Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the third cause of cancer-related deaths. Early detection and interception of premalignant pancreatic lesions represent a promising strategy to improve outcomes. We evaluated risk factors of focal pancreatic lesions (FPLs) in asymptomatic individuals at hereditary high risk for PC.

This is an observational single-institution cohort study conducted over a period of 5 years. Surveillance was performed through imaging studies (EUS or magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) and serum biomarkers. We collected demographic characteristics and used univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to evaluate associations between potential risk factors and odd ratios (ORs) for FPL development.

A total of 205 patients completed baseline screening. Patients were followed up to 53 months. We detected FPL in 37 patients (18%) at baseline; 2 patients had lesions progression during follow-up period, 1 of them to PC. Furthermore, 13 patients developed new FPLs during the follow-up period. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that new-onset diabetes (NOD) is strongly associated with the presence of FPL (OR, 10.94 [95% confidence interval, 3.01-51.79; P < 0.001]; OR, 9.98 [95% confidence interval, 2.15-46.33; P = 0.003]). Follow-up data analysis revealed that NOD is also predictive of lesions progression or development of new lesions during screening (26.7% vs. 2.6%; P = 0.005).

In a PC high-risk cohort, NOD is significantly associated with presence of FPL at baseline and predictive of lesions progression or new lesions during surveillance.

Pancreatic PEComas are extremely rare neoplasms with malignant potential, which mostly affect middle-aged women and are characterized by presenting melanocytic and myogenic markers in immunohistochemical analysis. There are no symptoms or pathognomonic imaging tests, so the diagnosis is established with the analysis of the surgical specimen or the FNA obtained with preoperative endoscopic ultrasound. The mean treatment consists on radical excision, adapting the intervention to the location of the tumor. To date, 34 cases have been described; however, more than 80% of them have been reported in the last decade, which suggests that it is a more frequent pathology than expected. A new case of pancreatic PEComa is reported and a systematic review of the literature is carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines with the aim of divulge this pathology, deepening its knowledge and updating its management.

We herein report a 49-year-old woman with a perivascular epithelial cell tumor (PEComa) of the pancreas. Imaging studies demonstrated a relatively well-demarcated mass, measuring approximately 40 mm in diameter, located in the pancreatic tail. It was heterogeneously enhanced almost to the same degree as the surrounding pancreatic tissue in both the arterial and portal venous phases. We performed endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using the Acquire^® 22-gauge needle and preoperatively obtained a definitive diagnosis with a sufficient sample. Clinicians should consider pancreatic PEComa in their differential diagnosis of patients with a pancreatic mass.

Both chronic mass-forming pancreatitis (CMFP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are focal pancreatic lesions and share very similar clinical symptoms and imaging performance. There is great clinical value in preoperative differentiation of those two lesions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the value of computed tomography (CT) features in discriminating CMFP from PDAC.

Forty-seven patients with pathologically confirmed PDAC and 21 patients with CMFP were included in this study. Demographic and CT features, including tumor location, size, margin, pancreatic or bile duct dilatation, vascular invasion, cystic necrosis, pancreatic atrophy, calcification, and tumor contrast enhancement, were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were adopted to identify relevant CT imaging features to discriminate CMFP from PDAC.

There were significant differences between CMFP and PDAC with respect to main pancreatic duct dilatation, vascular invasion, cystic necrosis, pancreatic atrophy, calcification, and tumor contrast enhancement. Delayed contrast enhancement (>70.5 Hounsfield units) showed high sensitivity and specificity of 84.2% and 84.7%. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the predicting models based on qualitative and quantitative variables were 0.770 (95% CI: 0.660-0.880) and 0.943 (95% CI: 0.888-0.999), respectively. When all significant variables were used in combination to build a predicting model, the AUC was 0.969 (95% CI: 0.930-1.000) with 84.2% sensitivity and 94.7% specificity.

Main pancreatic duct dilatation, vascular invasion, cystic necrosis, pancreatic atrophy, calcification, tumor size, and tumor contrast enhancement were shown to be useful CT imaging features in discriminating CMFP from PDAC.

Gout is a common disorder of uric acid metabolism highly prevalent in our population. The majority of patients with gout present with acute monoarticular arthritis, but a significant proportion of patients also go on to develop chronic tophaceous gout. Musculoskeletal sites are the usual sites of tophus formation and, very rarely, tophi may form in a visceral organ. We present a case of pancreatic gout of which only 3 cases have been reported. Our case is unique and challenging, as it initially masqueraded as a pancreatic neoplasm creating many diagnostic dilemmas.

The patient is a 72-year-old female who presents with new onset jaundice. The patient has a past medical history significant for right-sided estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and left-sided ER-negative breast cancers in 2005 and 2009, respectively, and recent 1-year history of ER-positive right-sided breast cancer with bone and brain metastases. CT scan and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) revealed a new 2 cm mass in the head of the pancreas, leading to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the lesion. Pathologic workup revealed adenocarcinoma with signet-ring cells, representing either metastatic breast or primary pancreatic cancer. Immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostic workup identified positive GATA-binding protein 3 (GATA3) immunoreactivity and a mutation in Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2), also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Here, we review the diagnostic markers commonly used to differentiate metastatic breast vs primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and discuss the challenges of utilizing GATA3 immunoreactivity and ERBB2 mutations for diagnosis.

Hypovascular pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (hypo-PNETs) are often misdiagnosed as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the treatment options and prognosis of PNETs and PDAC are substantially different. This retrospective study differentiated hypo-PNETs from PDAC using contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT). Clinical data and CE-CT findings, including tumor location, size, boundary, pancreatic duct dilatation, local invasion or metastases, tumor contrast enhancement, and tumor-to-pancreas enhancement ratio, were compared between 39 PDACs and 18 hypo-PNETs. At CT imaging, hypo-PNETs showed a higher frequency of a well-defined margin and lower frequencies of pancreatic duct dilatation and local invasion or metastasis when compared with PDAC (p < 0.05 for all). The mean attenuation of hypo-PNETs at the arterial and portal venous phase was significantly higher than that of PDAC (p < 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). Similar results were observed in tumor-to-pancreas enhancement ratio. Tumor attenuation and tumor-to-pancreas enhancement ratio at the arterial phase showed the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.888 and 0.812 with 83.3-88.9% of sensitivity and 61.6-77.0% of specificity. Pancreatic duct dilatation, local invasion or metastasis, and tumor attenuation at the portal venous phase also showed acceptable AUC (0.703-0.748). Thus CE-CT features, especially the enhancement degree at the arterial phases, may be useful for differentiating hypo-PNETs from PDAC using CE-CT.

Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) is a rare mesenchymal tumor, with distinctive morphology and expression of myo-melanocytic markers. Current scientific literature reported just 24 cases of pancreatic PEComas. With our systematic review, we aimed at improving our understanding of the disease, focusing on the knowledge gained on epidemiology, etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.

Based on the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic research was carried out on PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and EBSCO using the search terms: ("perivascular epithelioid cell tumor" OR ″PEComa") and ("pancreas "OR″ pancreatic").

The 4th-6th decades of life and female sex (86.9%) turned out as the most affected. Pancreatic head was the most involved site (50%), with a single lesion in almost all cases. The diagnosis was only obtained after histopathological examination (70.8%). The clinical presentation was non-specific, abdominal pain being the main symptom (60.9%). At immunohistochemistry, PEComa showed benign epithelioid predominance and a strong positivity for HMB-45, Melan-A, and α-SMA. Surgical resection was performed in almost all cases, while for one patient the multidisciplinary group chose just endoscopic and imaging follow-up, based on the benign nature of the lesion.

The biological characteristics of pancreatic PEComa remain an enigma. Its prognosis seems to depend on whether atypical ("worrisome") histological features are available or not. Surgery turned out as the most appropriate treatment, without reaching any agreement on surgery timing. Further studies on larger population are needed to better understand the biological features of pancreatic PEComa, in order to set up guidelines in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Perivascular epithelial cell tumors (PEComas) of the pancreas are rare mesenchymal tumors and, to our knowledge, only 20 cases have been reported to date.

We report a 43-year-old female who presented with upper abdominal pain for 1 year. She underwent an exploratory laparotomy at a local hospital, which failed to resect the tumor. Five months later, she came to the Chinese National Cancer Center for surgery. Preoperative imaging revealed an 11.5-cm-sized mass located in the head of the pancreas. At the microscopic level, the tumor was composed of epithelioid and spindle cells possessing clear to focally granular eosinophilic cytoplasm, which grew in a nested and alveolar pattern around blood vessels. The tumor cells showed immunoreactivity for human melanoma black 45 (HMB-45), but did not express epithelial or endocrine markers.

Pancreatic PEComa.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy, partial hepatectomy, and vascular replacement were performed. After the surgery, the patient received 4 cycles of chemotherapy.

The patient is free of recurrence and metastasis 1.5 years after surgical resection.

PEComa should be recognized as a preoperative differential diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. For treatment, removal of the tumor should be attempted, and in the case of tumors with malignant tendencies, the addition of chemotherapy should be considered.

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

To investigate staging accuracy of multidetector CT (MDCT) for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PNET) and diagnostic performance for differentiation of PNET from pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

We included 109 patients with surgically proven PNET (NETG1 = 66, NETG2 = 31, NEC = 12) who underwent MDCT. Two reviewers assessed stage and presence of predefined CT findings. We analysed the relationship between CT findings and tumour grade. Using PNETs with uncommon findings, we also estimated the possibility of PNET or adenocarcinoma.

Accuracy for T stage was 85-88% and N-metastasis was 83-89%. Common findings included well circumscribed, homogeneously enhanced, hypervascular mass, common in lower grade tumours (p < 0.05). Uncommon findings included ill-defined, heterogeneously enhanced, hypovascular mass and duct dilation, common in higher grade tumours (p < 0.05). Using 31 PNETs with uncommon findings, diagnostic performance for differentiation from adenocarcinoma was 0.760-0.806. Duct dilatation was an independent predictor for adenocarcinoma (Exp(B) = 4.569). PNETs with uncommon findings were associated with significantly worse survival versus PNET with common findings (62.7 vs. 95.7 months, p < 0.001).

MDCT is useful for preoperative evaluation of PNET; it not only accurately depicts the tumour stage but also prediction of tumour grade, because uncommon findings were more common in higher grade tumours.

• CT accurately depicts the T stage and node metastasis of PNET. • Uncommon findings were more common in higher grade tumours. • CT information may be beneficial for optimal therapeutic planning.