Pancreatic infiltrative malignancy masquerading as autoimmune pancreatitis: Case report, review of radiological criteria, and literature.

We report a case of a 44-year-old male patient, who presented to the University Hospital of Salzburg, Austria with abdominal pain, persistent jaundice, and lack of appetite. Radiological work-up (CT, MRI, PET/CT) indicated a suspicious mass of the uncinate process of the pancreatic head with adjacent infiltration and regional lymphadenopathy. The differential diagnosis was between primary pancreatic cancer and focal autoimmune pancreatitis. Further laparoscopic biopsies from multiple areas, showed only fibrous scarring processes, with no malignancy. Treatment with steroids didn't give any benefits. After multiple follow-up CTs and MRs within 6 months-additional biopsies were done, which eventually demonstrated adenocarcinoma. Evidently the cancer diagnosis was much delayed and the patient started receiving chemotherapy, but radical surgery was not possible. Multiple articles and case reports can be found in the literature, that are reviewing the fact that pancreatic inflammatory processes are mimicking pancreatic tumor, but not many articles or case reports are available in the literature, where neoplastic processes are misinterpreted as inflammatory and incorrectly proven with histological examination. One of the main reasons for improper diagnosis is the desmoplastic reaction around the pancreatic malignancy. Another important aspect is the acceptance of histological diagnosis as conclusive, where no opposing arguments are specified, based on radiological criteria.

Patterns of Thromboembolism in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing First-Line Chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine/nab-Paclitaxel.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in prophylactic anticoagulation and antineoplastic treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer (aPC) warrant an updated reassessment of thromboembolic risk in this population. This multicenter retrospective cohort study aims to comprehensively characterize incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of venous (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) in homogenously treated patients with aPC. METHODS: Four hundred and fifty-five patients with aPC undergoing palliative first-line chemotherapy (Gemcitabine/nab-Paclitaxel (GN) or FOLIRINOX) were included. Primary outcomes were objectively confirmed VTE and/or ATE. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 26 months, 86 VTE (cumulative incidence: 20.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.3-24.0) and 11 ATE events (cumulative incidence: 2.8%; 95% CI: 1.5-4.9) were observed. VTE diagnosis was associated with increased mortality (transition hazard ratio [THR]: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.21-2.09]) and increased risk of cancer progression (THR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.08-2.01]), while the impact of ATE on mortality was numerically but not statistically significant (THR: 1.85 [95% CI: 0.87-3.94]). The strongest predictor of increased VTE risk was history of cancer-associated VTE (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 3.29 [95% CI: 2.09-5.18]), while the Khorana score (SHR: 0.78 [0.57-1.06]) failed to predict VTE risk. A history of cerebrovascular disease was associated with markedly increased ATE risk (SHR: 22.05 [95% CI: 6.83-71.22], p < 0.001), especially ischemic stroke. Risk of VTE/ATE did not significantly differ according to type of first-line chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with aPC undergoing palliative first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or GN face a high risk for VTE/ATE and its diagnosis is linked to worse clinical outcomes. VTE-risk prediction models have limited ability to sub-stratify thrombotic events in this high-risk scenario.

Gemcitabine/nab-Paclitaxel versus FOLFIRINOX for palliative first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: A propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and FOLFIRINOX are standard first-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDAC), but currently no prospective randomised head-to-head comparison between these treatments has yet been performed. METHODS: We conducted a comparative propensity score (PS) analysis of overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in a tri-centre cohort of patients with aPDAC undergoing palliative first-line treatment with either GN or FOLFIRINOX. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, OS and PFS were highly similar between patients treated with GN (n = 297) and FOLFIRINOX (n = 158). In detail, median, 1- and 2-year OS estimates were 10.1 months, 42% and 18% in the GN group, as compared to 11.2 months, 45% and 12% in the FOLFIRINOX group, respectively (log-rank p = 0.783). Accordingly, median (4.6 versus 4.8 months), 6-month (40% versus 43%) and 1-year (9% versus 9%) PFS estimates did not significantly differ (log-rank p = 0.717). However, patients treated with FOLFIRINOX were significantly younger, had fewer comorbidities, and a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. These imbalances were accounted for by weighting the data with the PS. In PS analysis of survival outcomes, OS and PFS remained comparable between the two treatment groups. In detail, PS-weighted median, 1- and 2-year OS estimates were 10.1 months, 42% and 18% in the GN group, as compared to 10.1 months, 40% and 13% in the FOLFIRINOX group (PS-weighted log-rank p = 0.449). PS-weighted PFS estimates again did not differ (PS-weighted log-rank p = 0.329). CONCLUSION: This real-world comparative effectiveness study indicates that FOLFIRINOX and GN have similar effectiveness in the palliative first-line treatment of aPDAC.