Topic Highlight Open Access
Copyright ©2011 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 28, 2011; 17(16): 2076-2079
Published online Apr 28, 2011. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i16.2076
A practical approach to the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis
Luca Frulloni, Antonio Amodio, Anna Maria Katsotourchi, Italo Vantini
Luca Frulloni, Antonio Amodio, Anna Maria Katsotourchi, Italo Vantini, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy
Luca Frulloni, Professor, Cattedra di Gastroenterologia, Policlinico GB Rossi, P.le LA Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy
Author contributions: Frulloni L and Amodio A wrote the paper; Katsotourchi AM searched the literature for papers on autoimmune pancreatitis up to December 2009 and for papers on the frequency of benign lesions in resected pancreatic masses; Vantini I revised the paper.
Correspondence to: Luca Frulloni, Professor, Cattedra di Gastroenterologia, Policlinico GB Rossi, P.le LA Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy. luca.frulloni@univr.it
Telephone: +39-45-8124191 Fax: +39-45-8027495
Received: September 21, 2010
Revised: January 29, 2011
Accepted: February 5, 2011
Published online: April 28, 2011

Abstract

Autoimmune pancreatitis is a disease characterized by specific pathological features, different from those of other forms of pancreatitis, that responds dramatically to steroid therapy. The pancreatic parenchyma may be diffusely or focally involved with the possibility of a low-density mass being present at imaging, mimicking pancreatic cancer. Clinically, the most relevant problems lie in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and in distinguishing autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer. Since in the presence of a pancreatic mass the probability of tumour is much higher than that of pancreatitis, the physician should be aware that in focal autoimmune pancreatitis the first step before using steroids is to exclude pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In this review, we briefly analyse the strategies to be followed for a correct diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis.

Key Words: Autoimmune diseases, Pancreatitis, Therapy, Diagnosis



INTRODUCTION

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is now a well defined entity among the inflammatory diseases of the pancreas[1-3]. The number of studies in literature has constantly increased since the first one published in 1995 by Yoshida et al[4] (Figure 1). Despite the fact that in the first paper from Japan the disease was described as diffusely involving the pancreatic gland[5-8], later publications pointed out that the pancreas may also be focally involved by the autoimmune process[3,9-12]. Therefore, some authors have classified AIP as focal or diffuse[3]. Focal AIP is characterized by a segmental involvement of the parenchyma with the possibility of a low-density mass being present at imaging.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Increased number of published papers on autoimmune pancreatitis obtained by searching in Pubmed up to 2009 (search terms: Autoimmune pancreatitis, limit: Field title).

Clinically, the focal form, particularly in the presence of a low-density pancreatic mass, requires a more careful patient evaluation, since it may be easily confused with pancreatic cancer. Several series indicate that in 5%-21% of resected pancreatic masses suspected of being cancer, the final diagnosis excluded malignancy (Table 1)[13-20]. Since AIP responds dramatically to steroid treatment[1], a correct diagnosis of the disease is important to avoid surgery. On the other hand, in the presence of a resectable pancreatic mass, the probability of cancer is very high (> 90%). A misdiagnosis of AIP implies 2-3 week’s steroid treatment and a one month delay in surgery, with the consequent risk of not operating because of the progression of the malignancy with the onset of metastasis or of vascular involvement. A correct and quick diagnosis of AIP is therefore an important goal in clinical practice, particularly in focal AIP.

Table 1 Frequency of benign lesions in patients who undergo pancreatico-duodenectomy in the presence of a pancreatic mass suspected of being pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
AuthorsYrNo. of ptsFrequency of benign lesions
n%
Smith et al[13]1994603295
Barens et al[14]199651010821
van Gulik et al[15]1997220146
Abraham et al[16]20034424710.4
Weber et al[17]2003128715912
Kennedy et al[18]20061622112.9
De La Fuente et al[19]2010494377.4
Hurtuk et al[20]2010461358
All studies-417945010.8

AIP diagnosis may be attained through well established diagnostic criteria. There is agreement on the use of four main criteria based on histological findings, radiological features, other organ involvement and clinical and instrumental response to steroid therapy. HISORt criteria introduced by Chari et al[21] in 2006 and based on surgical specimens of operated AIP patients can be considered standard criteria for the diagnosis of AIP. Serum IgG4[22-24] and positive IgG4+ plasma cells in pancreatic surgical specimens or pancreatic biopsies may also support the diagnosis of AIP[25-29].

There is agreement on the use of these diagnostic criteria (pathology, imaging, presence of other organ involvement, response to steroids), but not on the strategy to be followed in making the diagnosis.

THE STRATEGIES IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF AIP

Three main strategies, from Japan, the USA and Italy, have been suggested. The clinical approach to the disease by these strategies is different.

In the USA distinguishing the different pathological subtypes of AIP[21,30,31] is considered prominent for the diagnosis. In the USA and in Europe, AIP may be classified as type 1 (or Lympho-Plasmacytic Sclerosing Pancreatitis-LPSP) and type 2 (or Idiopathic Duct-centric Chronic Pancreatitis- IDCP)[31-34]. Since the clinical evolution of these forms seems to be different, some authors have suggested obtaining the diagnosis of AIP subtypes from EUS-guided biopsy[31,35].

The main pathological and serological features in type 1 AIP are[31,36]: (1) Prevalence of storiform fibrosis, with obstructive phlebitis; (2) high levels of serum IgG4; (3) presence of IgG4+ plasma cells in the involved pancreatic tissue; and (4) absence of granulocytic epithelial lesions (GEL), that are the expression of an aggression against epithelial ductal cells, with rupture and destruction of ductal structures. The pathological characteristics in type 2 AIP are on the contrary[31,36]: (1) prevalence of inflammation; (2) presence of GEL; and (3) absence of serum IgG4 and of IgG4+ plasmavcells in the inflamed pancreatic tissue.

The clinical aspects and the evolution are different in type 1 and 2 AIP[31,36,37]. In type 1 AIP (LPSP), there is a prevalence of males, patients are older, other organs may be involved (more commonly salivary glands, biliary tract, kidney, lung, retroperitoneum) and the relapse of the disease is more frequent after steroid treatment. In type 2 (IDCP), male/female ratio is about 1, patients are younger, the colon only may be involved (ulcerative colitis) and relapse after steroids is infrequent. Both forms respond quickly to steroid treatment[31,36-38].

The diagnostic approach is therefore aimed at diagnosing AIP subtypes, mainly through pancreatic core biopsy, and this appears to have a good sensitivity and specificity[28,29,39].

In Japan, only type 1 AIP (LPSP) is considered an autoimmune disorder and an IgG4-mediated systemic disorder associated with pancreatic lesions[40]. Only in a few cases has type 2 AIP (IDCP) been described in Japan and it is not considered an autoimmune disease, despite its quick response to steroids just as type 1 AIP. Instrumentally, in the majority of cases the disease diffusely involves the pancreas. Several diagnostic algorithms have been suggested in Japan and Korea[8,41-44]. A comprehensive diagnosis should be based on pancreatic imaging (including ERCP), serological tests (IgG4, total IgG, non organ specific autoantibodies, antibodies to carbonic anhydrase type I and II, antibodies to lactoferrin) and pathological findings. The presence of extrapancreatic lesions may suggest the possibility of AIP.

THE ITALIAN STRATEGY: A CLINICAL APPROACH TO THE DISEASE

The Italian proposal for the diagnosis of AIP, which is different from that suggested in Japan and the USA, is based on the instrumental distinction between focal and diffuse forms of the disease[2,3].

A wide range of symptoms are reported by patients at the clinical onset of the disease. Jaundice, abdominal pain, usually mild, symptoms secondary to pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency (weight loss, diabetes), and persistent elevation of serum levels of pancreatic enzymes may be observed in AIP patients. In a few cases AIP is discovered incidentally by US or other imaging techniques performed without an indication for a pancreatic disorder.

On the basis of imaging, these patients can be divided in those with focal involvement of the pancreas and those with diffuse enlargement of the pancreatic gland[12]. In the case of focal AIP, particularly in the presence of a low-density pancreatic mass, the clinical challenge is to exclude pancreatic cancer and correctly diagnose AIP. Therefore, focal and diffuse types AIP should be strictly separated, since the problem of differential diagnosis with pancreatic cancer involves only focal AIP.

Diffuse AIP may be confused with acute pancreatitis. The clinical picture of diffuse AIP, however, differs from those observed in acute pancreatitis. In AIP, pain, if present, is mild, no risk factors for pancreatitis (biliary lithiasis, alcohol) are present, a persistent increase in serum pancreatic enzymes may be observed, jaundice is caused by enlargement of the pancreas without the presence of a mass, with a stricture on the intrapancreatic tract of the common bile duct. Since pancreatic necrosis has never been described in AIP, the differential diagnosis should be with oedematous pancreatitis. This can be achieved through imaging, since the radiologic features of AIP are different from those observed in acute oedematous pancreatitis. Hypodensity of the pancreas in arterial phase and the absence of a peripancreatic strand appear to differentiate AIP from acute oedematous pancreatitis, where the pancreatic gland shows normal perfusion and the peripancreatic strand is a common radiological picture (personal unpublished data). We do not suggest pancreatic biopsy in diffuse AIP. The diagnosis may be definitely made after treatment with steroids, which produces complete disappearance of the pancreatic changes.

In the diffuse form associated with jaundice secondary to a common bile duct stricture, a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma should be considered and, if necessary, ruled out before steroid therapy through ERCP with biliary biopsies and/or intraductal biliary ultrasonography.

In the focal form, particularly in the presence of a low-density pancreatic mass at imaging, the first diagnostic goal is to exclude pancreatic cancer, even if the presence of clinical (young age, other organ involvement), radiological (perfusion of the pancreatic mass suggestive of inflammation, no or mild dilation of the main pancreatic duct) and serological (high level of IgG4, presence of autoantibodies, low serum levels of Ca 19-9) findings are suggestive of AIP. Therefore, pancreatic biopsy is mandatory, preferably EUS-guided, first of all to exclude neoplasia and possibly to confirm the diagnosis of AIP.

If pancreatic biopsy confirms the diagnosis of AIP, a 3 wk steroid treatment is indicated. The diagnosis of AIP is final in the presence of a significant clinical and radiological response. Since significant improvement/resolution of jaundice is an indication of response to steroid therapy, biliary stenting is not recommended, unless serum bilirubin levels are very high.

If pancreatic biopsy is only suggestive of AIP or non diagnostic, a careful evaluation of HISORt criteria is necessary to decide whether the patient should be treated with steroids or undergo resective surgery. The decision is actually a challenge and should be made in experienced centres only, because it requires expert clinicians, radiologists, pathologists and surgeons. After a complete or significant response to steroid therapy, a definitive diagnosis of AIP may be made.

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis of AIP still remains difficult. The diagnostic algorithm is different in the diffuse and focal forms of the disease, particularly in the presence of a low-density pancreatic mass at imaging. Biopsy or fine needle aspiration cytology is mandatory in the presence of a low-density pancreatic mass. In some cases, only a full or significant response to steroids allows a final diagnosis of AIP to be made. Agreement among experienced clinicians, radiologists, pathologists and surgeons is needed to adopt the response to steroid therapy as a diagnostic criterion in patients where the diagnosis cannot be made through pancreatic biopsy.

Footnotes

Peer reviewers: Yoshiharu Motoo, MD, PhD, FACP, FACG, Professor and Chairman, Department of Medical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University, 1-1 Daigaku, Uchinada, Ishikawa 920-0293, Japan; Richard Hu, MD, MSc, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Olive view-UCLA Medical Center, 14445 Olive View Drive, Los Angeles, CA 91342, United States

S- Editor Tian L L- Editor O’Neill M E- Editor Ma WH

References
1.  Finkelberg DL, Sahani D, Deshpande V, Brugge WR. Autoimmune pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2670-2676.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
2.  Buscarini E, Frulloni L, De Lisi S, Falconi M, Testoni PA, Zambelli A. Autoimmune pancreatitis: a challenging diagnostic puzzle for clinicians. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42:92-98.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
3.  Frulloni L, Scattolini C, Falconi M, Zamboni G, Capelli P, Manfredi R, Graziani R, D’Onofrio M, Katsotourchi AM, Amodio A. Autoimmune pancreatitis: differences between the focal and diffuse forms in 87 patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2288-2294.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
4.  Yoshida K, Toki F, Takeuchi T, Watanabe S, Shiratori K, Hayashi N. Chronic pancreatitis caused by an autoimmune abnormality. Proposal of the concept of autoimmune pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci. 1995;40:1561-1568.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
5.  Okazaki K, Chiba T. Autoimmune related pancreatitis. Gut. 2002;51:1-4.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
6.  Okazaki K. Autoimmune pancreatitis is increasing in Japan. Gastroenterology. 2003;125:1557-1558.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
7.  Nishimori I, Tamakoshi A, Otsuki M. Prevalence of autoimmune pancreatitis in Japan from a nationwide survey in 2002. J Gastroenterol. 2007;42 Suppl 18:6-8.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
8.  Otsuki M, Chung JB, Okazaki K, Kim MH, Kamisawa T, Kawa S, Park SW, Shimosegawa T, Lee K, Ito T. Asian diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis: consensus of the Japan-Korea Symposium on Autoimmune Pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:403-408.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
9.  Taniguchi T, Seko S, Azuma K, Tamegai M, Nishida O, Inoue F, Okamoto M, Mizumoto T, Kobayashi H. Autoimmune pancreatitis detected as a mass in the tail of the pancreas. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;15:461-464.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
10.  Wakabayashi T, Kawaura Y, Satomura Y, Watanabe H, Motoo Y, Okai T, Sawabu N. Clinical and imaging features of autoimmune pancreatitis with focal pancreatic swelling or mass formation: comparison with so-called tumor-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2679-2687.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
11.  Kajiwara M, Gotohda N, Konishi M, Nakagohri T, Takahashi S, Kojima M, Kinoshita T. Incidence of the focal type of autoimmune pancreatitis in chronic pancreatitis suspected to be pancreatic carcinoma: experience of a single tertiary cancer center. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:110-116.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
12.  Manfredi R, Graziani R, Cicero C, Frulloni L, Carbognin G, Mantovani W, Mucelli RP. Autoimmune pancreatitis: CT patterns and their changes after steroid treatment. Radiology. 2008;247:435-443.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
13.  Smith CD, Behrns KE, van Heerden JA, Sarr MG. Radical pancreatoduodenectomy for misdiagnosed pancreatic mass. Br J Surg. 1994;81:585-589.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
14.  Barens SA, Lillemoe KD, Kaufman HS, Sauter PK, Yeo CJ, Talamini MA, Pitt HA, Cameron JL. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign disease. Am J Surg. 1996;171:131-134; discussion 134-135.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
15.  van Gulik TM, Reeders JW, Bosma A, Moojen TM, Smits NJ, Allema JH, Rauws EA, Offerhaus GJ, Obertop H, Gouma DJ. Incidence and clinical findings of benign, inflammatory disease in patients resected for presumed pancreatic head cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:417-423.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
16.  Abraham SC, Wilentz RE, Yeo CJ, Sohn TA, Cameron JL, Boitnott JK, Hruban RH. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple resections) in patients without malignancy: are they all ‘chronic pancreatitis’? Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:110-120.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
17.  Weber SM, Cubukcu-Dimopulo O, Palesty JA, Suriawinata A, Klimstra D, Brennan MF, Conlon K. Lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis: inflammatory mimic of pancreatic carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:129-137; discussion 137-139.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
18.  Kennedy T, Preczewski L, Stocker SJ, Rao SM, Parsons WG, Wayne JD, Bell RH, Talamonti MS. Incidence of benign inflammatory disease in patients undergoing Whipple procedure for clinically suspected carcinoma: a single-institution experience. Am J Surg. 2006;191:437-441.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
19.  de la Fuente SG, Ceppa EP, Reddy SK, Clary BM, Tyler DS, Pappas TN. Incidence of benign disease in patients that underwent resection for presumed pancreatic cancer diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA). J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1139-1142.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
20.  Hurtuk MG, Shoup M, Oshima K, Yong S, Aranha GV. Pancreaticoduodenectomies in patients without periampullary neoplasms: lesions that masquerade as cancer. Am J Surg. 2010;199:372-376; discussion 376.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
21.  Chari ST, Smyrk TC, Levy MJ, Topazian MD, Takahashi N, Zhang L, Clain JE, Pearson RK, Petersen BT, Vege SS. Diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: the Mayo Clinic experience. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1010-1016; quiz 934.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
22.  Hamano H, Kawa S, Horiuchi A, Unno H, Furuya N, Akamatsu T, Fukushima M, Nikaido T, Nakayama K, Usuda N. High serum IgG4 concentrations in patients with sclerosing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:732-738.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
23.  Ghazale A, Chari ST, Smyrk TC, Levy MJ, Topazian MD, Takahashi N, Clain JE, Pearson RK, Pelaez-Luna M, Petersen BT. Value of serum IgG4 in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and in distinguishing it from pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1646-1653.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
24.  Morselli-Labate AM, Pezzilli R. Usefulness of serum IgG4 in the diagnosis and follow up of autoimmune pancreatitis: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:15-36.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
25.  Zhang L, Notohara K, Levy MJ, Chari ST, Smyrk TC. IgG4-positive plasma cell infiltration in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Mod Pathol. 2007;20:23-28.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
26.  Adsay NV, Basturk O, Thirabanjasak D. Diagnostic features and differential diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2005;22:309-317.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
27.  Kojima M, Sipos B, Klapper W, Frahm O, Knuth HC, Yanagisawa A, Zamboni G, Morohoshi T, Klöppel G. Autoimmune pancreatitis: frequency, IgG4 expression, and clonality of T and B cells. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:521-528.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
28.  Detlefsen S, Mohr Drewes A, Vyberg M, Klöppel G. Diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis by core needle biopsy: application of six microscopic criteria. Virchows Arch. 2009;454:531-539.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
29.  Mizuno N, Bhatia V, Hosoda W, Sawaki A, Hoki N, Hara K, Takagi T, Ko SB, Yatabe Y, Goto H. Histological diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis using EUS-guided trucut biopsy: a comparison study with EUS-FNA. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:742-750.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
30.  Levy MJ. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut biopsy of the pancreas: prospects and problems. Pancreatology. 2007;7:163-166.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
31.  Sah RP, Chari ST, Pannala R, Sugumar A, Clain JE, Levy MJ, Pearson RK, Smyrk TC, Petersen BT, Topazian MD. Differences in clinical profile and relapse rate of type 1 versus type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:140-148; quiz e12-e13.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
32.  Klöppel G, Detlefsen S, Chari ST, Longnecker DS, Zamboni G. Autoimmune pancreatitis: the clinicopathological characteristics of the subtype with granulocytic epithelial lesions. J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:787-793.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
33.  Chari ST, Kloeppel G, Zhang L, Notohara K, Lerch MM, Shimosegawa T. Histopathologic and clinical subtypes of autoimmune pancreatitis: the Honolulu consensus document. Pancreas. 2010;39:549-554.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
34.  Chari ST, Longnecker DS, Klöppel G. The diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: a Western perspective. Pancreas. 2009;38:846-848.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
35.  Sah RP, Pannala R, Chari ST, Sugumar A, Clain JE, Levy MJ, Pearson RK, Smyrk TC, Petersen BT, Topazian MD. Prevalence, diagnosis, and profile of autoimmune pancreatitis presenting with features of acute or chronic pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:91-96.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
36.  Sugumar A, Klöppel G, Chari ST. Autoimmune pancreatitis: pathologic subtypes and their implications for its diagnosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2308-2310; quiz 2311.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
37.  Maire F, Le Baleur Y, Rebours V, Vullierme MP, Couvelard A, Voitot H, Sauvanet A, Hentic O, Lévy P, Ruszniewski P. Outcome of patients with type 1 or 2 autoimmune pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:151-156.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
38.  Sugumar A, Chari ST. Diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune pancreatitis. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2010;26:513-518.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
39.  Hirano K, Fukushima N, Tada M, Isayama H, Mizuno S, Yamamoto K, Yashima Y, Yagioka H, Sasaki T, Kogure H. Diagnostic utility of biopsy specimens for autoimmune pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:765-773.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
40.  Okazaki K, Kawa S, Kamisawa T, Shimosegawa T, Tanaka M. Japanese consensus guidelines for management of autoimmune pancreatitis: I. Concept and diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:249-265.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
41.  Choi EK, Kim MH, Kim JC, Han J, Seo DW, Lee SS, Lee SK. The Japanese diagnostic criteria for autoimmune chronic pancreatitis: is it completely satisfactory? Pancreas. 2006;33:13-19.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
42.  Kamisawa T, Chung JB, Irie H, Nishin T, Ueki T, Takase M, Kawa S, Nishimori I, Okazaki K, Kim MH. Japan-Korea symposium on autoimmune pancreatitis (KOKURA 2007). Pancreas. 2007;35:281-284.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
43.  Kamisawa T, Okazaki K, Kawa S. Diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:4992-4994.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
44.  Okazaki K, Kawa S, Kamisawa T, Ito T, Inui K, Irie H, Irisawa A, Kubo K, Notohara K, Hasebe O. Japanese clinical guidelines for autoimmune pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2009;38:849-866.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]