[A Case of Intraductal Pancreatic Mallignant Tumor with Difficulty in Differentiating between IPMN and ITPN].

The patient was a male in his early 60s. Diabetes had aggravated 6 months earlier, and the patient was referred to our hospital for close examination. On contrast CT, enhanced mass shadows filling the lumen of the main pancreatic duct, which was dilated throughout the pancreas, were observed, and the mass was diagnosed as an adenocarcinoma on EUS-FNA. Based on these findings, main-duct IPMN was suspected and total pancreatectomy was performed. On macroscopic observation of the resected specimen, outgrowth of a solid tumor was observed in the main pancreatic duct, whereas only low-level mucus retention was noted in the pancreatic duct. Histopathological examination revealed a papillary/tubular tumor growth, suggesting interstitial infiltration throughout the pancreas. On immunostaining, the tumor was partially positive for MUC5AC, based on which the patient was diagnosed with an intraductal pancreatic mallignant tumor, with difficulty in differentiating between IPMC and ITPC. Clinicopathologically, many aspects regarding ITPN remain unclear. Further accumulation of such cases and investigation of the tumor pathology are necessary.

Preoperative evaluation of accessory hepatic ducts by drip infusion cholangiography with CT.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the incidence of each type of accessory hepatic duct by drip infusion cholangiography with CT (DIC-CT). METHODS: Five hundred sixty nine patients who underwent preoperative DIC-CT and laparoscopic cholecystectomy were reviewed. Accessory hepatic ducts were classified as follows: type I (accessory hepatic ducts that merged with the common hepatic duct between the confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts and the cystic duct confluence), type II (those that merged with the common hepatic duct at the same site as the cystic duct), type III (those that merged with the common bile duct distal to the cystic duct confluence), type IV (the cystic duct merged with the accessory hepatic duct), and type V (accessory hepatic ducts that merged with the common hepatic or bile duct on the left side). RESULTS: Accessory hepatic ducts were observed in 50 patients. Type I, II, III, IV, and V accessory hepatic ducts were detected in 32, 3, 1, 11, and 3 patients, respectively. Based on their drainage areas, the accessory hepatic ducts were also classified as follows: a posterior branch in 22 patients, an anterior branch in 9 patients, a combination of posterior and anterior branches in 16 patients, a left-sided branch in 2 patients, and a caudate branch in 1 patient. None of the patients with accessory hepatic ducts suffered bile duct injuries. CONCLUSION: There are a number of variants of the accessory hepatic duct. DIC-CT is useful to detect the accessory hepatic duct.

[Metastatic Pancreatic Carcinoma from Renal Cell Carcinoma Indistinguishable from Primary Pancreatic Endocrine Tumor - A Case Report].

A hypervascularized tumor was detected in a 65-year-old man who had underwent a nephrectomy for a right renal cell carcinoma at the age of 55 years. We diagnosed the tumor as a non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor or a metastatic tumor from the renal cell carcinoma. We performed distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy and lymph node dissection. The tumor was histopathologically diagnosed as metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

[A case of stage IV breast cancer with long-term partial response treated with tri-weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab].

Paclitaxel combined with bevacizumab yields significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer than paclitaxel alone. Here, we report a case of stage IV breast cancer with multiple liver, lung, and bone metastases maintaining a long-term partial response (PR) with tri-weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab administration. A 46- year-old woman treated with endocrine therapy for 21 months for multiple metastases in her lungs and bones detected 4 years after surgery for left breast cancer was referred to our hospital. New metastases were discovered in her liver. She received paclitaxel (l 90 mg/m/(2)) on days 1, 8, and 15 combined with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks. However, during the first 3 courses, the administration of paclitaxel on day 8 was postponed to 1 to 2 weeks because of severe neutropenia. We began tri-weekly administration of paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. She continued receiving the treatment for about 1 year, without severe side effects. The PR state with good performance status was maintained. We suggest that the tri-weekly administration of paclitaxel plus bevacizumab is an effective way to maintain long-term efficacy.