4.7 Article

Pancreas Divisum Is Not a Cause of Pancreatitis by Itself But Acts as a Partner of Genetic Mutations

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 2, Pages 311-317

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.424

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: The role of pancreas divisum (PD) as a cause of acute recurrent or chronic pancreatitis (AR/CP) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: The aims of this study were to evaluate the frequency of PD diagnosed using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in patients with AR/CP of unknown origin (n=40) after careful exclusion of all known causes and to test the hypothesis of an interaction between anatomical (PD) and functional genetic anomalies (SPINK1, PRSS1, or CFTR gene mutations or polymorphisms (n=19, 25, and 30, respectively)) that could result in AR/CP. Patients with alcohol-induced pancreatitis (n=29) and subjects who had MRCP for a nonpancreatic disease (n=45) served as controls. RESULTS: PD frequency was 7% in subjects without pancreatic disease, 7% in patients with alcohol-induced pancreatitis, and 5, 16, 16, and 47% in those with idiopathic, and PRSS1-, SPINK1-, and CFTR associated pancreatitis, respectively (P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between idiopathic pancreatitis and the two control groups. The frequency of PD was higher in patients with CFTR gene-associated pancreatitis as compared with those with idiopathic and alcoholic pancreatitis (P<0.0001) and with those with SPINK1 and PRSS1 gene-associated pancreatitis (P<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of PD was not different in patients with idiopathic pancreatitis as compared with controls, demonstrating that PD by itself is not a cause of pancreatitis. PD frequency was higher in patients with genetic pancreatitis, especially in those with CFTR mutations or polymorphisms, suggesting a cumulative effect of these two cofactors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available