4.3 Article

A Systematic Review of Solid-Pseudopapillary Neoplasms Are These Rare Lesions?

Journal

PANCREAS
Volume 43, Issue 3, Pages 331-337

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000061

Keywords

pancreas; solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm; review; systematic review; cyst; CT - computed tomography; EUS - endoscopic ultrasound; EUS-FNA - endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration; MRI - magnetic resonance imaging; SPN - solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm; TAUS - transabdominal ultrasound

Funding

  1. Cancer Center [P30 CA006973]
  2. Cook Medical

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim of the study was to determine if there had been any change in the number of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) cases detected and their evaluation or management over time. Methods A systematic review of SPN was performed of all articles published in English in PubMed and Scopus. Results A total of 2744 patients with SPN were identified in 484 studies published between 1961 and 2012; 87.8% of the cases were reported between 2000 and 2012. A total of 2408 (87.8%) were females, and the mean age was 28.5 (SD, 13.7) years. The most common symptom was abdominal pain in 63.6% of the cases and incidentally detected in 38.1% of the cases. There were 2285 patients who underwent pancreatic resection. The mean tumor size was 8.6 (SD, 4.3) cm. Follow-up was reported for 1952 (90.5%) patients, with a mean follow-up of 36.1 (SD, 32.8) months. Disease-free survival was documented in 1866 (95.6%) patients with recurrence in 86 (4.4%) patients; the median time to recurrence was 50.5 months. Conclusions The number of SPNs reported in the literature has seen a 7-fold increase in the number of cases reported since 2000 compared with before. Solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms continue to be primarily found in young women and present with nonspecific symptoms. Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment with an excellent long-term prognosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available