Rationale:
Serous cystic neoplasms (SCNs) are treated as benign lesions. It is widely known that SCN rarely have a connection with the main pancreatic duct (MPD), which helps differentiate them from other cystic lesions, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). However, very rare cases where the SCN appears connected to the MPD cause diagnostic confusion.
Patient concerns:
We present 2 patients with SCN (1 male, 54, and 1 female, 42). Both patients were asymptomatic, without abnormal laboratory results.
Diagnosis:
In both cases, abdominopelvic computed tomography and pancreatic magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed a multilobulated cystic lesion in communication with the MPD. Since the size of each patient’s lesion was >3 cm and there was connectivity with the MPD, it was strongly suspected to be a branch duct-type IPMN with worrisome features rather than SCN and surgical intervention was considered.
Interventions:
Both neoplasms were misdiagnosed as IPMN due to appearing connected with the MPD on radiologic imaging. Surgery was performed.
Outcomes:
A final diagnosis of microcystic serous cystadenoma of the pancreas without connectivity of MPD was confirmed in both patients.
Lessons:
An unnecessary surgery was performed due to atypical radiologic features in which the pancreatic duct seems to be connected to the pancreatic cystic lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, leading to misdiagnosis of SCN as IPMN. Particular attention should be paid to interpretation of clinicoradiologic findings of pancreatic cystic lesions, especially to the decision of surgical intervention. Also, awareness of presence of the atypical radiologic features of SCN may broaden the knowledge base of radiologists.
Lessons:
An unnecessary surgery was performed due to atypical radiologic features in which the pancreatic duct seems to be connected to the pancreatic cystic lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, leading to misdiagnosis of SCN as IPMN. Particular attention should be paid to interpretation of clinicoradiologic findings of pancreatic cystic lesions, especially to the decision of surgical intervention. Also, awareness of presence of the atypical radiologic features of SCN may broaden the knowledge base of radiologists.
Keywords: algorithms, and serous, case report, cystic, mucinous, neoplasms, pancreatic cyst, pancreatic intraductal neoplasms, risk assessment
1. Introduction
Serous cystic neoplasms (SCN) of the pancreas are benign, although there are a few cases of malignant transformation.[1] The radiologic features of SCN have been described as microcystic, macrocystic (or oligocystic), mixed microcystic and macrocystic, and solid types.[2] Representatively, microcystic SCNs are multiloculated cystic lesions, and a central scar can be present.[2] It is widely known that SCN rarely have a connection with the main pancreatic duct (MPD), a characteristic that may help differentiate them from other cystic lesions such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN).[3] Although, there are some cases in which the SCN appears to be connected to the MPD, it is not commonly recognized and can lead to misdiagnosis.[3–6]
Herein, we report 2 atypical cases of SCN of the pancreas that mimicked IPMN owing to the imaging features of communication with the MPD. We reviewed several other cases in which SCN was confused with IPMN and underwent surgery, as the cystic lesion of the pancreas appeared to be associated with the MPD in imaging findings. We also discuss the reasons for such an appearance and how unnecessary surgery can be reduced by applying the algorithmic approach. The case report was produced in compliance with the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network CARE guidelines.[7]
1.1. Case 1
In March 2021, a 54-year-old man underwent investigation for the staging of skin lymphoma in our hospital. During the metastatic examination, a multilobulated cystic mass in the pancreatic body was incidentally detected on abdominopelvic computed tomography (APCT) scans. The patient did not complain of any specific symptoms and the patients’ vital signs and physical examination results were unremarkable at the time of examination. The patient had no remarkable medical history other than previous pulmonary tuberculosis and don’t have a family history of cancer. Laboratory examination results in patient were within the normal range, including serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels.
Initial APCT showed an irregular, multilobulated, low-density lesion of approximately 2.2 cm in the pancreatic body (Fig. 1A).
Figure 1.
(A) Initial abdominopelvic computed tomography (APCT) revealed a roughly 2.2 cm sized irregular multilobulated low-density lesion (arrowheads) in the pancreatic body. (B) Endoscopic ultrasonography showed macrocystic (arrowheads), and honeycomb pattern with central sunburst-like appearance. (C) Pancreas magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed that the main pancreatic duct (MPD) (D, arrow) appeared to be communicated with multilobulated cystic lesion (arrowheads) in pancreas. (D) Follow-up APCT showed that the pancreatic cystic lesion (arrowheads) gradually increased in size by 1.4 cm in the 4 years. (E) Additional pancreas MRI revealed that dilatation of the distal MPD (arrow) and the connection of MPD with the pancreatic cystic lesion (arrowheads) were more pronounced.
Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) revealed a macrocystic and honeycombing pattern with a central sunburst-like appearance in the pancreatic lesion, and there was no significant dilatation of the MPD (Fig. 1B).
However, a follow-up pancreatic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning was performed, which revealed that the distal MPD was dilated to 0.4 cm and appeared to be communicating with multilobulated cystic lesions in the pancreas (Fig. 1C), making IPMN the most likely diagnosis rather than SCN.
There was no evidence of high-risk or worrisome features for pancreatic IPMN on MRI scans, and an annual follow-up with APCT was performed for pancreatic cystic lesion. The pancreatic cystic lesion gradually increased in size on annual APCT scans, and the maximum diameter of the pancreatic cystic lesion increased by 0.4 cm in the first 2 years and 1.0 cm in the next 2 years (Fig. 1D). An additional pancreatic MRI scanning was performed, which showed that dilatation of the distal MPD – up to 3.5 mm – and the connection of MPD with the pancreatic cystic lesion – maximum diameter of 3.6 cm – were more pronounced (Fig. 1E).
Both APCT and pancreatic MRI findings and follow-up imaging findings were suggestive of IPMN of the pancreas because of connectivity with the MPD rather than SCN, as seen in the initial EUS findings. However, as the size had increased by 1.0 cm in 2 years, if it was indeed an IPMN, according to the 2017 Fukuoka guidelines,[8] it could be considered to have a worrisome feature.
The patient underwent a distal pancreatectomy. During the operation, it was noted that a lesion with a diameter of approximately 4 cm was present in the pancreatic body. Subsequently, laparoscopic resection of the body and tail of the pancreas was performed.
The macroscopic view of the resected pancreas contained a well-defined multiloculated cystic mass (asterisk) measuring 3.2 × 2.0 × 1.4 cm3, and the MPD (arrow) running close to the lesion was identified (Fig. 2A).
Figure 2.
(A) The macroscopic view of the resected pancreas shows a well-defined multiloculated cystic mass (asterisk), measuring 3.2 × 2.0 × 1.4 cm3, with the main pancreatic duct (MPD) (arrow) running close to the lesion. (B) Multiloculated microcystic lesion (asterisk) was identified in the pancreatic parenchyma (hematoxylin and eosin, scale bar 2mm). (C) The MPD (D, arrow) is located very close to, and compressed by, the cystic lesion (asterisk), but there is no communication between them (hematoxylin and eosin, scale bar 500 µm). (D) Multilocular cyst (asterisk) lined by cuboidal epithelial cells contains clear cytoplasm and hyaline stroma (hematoxylin and eosin, scale bar 50 µm). (E) On immunohistochemical analysis (scale bar 100 µm), the lining cells appear positive for Periodic acid–Schiff (PAS), indicating glycogen-rich cytoplasm.
Histopathological examination of the pancreatic cystic lesion (asterisk) revealed a multiloculated microcystic lesion in the pancreatic parenchyma (hematoxylin and eosin, ×12.5) (Fig. 2B). The MPD (D, arrow) was located very close to the cystic lesion (asterisk) and was compressed by the cystic lesion, but there was no communication between them (hematoxylin and eosin, ×40) (Fig. 2C). Multilocular cysts (asterisk) were lined with cuboidal epithelial cells and contained clear cytoplasm and hyaline stroma (hematoxylin and eosin, ×200) (Fig. 2D). On immunohistochemical analysis (×200), the lining cells stained positive for periodic acid–Schiff (PAS), which is indicative of a glycogen-rich cytoplasm (Fig. 2E). A final diagnosis of microcystic serous cystadenoma of the pancreas was established.
The patient’s clinical course was uneventful, and he was discharged 2 weeks post-surgery. The patient had no complications for up to 3 months postoperatively.
1.2. Case 2
In March 2021, a 42-year-old woman presented to our hospital with incidental abnormal findings on abdominal US scans during a medical checkup. Abdominal US and APCT revealed a multilobulated cystic mass in the pancreatic body. The patient did not complain of any specific symptoms and the patients’ vital signs and physical examination results were unremarkable at the time of examination. The patient had a medical history of multiple sclerosis, for which she was taking carbamazepine, and asthma, for which she was taking daily inhalants. The patient does not have a family history of cancer. Laboratory examination results in patient were within the normal range, including serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and CEA levels.
Initial APCT revealed an approximately 5 cm multilobulated low-density lesion with multiple enhancing septations and calcifications in the pancreatic body (Fig. 3A). Pancreatic MRI revealed a multiloculated cystic lesion in the body of the pancreas that communicated with the MPD (Fig. 3B).
Figure 3.
(A) Initial abdominopelvic computed tomography revealed a multilobulated low-density lesion (arrowheads) of approximately 5 cm with multiple enhancing septations and calcifications on pancreatic body. (B) Pancreas magnetic resonance imaging revealed a multiloculated cystic lesion (arrowheads) at the body of pancreas which appeared to be communicated with the main pancreatic duct (arrow).
As there was a radiographically clear connection between the pancreatic cystic mass and MPD, and the size of the lesion was >3 cm, it was strongly suspected to be a branch duct-type IPMN with worrisome features rather than SCN.
A median pancreatectomy was performed. During the operation, it was noted that a cystic mass was present in the pancreatic body with an abutment to the splenic vein. Subsequently, resection of the body of the pancreas and the splenic vein was performed with pancreaticojejunostomy.
The macroscopic view of the resected pancreas contained a well-defined multiloculated cystic mass (asterisk), measuring 4.1 × 4.0 × 3.1 cm3, and the MPD running close to the lesion was identified (arrow) (Fig. 4A).
Figure 4.
(A) The macroscopic view of the resected pancreas shows a well-defined multiloculated cystic mass (asterisk), measuring 4.1 × 4.0 × 3.1 cm3, and the main pancreatic duct (MPD) (arrows) runs close to the lesion. (B) Multiloculated microcystic lesion identified in the pancreatic parenchyma and the MPD (D, arrows) is close to the cystic lesion, nevertheless, not involved with the cystic lesion (asterisk) (hematoxylin and eosin, scale bar 1mm). (C) Multilocular cyst (asterisk) is lined by cuboidal epithelial cells and contains clear cytoplasm and hyaline stroma (hematoxylin and eosin, scale bar 50 µm). (D) On immunohistochemical analysis (scale bar 100 µm), the lining cells appear positive for Periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) and(E) negative for PAS with diastase digestion, which are indicative of glycogen-rich and diastase-digestible cytoplasm.
Histopathological examination of the pancreatic cystic lesion revealed a multiloculated microcystic lesion (asterisk) in the pancreatic parenchyma. The MPD (D, arrow) was close to the cystic lesion but did not involve it (hematoxylin and eosin, ×10), as in the macroscopic view (Fig. 4B). The multilocular cyst was lined with cuboidal epithelial cells and contained clear cytoplasm and hyaline stroma (hematoxylin and eosin, ×400) (Fig. 4C). On immunohistochemical analysis (×200), the lining cells stained positive for PAS and negative for PAS with diastase digestion, indicative of glycogen-rich and diastase-digestible cytoplasm (Fig. 4D and E). A final diagnosis of microcystic serous cystadenoma of the pancreas without a connection to the MPD was confirmed.
The patient recovered well, without any postoperative complications, and was discharged 10 days after surgery. The patient was followed up for 3 months, and no abnormal findings were observed on CT examinations.
2. Discussion
SCN is a benign entity.[9] Despite a few reports of serous cystadenocarcinomas, typical SCNs should be treated as benign lesions, as the possibility of malignant transformation is negligible.[1]
The morphological varieties of SCN include microcystic, macrocystic (or oligocystic), mixed microcystic and macrocystic, and solid. Microcystic SCNs are composed of multiple small cysts with a honeycomb appearance. Central calcification or scarring can be present in the SCN. Macrocystic (or oligocystic) SCNs are composed of fewer, larger cysts.[2]
IPMNs can be classified as low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or associated invasive carcinoma.[10] Because of the variable risk of malignancy, it is important to predict the malignant potential of pancreatic IPMNs using imaging findings, as management differs based on malignancy risk. International consensus guidelines were established in 2006[11] to aid in the management of pancreatic IPMN, and revised versions were established in 2012[12] and 2017,[8] proposing high-risk stigmata and worrisome features, respectively, for determining the malignant potential of IPMNs.
High-risk stigmata and worrisome features were defined to stratify the risk of malignancy in IPMN and consider the frequency of surveillance or resection. High-risk stigmata include enhancing mural nodules within the cyst measuring ≥5 mm, MPD diameter measuring ≥10 mm, and obstructive jaundice. Worrisome features include enhancing mural nodules of <5 mm, a cyst growth rate >5 mm per 2 years, and elevated levels of serum CA19-9.[8]
Generally, branch duct-type IPMNs are typically distinguished by their tendency to communicate with the pancreatic duct system, unlike SCN.[3] IPMN is a tumor that arises from the epithelial cells of the pancreatic duct. Excessive secretion of mucus blocks the pancreatic duct, resulting in dilatation of the pancreatic duct.[13] In cases of branch duct-type IPMN, involvement is limited to segmental ducts, resulting in a solitary cystic mass without definite dilatation of the MPD with multiple intercommunicating cysts. Today, the gold standard for the study of the ductal system is MRI with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, since it is especially sensitive in providing unique information on the relationship of the cystic lesions with the ductal system. T2-weighted images show a high-signal intensity in the dilated duct and effectively demonstrate the complex cystic mass connected to the pancreatic duct. Additionally, MRI may occasionally delineate mural nodules, finding high-risk stigmata or worrisome features.[1]
Nevertheless, there are various unusual features of SCN found in imaging studies that may lead to diagnostic difficulties. The main atypical manifestations include SCN with interval growth, SCN communication with the MPD, and giant tumors causing ductal dilatation.[5] These characteristics may confuse SCN with IPMN, which may change treatment options, as in our cases.
In our 2 cases, the lesions had an appearance similar to that of SCN owing to their lobulating contour and honeycombing.[13] However, since connectivity with the MPD is a very uncommon feature in SCN that it is rarely considered a possibility in clinical practice,[1,5] the lesion was presumed to be an IPMN. According to a 2012 Japanese nationwide survey, pancreatic duct communication with SCN exists, despite low rates of 9% of the total, 8% of the microcystic type, 0% of the mixed-type and solid-type, and 15% of the macrocystic type.[14] According to our PubMed keyword survey, there are a few case reports of pancreatic cystic lesions in communication with the MPD in imaging studies that were presumed to be IPMN, but pathology revealed a diagnosis of SCN (Table 1). Considering the reasons for the confusion in diagnosis, cystic lesions could compress the MPD extrinsically, causing MPD dilatation. This could lead to erosion of the pancreatic duct and cause recurrent pancreatitis, resulting in the formation of a secondary fistula and inducing the possibility of a true connection to the MPD.[3,4,6] However, in some cases, the histopathologic exams revealed no connectivity of the cystic lesions with the MPD; thus, the appearance of the external compressed and subsequently dilated MPD may have raised suspicion of the connectivity with the MPD morphologically on images, as in our cases.[5] The former case, SCN with true connection to MPD with the erosion of pancreatic duct, corresponds to the case of Furukawa et al (1996),[4] and the case of SCN without MPD connection but with external MPD compression corresponds to our 2 cases. These observations can be expressed in a schematic illustration based on histopathologic findings compared to radiologic findings (Fig. 5).
Table 1.
Summary of clinical characteristics and radiologic features of previously reported cases of serous cystic neoplasm mimicking intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm.
| Reference | Age/Sex | Clinical manifestations | Laboratory findings | CT findings | MR findings | ERCP findings | EUS findings | FNA findings | Treatment | Pathologic findings | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Furukawa et al[3] | 76/M | Vague abdominal pain | NA | Multicystic enhanced mass composed of a spongy meshwork with central scar | NA | Communication between pancreatic duct and the cystic cavity | NA | NA | Pancreatico-duodenectomy | Serous cystadenoma communicated with the pancreatic duct | NA |
| Hashimoto et al[24] | 42/F | Incidental finding | No elevation of levels of amylase, lipase, or tumor markers | Multiple cystic tumors, the wall of which had no enhancing solid component | Cystic tumor of low intensity on T1-weighted images and high intensity on T2-weighted images | The deviation of the MPD and inflow of the contrast material into the cystic part of the tumor | NA | NA | Pylorus-preserving pan creaticoduodenectomy | Serous cystadenoma communicated with the pancreatic duct | Doing well 12 mo after surgery |
| JaeHong Jung et al[5] | 44/F | Right upper quadrant pain and radiating pain | Elevation of serum amylase and lipase levels No elevation of CA 19-9 level |
Multilocular cystic mass in the body of the pancreas with dilated pancreatic duct | NA | The inflow of the contrast material into the cystic part of the tumor | NA | NA | Distal pancreatectomy | Serous cystadenoma communicated with the pancreatic duct | NA |
| Stephanie Truant et al[4] | 66/F | Transient epigastric pain | No elevation of CEA and CA 19-9 levels | Well-defined, multiloculated, cystic mass | Upstream dilatation of the main pancreatic duct | Cystic dilatation of pancreatic branches communicating with the dilated MPD | Microcystic pattern concluded in serous cystadenoma | CEA (0.2 ng/mL) | Distal pancreatectomy | Serous cystadenoma with external compression of the MPD | Doing well 6 mo after surgery |
| Berman et al[2] | 65/F | Right upper quadrant pain | NA | Cystic mass in the head and neck of the pancreas | Side-branch communication between the cystic lesion and the pancreatic duct | NA | NA | NA | Pancreatico-duodenectomy | Serous cystadenoma in direct communication with the pancreatic duct | Doing well 8 mo after surgery |
| Matsubayashi et al[22] | 59/F | Incidental finding | Mild elevation of CEA level (7.5 ng/mL) | Multilocular cyst with partially thickened septum | Cystic lesion with dilated upstream MPD | Compressed, atrophic Wirsung duct and stenotic Santorini duct, connection with the multilocular cyst at the pancreatic head | Macroscopic multilocular cyst with honeycomb- like components and irregularly dilated MPD with lobularity and high echoic foci | High level of amylase (347000 U/L), CA 19-9 (30796 U/mL), but low level of CEA (4.5 ng/mL) | Pancreatico-duodenectomy | Serous cystadenoma communicated with the pancreatic duct | Doing well 3 yr after surgery |
| Case 1 | 54/M | Incidental finding | No elevation of CEA and CA 19-9 levels | Multiloculated, cystic mass in the body of the pancreas | Communication between the cystic lesion and the pancreatic duct | NA | Microcystic pattern with central scar in pancreatic lesion | NA | Distal pancreatectomy | Serous cystadenoma without connection with the MPD | Doing well 6 mo after surgery |
| Case 2 | 42/F | Incidental finding | No elevation of CEA and CA 19-9 levels | Multiloculated, cystic mass in the body of the pancreas | Communication between the cystic lesion and the pancreatic duct | NA | NA | NA | Median pancreatectomy | Serous cystadenoma without connection with the MPD | Doing well 6 mo after surgery |
CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, CEA = carcinoembryonic antigen, CT = computed tomography, ERCP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS = endoscopic ultrasonography, FNA = fine-needle aspiration, IPMN = intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, MPD = main pancreatic duct, MR = magnetic resonance, NA = not available, SCN = serous cystic neoplasm.
Figure 5.
Schematic diagram of the correlation of histopathologic findings with radiologic findings in the case of Furukawa et al (1996)[3] and our second case. Serous cystadenoma communicated with the main pancreatic duct (MPD); transabdominal ultrasonography demonstrated a lobulated hypoechoic mass (arrowheads) with small cystic components (small arrows). (A) The distal portion of the MPD (large arrow) is dilated. (B) On histopathologic examination, multiple small cysts lined with a layer of flat epithelium and pancreatic duct (D, large arrow) communicating with the cystic lesion were identified. (C) Schematic description of communication between the pancreatic cystic lesion and pancreatic duct possibly due to erosive change and secondary fistula formation of the pancreatic duct. (D) Serous cystadenoma without connection with the MPD but with external compression of the MPD mimicking intraductal papillary neoplasm on imaging findings; Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas revealed a multiloculated cystic lesion (arrowheads) at the body of the pancreas that appeared to be communicating with the MPD (arrow). (E) The pancreatic duct (D, arrows) was very close to, and compressed by, the cystic lesion (asterisk) but not involved with the cystic lesion. (F) Schematic description of the compressed morphology of the pancreatic duct by the pancreatic cystic lesion, resulting in radiologic misdiagnosis of a true connection with the pancreatic duct.
Regarding cases of diagnostic uncertainty, as in our cases, it is important to identify those lesions in need of resection and those that may be safely monitored with risk stratification. The algorithmic approach has been proposed by several groups for the diagnosis and management of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions. Although there were differences in the details, the direction of the large flow was generally consistent.[5,8,9,15–20] According to the guidelines,[8,9,20] the indications for surgical resection of pancreatic cystic lesion were mostly overlapping, as summarized in Table 2.[2]
Table 2.
Indications for endoscopic ultrasonography-fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts by different guidelines.
| Guidelines | AGA (2015)[20] | IAP (2017)[8] | European (2018)[9] |
|---|---|---|---|
| At least 2 of the following features: | • Growth rate ≥ 5 mm/2 yr | • If the results are expected to change clinical management | |
| • Cyst diameter > 30 mm | • Serum CA 19-9 level↑ | ||
| • PD dilatation 5–9 mm | |||
| • PD dilatation |
• Cyst diameter ≥ 30 mm | ||
| • If there are clinical or radiological features of concern during the initial investigation or surveillance | |||
| • Enhancing mural nodule < 5 mm | |||
| • Solid nodule | |||
| • Lymphadenopathy | |||
| • Abrupt change of PD diameter and distal pancreatic atrophy | |||
| • Thickened or enhancing wall of cyst |
AGA = American Gastroenterological Association Institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts, CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, European = European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms, EUS = endoscopic ultrasonography, FNA = fine-needle aspiration, IAP = Revisions of International Consensus Fukuoka Guidelines for the Management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas, PD = pancreatic duct.
The indications for EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) in IPMN are radiological features of concern in other cross-sectional images (such as worrisome features), and the results of EUS-FNA can help to classify risks more accurately and evaluate considerations for surgery. The indications for EUS-FNA in IPMN showed some differences between the various groups, as summarized in Table 3.[2,8,9,20]
Table 3.
Indications for surgical resection of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm by different guidelines.
| Guidelines | AGA (2015)[20] | IAP (2017)[8] | European (2018)[9] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute indications | • PD dilatation ≥ 5 mm | • Positive or suspicious cytology results for malignancy | • Positive cytology results for malignancy or high-grade dysplasia |
| • Enhancing mural nodule ≥ 5 mm | |||
| • Enhancing mural nodule ≥ 5 mm | |||
| • Solid portion or positive cytology results for malignancy | |||
| • PD dilatation ≥ 10 mm | |||
| • Jaundice related with IPMN | • PD dilatation ≥ 10 mm | ||
| • Solid portion | |||
| • Jaundice related with IPMN | |||
| Relative indications | - | • Growth rate ≥ 5 mm/2 yr | • Growth rate ≥ 5 mm/2 yr |
| • Serum CA 19-9 level↑ | |||
| • Serum CA 19–9 level↑ | |||
| • PD dilatation 5–9 mm | |||
| • Cyst diameter ≥ 30 mm | • PD dilatation 5–9.9 mm | ||
| • Enhancing mural nodule < 5 mm | |||
| • Cyst diameter ≥ 40 mm | |||
| • Lymphadenopathy | |||
| • Abrupt change of PD diameter and distal pancreatic atrophy | • Enhancing mural nodule < 5 mm | ||
| • Thickened or enhancing wall of cyst | • New-onset diabetes mellitus | ||
| • Acute pancreatitis caused by IPMN | • Acute pancreatitis caused by IPMN |
AGA = American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Asymptomatic Neoplastic Pancreatic Cysts, CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, European = European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms, IAP = Revisions of International Consensus Fukuoka Guidelines for the Management of IPMN of the pancreas, IPMN = intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, PD = pancreatic duct.
EUS-FNA may be beneficial for patients with pancreatic cystic lesions with the features listed in Table 3.[5,15,21] In those patients, confirmation of negative cytology results and normal CEA levels in EUS-FNA may provide evidence to support the monitoring approach and deferral of surgical intervention.[5,15,21] However, for most cases in Table 1, including ours, EUS-FNA were not used as auxiliary tools, with the exception of 2 cases[5,22] and surgery was performed in all cases. If EUS-FNA were performed in the order of the algorithm and received regular follow-up, unnecessary surgery may have been avoided in our patients.
Knowledge of the most important and frequent characteristic radiologic findings of pancreatic cystic neoplasms may help radiologists make a diagnosis and reduce the possibility of unnecessary surgery.[23] However, it should not be overlooked that sometimes there may be atypical findings, causing confusion about the diagnosis.
Although very rare, as in these cases, it is necessary to be aware that communication with the MPD can be seen even in the imaging findings of SCN mimicking IPMN. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to interpretation of clinicoradiologic findings of pancreatic cystic lesions, especially to the decision of surgical intervention.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Jisun Lee.
Supervision: Jisun Lee.
Writing – original draft: Mihyeon Park.
Writing – review & editing: Jisun Lee, Yook Kim, Kyung Sik Yi, Bum Sang Cho, Chi-Hoon Choi, Kil Sun Park.
Abbreviations:
- CEA
- carcinoembryonic antigen
- EUS
- endoscopic ultrasonography
- FNA
- fine needle aspiration
- IPMN
- intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm
- MPD
- main pancreatic duct
- MRI
- magnetic resonance imaging
- PAS
- periodic acid–Schiff
- APCT
- abdominopelvic computed tomography
- SCN
- serous cystic neoplasms
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
All patient details have been de-identified and the study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) committee of Chungbuk National University Hospital (CBNUH) (IRB No. 2022-01-037). Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for treatment and publication of this manuscript and any accompanying images.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
How to cite this article: Park M, Lee J, Kim Y, Yi KS, Cho BS, Choi C-H, Park KS. Pancreatic serous cystic neoplasm mimicking intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: Two case reports and literature review. Medicine 2023;102:5(e32820).
Contributor Information
Mihyeon Park, Email: kspark@chungbuk.ac.kr.
Yook Kim, Email: sixtwin@hanmail.net.
Kyung Sik Yi, Email: yiksyi@gmail.com.
Bum Sang Cho, Email: sircircle@hanmail.net.
Chi-Hoon Choi, Email: chihoonc@naver.com.
Kil Sun Park, Email: kspark@chungbuk.ac.kr.
References
- [1].Visser BC, Muthusamay VR, Mulvihill SJ, et al. Diagnostic imaging of cystic pancreatic neoplasms. Surg Oncol. 2004;13:27–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Berman L, Mitchell KA, Israel G, et al. Serous cystadenoma in communication with the pancreatic duct: an unusual radiologic and pathologic entity. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;44:e133–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Furukawa H, Takayasu K, Mukai K, et al. Serous cystadenoma of the pancreas communicating with a pancreatic duct. Int J Pancreatol. 1996;19:141–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Truant S, Izgarevic D, Maunoury V, et al. Pancreatic serous cystadenoma with compression of the main pancreatic duct: an unusual entity. HPB Surg. 2011;2011:574378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Jung JH, Lee JK, Lee KT, et al. [A case of serous cystadenoma of the pancreas communicating with the pancreatic duct]. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2003;42:440–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].van Huijgevoort NCM, Del Chiaro M, Wolfgang CL, et al. Diagnosis and management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: current evidence and guidelines. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16:676–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Glob Adv Health Med. 2013;2:38–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Tanaka M, Fernández-Del Castillo C, Kamisawa T, et al. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2017;17:738–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut. 2018;67:789–804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Choi IW, Shin SS, Heo SH, et al. Imaging diagnosis and management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2019;80:412. [Google Scholar]
- [11].Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 2020;76:182–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Tanaka M, Chari S, Adsay V, et al. International consensus guidelines for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2006;6:17–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Tanaka M, Fernández-del Castillo C, Adsay V, et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012;12:183–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Kimura W, Moriya T, Hirai I, et al. Multicenter study of serous cystic neoplasm of the Japan Pancreas Society. Pancreas. 2012;41:380–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Beyer G, Goni E, Köpke M, et al. Management algorithm for cystic pancreatic lesions. Visc Med. 2018;34:196197–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Megibow AJ, Baker ME, Morgan DE, et al. Management of incidental pancreatic cysts: a white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:911–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Takakura K, Torisu Y, Kinoshita Y, et al. An appraisal of current guidelines for managing malignancy in pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. JOP. 2018;19:178–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Karoumpalis I, Christodoulou DK. Cystic lesions of the pancreas. Ann Gastroenterol 2016;29:155–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Sahora K, Schindl M. Management of cystic pancreatic lesions. Eur Surg. 2019;51:121–5. [Google Scholar]
- [20].Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, et al. American Gastroenterological Association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology. 2015;148:819–22. quize812e813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Scheiman JM. Management of cystic lesions of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:405–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Matsubayashi H, Oka Y, Ito T, et al. A case of serous cystadenoma communicating with a stenotic Santorini’s duct and a dilated main pancreatic duct. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2016;25:551–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Okasha HH, Awad A, El-Meligui A, et al. Cystic pancreatic lesions, the endless dilemma. World J Gastroenterol. 2021;27:2664–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Masaji H, Goro W, Yasuhiko M, et al. Macrocystic type of serous cystadenoma with a communication between the cyst and pancreatic duct. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;16:836–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]