4.5 Article

Validation of Indications for Surgery of European Evidence-Based Guidelines for Patients with Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 2536-2543

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04420-9

关键词

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs); New-onset diabetes mellitus (DM); European evidence-based guidelines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Which patients with pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) should undergo surgical intervention remains a controversial issue. The aim of this retrospective study was to validate the new European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms (EEBGPCN) for the management of IPMNs. Methods One hundred fifty-eight patients with resected IPMNs at National Taiwan University Hospital between January 1994 and December 2016 were enrolled. Clinical information, including new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM) and preoperative CA 19-9 levels, were collected. All patients were stratified into three groups-absolute, relative indications, and conservative approach-according to EEBGPCN. The performance characteristics of EEBGPCN for high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/invasive carcinoma (IC) of IPMNs were calculated. Results One hundred seven (67.7%) patients with low-grade dysplasia and 51 patients with HGD/IC, including 10 HGD and 41 IC, were analyzed. The missed rate for HGD/IC by EEBGPCN was 1.9% (3/158). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the absolute or relative indications for resecting IPMN according to EEBGPCN were 94.1%, 28.0%, 38.4%, 90.9%, and 49.4%. Jaundice, enhancing mural nodule < 5 mm, cyst diameter > 40 mm, increased levels of serum CA 19-9, new-onset DM, and main pancreatic duct dilation were associated with HGD/IC. Conclusions The missed rate for HGD/IC is low by EEBGPCN. Increased serum CA 19-9 and new-onset DM in EEBGPCN were verified as the indications for the surgical resection of IPMNs.

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