4.4 Article

Evaluation of the Sendai and 2012 International Consensus Guidelines based on cross-sectional imaging findings performed for the initial triage of mucinous cystic lesions of the pancreas: a single institution experience with 114 surgically treated patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 208, 期 2, 页码 202-209

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.031

关键词

Pancreatic cyst; Cystic lesion of the pancreas; Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; Guidelines; Pancreatic cystic neoplasm

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The Sendai Consensus Guidelines (SCG) were formulated in 2006 to guide the management of mucinous cystic lesions of the pancreas (CLPs) and were updated in 2012 (International Consensus Guidelines, ICG 2012). This study aims to evaluate the clinical utility of the ICG 2012 with the SCG based on initial cross-sectional imaging findings. METHODS: One hundred fourteen patients with mucinous CLPs were reviewed and classified according to the ICG 2012 as high risk (HRICG2012), worrisome (W-ICG2012), and low risk (LRICG2012), and according to the SCG as high risk (HRSCG) and low risk (LRSCG). RESULTS: On univariate analysis, the presence of symptoms, obstructive jaundice, elevated serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)/carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9, solid component, main pancreatic duct >= 10 mm, and main pancreatic duct >= 5 mm was associated with high grade dysplasia/invasive carcinoma in all mucinous CLPs. Increasing number of HRSCG or HRICG2012 features was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of malignancy. The positive predictive value of HRSCG and HRICG2012 for high grade dysplasia/invasive carcinoma was 46% and 62.5% respectively. The negative predictive value of both LRSCG and LRICG2012 was 100%. CONCLUSION: Both the guidelines were useful in the initial cross-sectional imaging evaluation of mucinous CLPs. The ICG 2012 guidelines were superior to the SCG guidelines. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据