmonary embolism (one), pancreatitis (one), myocardial infarction (one), postoperative bleed from combined laparoscopic bilateral oophorectomy (one), and pancreatic stump staple line bleed requiring reoperation (one). There were no perioperative deaths. All pancreatic fistulas resolved with conservative management.