4.5 Review

Molecular Diagnosis of Cystic Neoplasms of the Pancreas: a Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 1201-1214

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04537-2

Keywords

Pancreatic cystic neoplasm; Pancreatic pseudocyst; Mucinous cystic neoplasm; Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; Serous cystadenoma; Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The prevalence of incidental pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) has increased dramatically with advancements in cross-sectional imaging. Diagnostic imaging is limited in differentiating between benign and malignant PCNs. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of biomarkers that can be used to distinguish PCNs. Methods A review of the literature on molecular diagnosis of cystic neoplasms of the pancreas was performed. Results Pancreatic cysts can be categorized into inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions. Inflammatory cysts include pancreatic pseudocysts. Noninflammatory lesions include both mucinous and non-mucinous lesions. Mucinous lesions include intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) and mucinous cystic neoplasm. Non-mucinous lesions include serous cystadenoma and solid-pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas. Imaging, cyst aspiration, and histologic findings, as well as carcinoembryonic antigen and amylase are commonly used to distinguish between cyst types. However, molecular techniques to detect differences in genetic mutations, protein expression, glycoproteomics, and metabolomic profiling are important developments in distinguishing between cyst types. Discussion Nomograms incorporating common clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings have been developed in a better effort to predict malignant IPMN. The incorporation of top molecular biomarker candidates to nomograms may improve the predictive ability of current models to more accurately diagnose malignant PCNs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available