Surgical overtreatment of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: Do the 2017 International Consensus Guidelines improve clinical decision making?
Abstract
Background Significant overtreatment of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms can be attributed to low specificity of the current International Consensus Guidelines as well as nonconformity with the guidelines. We compare the ability of the 2012 and revised 2017 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms International Consensus Guidelines to predict high-grade dysplasia/invasive cancer and to determine the preoperative variables that predict resection of benign or low-grade dysplasia in tertiary care centers. Methods Clinical, radiographic, and pathologic data for resected intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms at 3 high-volume National Cancer Institute Cancer Centers were reviewed and the 2012 and 2017 consensus criteria were retrospectively applied. When International Consensus Guidelines were not met, clinical decision analysis was used to determine the primary indication for resection. Logistic regression identified variables associated with pathologic grade. Results Records for a total of 251 patients were reviewed, 129 of whom (52%) had low-grade dysplasia. The revised 2017 International Consensus Guidelines had high sensitivity (98.4%) and negative predicted value (96.1%), and all high-risk stigmata predicted high-grade dysplasia/invasive cancer; however, specificity remained low (14.8%). Nonconformity with International Consensus Guidelines was the most powerful predictor of low-grade dysplasia on final pathologic examination (9.5; 2.12-40.78). Independent predictors of low-grade dysplasia included age younger than 50 (2.46; 1.08-5.62), fine-needle aspiration without epithelial cells (2.6; 1.43-4.72), and normal duct diameter (3.07; 1.99-4.75). Diabetes developed in 30% of patients after resection. Conclusion Management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms remains clinically challenging. Low specificity of the International Consensus Guidelines and nonconformity with the guidelines continue to contribute to unnecessary pancreatic resections. Improved tools for disease classification as well as a better understanding of the natural history, biology, and rates of progression of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms are needed to avoid surgical overtreatment of low-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Approximately 42-63% of resected IPMNs were found to have only low-grade dysplasia.
“While the goal of surgery is to resect lesions with advanced neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia and/or adenocarcinoma), approximately 42–63% of resected IPMNs were found to have only low-grade dysplasia [12,13,14,15,16,17].”
From Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions and Adenocarcinoma (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas
Tanaka, M., Fernández-del Castillo, C., Adsay, V., Chari, S., Falconi, M., Jang, J.-Y., Kimura, W., Levy, P., Pitman, M. B., Schmidt, C. M., et al. (2012) · Pancreatology · doi:10.1016/j.pan.2012.04.004 · Cited by 2,354 · see citing works
Genetics and biology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Ying, H., Dey, P., Yao, W., Kimmelman, A. C., Draetta, G. F., Maitra, A., & DePinho, R. A. (2016) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.275776.115 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Diabetes, pancreatogenic diabetes, and pancreatic cancer
Andersen, D. K., Korc, M., Petersen, G. M., Eibl, G., Li, D., Rickels, M. R., Chari, S. T., & Abbruzzese, J. L. (2017) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/db16-1477 · Cited by 516 · see citing works
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of pancreas
Machado, N., al Qadhi, H., & al Wahibi, K. (2015) · North American Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.4103/1947-2714.157477 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jiang, J., Chao, W.-L., Culp, S., & Krishna, S. G. (2023) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers15092410 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sharib, J. M., Fonseca, A. L., Swords, D. S., Jaradeh, K., Bracci, P. M., Firpo, M. A., Hatcher, S., Scaife, C. L., Wang, H., Kim, G. E., Mulvihill, S. J., Maitra, A., Koay, E. J., & Kirkwood, K. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kirkwood, Kimberly S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1178-1184
- ISSN
- 0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2888895287
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 1.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (U01CA151650, R03CA115225, R33CA155586, P30CA042014)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
- Keywords
- pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, surgical overtreatment, high-grade dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia, pancreatic resection, fine-needle aspiration, pancreatic duct diameter, clinical decision-making, guideline adherence
- MeSH terms
- Medical Overuse, Pancreatic Intraductal Neoplasms, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreas, Retrospective Studies, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review