Prospective multicenter surveillance study of branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas; risk of dual carcinogenesis.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous cystic neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) in the pancreas remains unclear. This study aimed to answer this clinical question by focusing on the development of concomitant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (cPDAC). METHODS: The Japan Pancreas Society conducted a prospective multicenter surveillance study of BD-IPMN every six months for five years. The primary endpoints were progression of BD-IPMN, progression to high-grade dysplasia/invasive carcinoma (HGD/IC), and cPDAC. Factors predicting the progression of BD-IPMN to HGD/IC and development of cPDAC were also assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Among the 2104 non-operated patients, 348 (16.5 %) showed progression of primary BD-IPMN. Cumulative incidences of BD-IPMN with HGD/IC and cPDAC during the 5.17-year surveillance period were 1.90 % and 2.11 %, respectively, and standard incidence ratios of BD-IPMN with HGD/IC and cPDAC were 5.28 and 5.73, respectively. Of 38 cPDACs diagnosed during surveillance, 25 (65.8 %) were resectable. The significant predictive characteristics of BD-IPMN for progression to HGD/IC were larger cyst size (p = 0.03), larger main pancreatic duct size (p < 0.01), and mural nodules (p = 0.02). Significant predictive characteristics for the development of cPDAC were male sex (p = 0.03) and older age (p = 0.02), while the size of IPMN was not significant. CONCLUSION: Careful attention should be given to "dual carcinogenesis" during BD-IPMN surveillance, indicating the progression of BD-IPMN to HGD/IC and development of cPDAC distinct from BD-IPMN, although the establishment of risk factors that predict cPDAC development remains a challenge (UMIN000007349).

MicroRNA-20a in extracellular vesicles derived from duodenal fluid is a possible biomarker for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a high mortality rate owing to its late diagnosis and aggression. In addition, there are relatively few minimally invasive screening methods for the early detection of PDAC, making the identification of biomarkers for this disease a critical priority. Recent studies have reported that microRNAs in extracellular vesicles (EV-miRs) from bodily fluids can be useful for the diagnosis of PDACs. Given this, we designed this study to evaluate the utility of cancer EVs extracted from duodenal fluid (DF) and their resident EV-miRs as potential biomarkers for the detection of PDAC. Methods: EV-miRs were evaluated and identified in the supernatants of various pancreatic cancer cell lines (Panc-1, SUIT2, and MIAPaca2), human pancreatic duct epithelial cells, and the DF from patients with PDAC and healthy controls. EVs were extracted using ultracentrifugation and the relative expression of EV-miR-20a was quantified. Results: We collected a total of 34 DF samples (27 PDAC patients and seven controls) for evaluation and our data suggest that the relative expression levels of EV-miR-20a were significantly higher in patients with PDAC than in controls (p = 0.0025). In addition, EV-miR-20a expression could discriminate PDAC from control patients regardless of the location of the tumor with an area under the curve values of 0.88 and 0.88, respectively. Conclusions: We confirmed the presence of EVs in the DF and suggest that the expression of EV-miR-20a in these samples may act as a potential diagnostic biomarker for PDAC.

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus endoscopic biliary stenting for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction: Propensity score-matched multicenter comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: For preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) of malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO), current guidelines recommend endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) due to the higher risk of cholangitis after endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) during the waiting period before surgery. However, few studies have supported this finding. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of preoperative ENBD and EBS in patients with MHBO. METHODS: Patients with MHBO who underwent laparotomy for radical surgery after ENBD or EBS were included from retrospectively collected data from 13 centers (January 2014 to December 2018). We performed a 1:1 propensity score matching between the ENBD and EBS groups. These patients were compared for the following: cholangitis and all adverse events (AEs) after endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) until surgery, time to cholangitis development after EBD, postsurgical AEs, and in-hospital death after surgery. RESULTS: Of the 414 patients identified, 355 were analyzed in this study (226 for ENBD and 129 for EBS). The matched cohort included 63 patients from each group. The proportion of cholangitis after EBD was similar between the two groups (20.6% vs. 25.4%, P = 0.67), and no significant difference was observed in the time to cholangitis development. The proportions of surgical site infections, bile leaks, and in-hospital mortality rates were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: For PBD of MHBO, the proportion of AEs, including cholangitis, after EBD until surgery was similar when either ENBD or EBS was used.

Clinical Outcomes of Inside Stents and Conventional Plastic Stents as Bridge-to-Surgery Options for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate method of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for cholangiocarcinoma with hilar biliary obstruction remains controversial. The inside-stent technique is a method of placing plastic stents entirely inside the bile duct. Several studies of patients with unresectable stage have reported longer stent patency compared with conventional endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS). Inside-stent techniques have been introduced as a bridge-to-surgery option and as an alternative to conventional EBS. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of inside stent use and conventional EBS. METHODS: During this retrospective multicenter study, we reviewed consecutive patients with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent radical surgery after conventional EBS or inside-stent insertion. Adverse event (AE) rates after EBD and post-surgical AEs were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors affecting cholangitis after EBD. RESULTS: Conventional EBS and inside-stent procedures were performed for 56 and 73 patients, respectively. Patient backgrounds were similar between groups, except for percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization. The waiting time before surgery was similar between groups (28.5 days vs. 30 days). There were no significant differences in the cholangitis rate (21.4% vs. 26.0%; P = 0.68) and all AEs (25.0% vs. 30.1%; P = 0.56) between groups. The post-surgical AE rate was similar between the groups. The multivariable analysis found that preprocedural cholangitis was a risk factor for cholangitis after EBD (odds ratio: 5.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.61-19.9). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of inside-stent techniques and conventional EBS for the management of preoperative EBD are comparable for patients with cholangiocarcinoma.