Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2013
Is it necessary to follow patients after resection of a benign pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
He Jin, Cameron John L, Ahuja Nita, Makary Martin A, Hirose Kenzo, Choti Michael A, Schulick Richard D, Hruban Ralph H, Pawlik Timothy M, Wolfgang Christopher L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk of subsequently developing a new or progressive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) after partial pancreatic resection of a noninvasive IPMN.
STUDY DESIGN: One hundred thirty patients with more than 1 year of follow-up after resection were included in this analysis.
RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 38 months, 22 (17%) developed imaging evidence of a new or progressive IPMN. Eleven (8%) underwent completion resection. Three of the 11 patients had invasive adenocarcinoma. Two other patients developed metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and did not undergo resection. All 5 patients (4%) with cancer had negative margins at initial operation. Sixteen of 100 patients (16%) with negative margins for IPMN at the initial operation developed a new IPMN vs 6 of 30 patients (20%) with margins positive for IPMN (p = ns). Five of 22 patients (23%) with a new IPMN had a family history of pancreatic cancer, while 8 of 108 patients (7%) without a new IPMN had a family history (p < 0.05). Overall, the chances of developing a new IPMN at 1, 5, and 10 years after the initial surgery were 4%, 25%, and 62%, respectively, and of requiring surgery were 1.6%, 14%, and 18%, respectively. The estimated chances of developing invasive pancreatic cancer were 0%, 7%, and 38% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have undergone resection for noninvasive IPMN require indefinite close surveillance because of the risks of developing a new IPMN, of requiring surgery, and of developing cancer. A family history of pancreatic cancer, but not margin status or degree of dysplasia, is associated with a risk of development of a new or progressive IPMN.
STUDY DESIGN: One hundred thirty patients with more than 1 year of follow-up after resection were included in this analysis.
RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 38 months, 22 (17%) developed imaging evidence of a new or progressive IPMN. Eleven (8%) underwent completion resection. Three of the 11 patients had invasive adenocarcinoma. Two other patients developed metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and did not undergo resection. All 5 patients (4%) with cancer had negative margins at initial operation. Sixteen of 100 patients (16%) with negative margins for IPMN at the initial operation developed a new IPMN vs 6 of 30 patients (20%) with margins positive for IPMN (p = ns). Five of 22 patients (23%) with a new IPMN had a family history of pancreatic cancer, while 8 of 108 patients (7%) without a new IPMN had a family history (p < 0.05). Overall, the chances of developing a new IPMN at 1, 5, and 10 years after the initial surgery were 4%, 25%, and 62%, respectively, and of requiring surgery were 1.6%, 14%, and 18%, respectively. The estimated chances of developing invasive pancreatic cancer were 0%, 7%, and 38% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have undergone resection for noninvasive IPMN require indefinite close surveillance because of the risks of developing a new IPMN, of requiring surgery, and of developing cancer. A family history of pancreatic cancer, but not margin status or degree of dysplasia, is associated with a risk of development of a new or progressive IPMN.