Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Gulik, T.M.
Right arrow Articles by Gouma, D.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by van Gulik, T.M.
Right arrow Articles by Gouma, D.J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Oncology 10:S85-S88, 1999
© 1999 European Society for Medical Oncology

Differential diagnosis of focal pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer

T.M. van Gulik, T.M. Moojen, R. van Geenen, E.A.J. Rauws*, H. Obertop and D.J. Gouma

Dept.of Surgery, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* Dept.of Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Correspondence to: T.M. van Gulik, M.D., Dept. of Surgery Academic Medical Center, 9 Meibergdreef, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands, E-mail address: t.m.vangulik{at}amc.uva.nl

The differentiation of focal, chronic pancreatitis (CP) and pancreatic cancer (PAC) poses a diagnostic dilemma. Both conditions may present with the same symptoms and signs. The complexity of differential diagnosis is enhanced because PAC is frequently associated with secondary inflammatory changes and CP may develop into PAC. The aim of this study was tot analyze two sets of patients (group A and B) who were misdisagnosed to have either CP or PAC. The clinical and radiographical features of these patients were reviewed. Group A consisted of 22 patients (median age 54.5 years) who were referred with PAC after a previous diagnosis of PC. Eleven patients had a history of CP of >12 mths (mean 40.2 mths) whereas in 11 patients, PAC became apparent within 12 mths (mean 4.9 mths) after the diagnosis of CP was made. The etiology of CP was alcohol abuse in 9 patients, pancreas divisum in 3 patients and was undefined in the remaining 10 patients. Imaging studies showed features of CP (parenchymal calcifications, irregularities and stenoses of the pancreatic duct wall). Pseudocysts were present in 13 patients. A mass lesion was detected in 13 patients. At the time of diagnosis, 20 patients had unresectable tumors and 2 patients underwent a Whipple resection which proved non-radical. Group B consisted of 14 patients (median age 53 years) who underwent a Whipple resection for a presumed PAC that on histopathology of the lesion proved to be CP. These patients accounted for 6% of all 220 patients who had undergone resection for PAC in the same period. Reassessment of clinical presentation and all imaging studies confirmed a high index of suspicion on PAC in these patients. Conclusion: In patients known with CP, misdiagnosis of PAC is a potential pitfall leading to delay of treatment. For any lesion suspicious of PAC an aggressive surgical approach is justified lest a potentially curable lesion is missed. As a consequence, there is at least a 5% chance of resecting a lesion based on CP, mimicking PAC.

chronic pancreatitis, distal bile duct carcinoma, imaging of pancreas, pancreatic carcinoma, Whipple resection


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.