4.5 Article

Risk of advanced lesions in patients with branch-duct IPMN and relative indications for surgery according to European evidence-based guidelines

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 882-886

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2018.11.028

关键词

BD-IPMN; Endoscopic ultrasound; Mural nodule; Pancreatic cyst; Relative indication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: European evidence-based guidelines proposed surgery for branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) based on the presence of 1-2 relative indications, depending on the comorbidity burden. Aims: To assess the accuracy of the guidelines in patients with relative indications in a surgical cohort of demonstrated BD-IPMNs. Methods: This report describes a multi-centre, observational, retrospective study. All consecutive patients with relative indications and histologically confirmed BD-IPMN were included. The main outcome was risk of invasive carcinoma in patients with relative indications. Results: Ninety-one patients with BD-IPMN underwent surgery because of absolute (n = 21), relative (n = 60), or no formal indications (n = 10). In total, there were 60 patients (mean age: 66 +/- 9, 50% male) with one (n = 35, 58.3%) or >= 2 relative indications (n = 25, 41.7%). The global advanced lesion and invasive carcinoma rates were 40% and 13.3%, respectively. No risk factor was associated with high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma. Patients with one indication had a lower risk of invasive carcinoma than did those with >= 2 relative indications (5.7% vs. 24%, respectively, p = 0.048); however, the advanced lesion rates were comparable (37.1% vs. 44%, p = 0.593). Conclusions: Invasive carcinoma is considerably more frequent in patients with two or more relative indications. The surgical strategy in these selected cases should be decided on an individual basis. (C) 2018 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据