Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a cornerstone in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatobiliary diseases. However, it carries the risk of complications including potentially fatal post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Despite ongoing efforts, effective strategies for managing PEP remain unestablished. Current guidelines define PEP based on symptoms and findings occurring within 24 hours after ERCP; however, early diagnosis and intervention may prevent its incidence and severity. Recently, urinary trypsinogen-2 (UT2) has emerged as a potential biomarker for early acute pancreatitis, but its role and the optimal timing for PEP remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of UT2 at multiple time points following ERCP.

Aims & Methods

This is a single-center prospective observational study conducted at The University of Tokyo Hospital. Patients who underwent their initial ERCP at our institution between February 2022 and June 2024 were enrolled. Patients with choledochojejunostomy, biliary pancreatitis, or those undergoing hemodialysis were excluded. UT2 levels were measured using a rapid dipstick test before ERCP, immediately after, and at 1 and 3 hours post-procedure. Serum amylase (AMY) levels were measured 3 hours after ERCP. We evaluated the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) of UT2 at multiple time points, for the diagnosis of PEP. PEP was defined as an elevation in pancreatic enzyme >3x upper limit of normal with abdominal pain at 24 hours post-pocedure.

Results

A total of 521 patients underwent initial ERCP during the study period, and 337 were included in the final analysis. The median age was 74 years, and 64% were male. A naïve papilla was present in 89% of patients. The indications for ERCP included bile duct stones (39%), malignant biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer (13%) or non-pancreatic cancer (18%), benign biliary stricture (5%), diagnostic pancreatogram (24%), and others (1.2%). EST, EPBD, and EPLBD were performed in 37%, 6.5%, and 4.5%, respectively. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and rectal NSAIDs administration were performed in 29% and 20%, respectively. PEP occurred in 10% (mild 8.6%, moderate 1.2%, and severe 0.3%) of patients. UT2 demonstrated a trend toward higher sensitivity compared to AMY (AMY: 52.9% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 52.9%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 64.7%), while AMY exhibited significantly higher specificity (AMY: 92.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 65.3%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 65.0%) and accuracy (AMY: 88.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 64.1%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 65.0%). Notably, 28.5% of patients were positive for UT2 prior to undergoing ERCP. These patients were significantly older (79 vs. 71 years, P < 0.01), more likely to have pancreatic cancer (19.8% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.02), and less likely to have chronic pancreatitis (3.1% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.01). After excluding 96 cases (28.5%) who were UT2-positive before ERCP, we further evaluated the diagnostic performance of UT2 and AMY. UT2 at 0 h had lower sensitivity compared to AMY (AMY: 54.2% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 37.5%, 1 h: 54.2%, 3 h: 54.2%). In contrast, specificity was similarly high across all markers (AMY: 91.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 88.9%, 1 h: 87.1%, 3 h: 87.1%). Diagnostic accuracy was comparable between AMY and UT2 (AMY: 88.0% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 83.8%, 1 h: 83.8%, 3 h: 83.8%).

Conclusion

UT2 showed slightly lower predictive performance for PEP compared to AMY. However, excluding UT2-positive pre-ERCP improved the diagnostic accuracy. The diagnostic performance plateaued at 1 hour after ERCP, suggesting its potential utility in predicting PEP earlier.

Disclosure

The author is affiliated with Nipro Corporation through a labor-related arrangement, but has received no financial support or remuneration related to this study.

Introduction

Pancreatic cancer (PC) screening can improve survival in high-risk patients by detecting preneoplastic lesions or early-stage tumors.
Surveillances is mainly based on annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However, little has been described regarding the possibility of finding other morphological changes that may be also important.

Aims & Methods

The aim of the study is to evaluate all the findings described in screening test and to analyze the correlation between these two screening techniques.
Descriptive observational single-center study that includes high-risk PC patients either due to family history (familial pancreatic cancer) or because they belong to hereditary syndromes, who have been undergone pancreatic cancer screening at our center from 2015 to 2023. Demographic variables and findings described in the EUS or MRI were collected.

Results

Thirty-five patients were included, with a mean age of 57.3 ± 8.2 years and a predominance of females (65.7%). Four patients (11.4%) were smokers, two were diabetic (5.7%), and one had a history of chronic pancreatitis (2.9%). The median follow-up time was 23 months (interquartile range 8-59 months).
The most frequent hereditary syndrome was hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (n=19, 54.3%), followed by familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (n=4; 11.4%). The BRCA2 mutation was the most common identifiable genetic factor (34.8%).
Regarding screening test findings, solid tumors were detected in three patients (8.6%) (Two stage I and IV adenocarcinomas and one stage I neuroendocrine tumor). In two individuals (5.7%) branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm were observed. Other pancreatic abnormalities were detected in 18 patients (51.4%) that include chronic pancreatitis-like parenchymal changes (34.3%), peripancreatic lymph nodes and fatty pancreas (5.7%). Finally, in 12 patients (34.3%) the screening tests were normal.
In relation to the concordance between MRI and EUS, in ten patients (28.6%) there was no agreement between these two techniques. EUS detected more parenchymal changes (n=5), pancreatic steatosis (n=2) and one neuroendocrine tumor that were not described on MRI. In contrast, MRI detected a cystic lesion and a pseudonodular enhancement that were not found on EUS.

Conclusion

Pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, detects neoplastic and preneoplastic lesions at a high rate.
Other findings, such as chronic pancreatitis-like parenchymal changes, peripancreatic lymph nodes or fatty pancreas, were also common in these patients
MRI and EUS have a good correlation, but EUS detects more parenchymal changes.

References

1. Goggins M, Overbeek KA, Brand R et al. Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. Gut 2020; 69 (1): 7-17
2. Bogdanski AM, van Hooft JE, Boekestijn B, Bonsing BA, Wasser MNJM, Klatte DCF, van Leerdam ME. Aspects and outcomes of surveillance for individuals at high‑risk of pancreatic cancer. Fam Cancer 2024; 23(3):323-339.
3. Blackford AL, Canto MI, Dbouk M, Hruban RH, Katona BW, Chak A et al. Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance and Survival of High-Risk Individuals. JAMA Oncol. 2024;10(8):1087-1096.
4. Maurer E, Lehman B, Matthäi E, Denzer U, Figiel J, Jseinghaus M et al. Pancreatic cancer screening is effective in individuals at risk with predisposing germline gene variants, but not in gene variant‐negative familial pancreatic cancer families. United European Gastroenterol J 2024; 12 (9): 1211-1221

Introduction

Besides stage, age and CA19-9 there is limited knowledge on “patient-related factors” associated with chemotherapy response for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Smoking worsens chemotherapy response in other tumours and seems to promote tumor progression in PDAC preclinical models, but data in human PDAC are scanty.

Aims & Methods

PDAC patients were prospectively enrolled at diagnosis with exposome and clinical data registered, and tumors sampled for research purpose during Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS). Patients were then followed-up to register chemotherapy treatment [whether Folfirinox (F), Abraxane-gemcitabine (AG) or a combination of cisplatin, abraxane, capecitabine and gemcitabine (PAXG)] and evaluate disease control rate (DCR) at 6-months (DCR-6), Progression-Free-Survival (PFS) and Overall-Survival (OS). We also explored transcriptomic signatures associated with smoking on a subset of EUS-acquired PDAC samples undergoing RNA-sequencing, with differential gene expression (DGE) analysis and pathways analysis performed. Furthermore, in vitro analyses with PDAC cell lines CAPAN-1 were treated with Folfirinox or gemcitabine with/without the nicotine compound 4-(Methylnitrosoamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone to evaluate in vitro effects.

Results

326 patients treated with chemotherapy of interest were analyzed. Median age was 65, with 51.5% being males. Disease’s resectability at diagnosis was 10.4% resectable, 37.7% borderline-resectable, 26.9.% locally-advanced, 24.8% metastatic. AG was used in 42.3% of patients, PAXG in 25.7%, Folfirinox in 31.9%. DCR-6 was 57.9% in current smokers vs 70.4% in never-/ex-smokers (p=0.05). Current smoking was associated with a lack of DCR-6 at adjusted multivariable analysis (OR=1.99; 95%CI:1.1-3.5; p=0.01). At subgroup analysis, this was confirmed only for Folfirinox patients, with DCR-6 being 46.2% for current smokers vs 75.6% for non-current smokers(p=0.007). Current smokers had a significantly shorter PFS (5 vs 13 months; HR:1.79; 95%CI:1.13-3.21; p=0.01) and OS (24 vs 34; HR 1.93; 95%CI: 1-3.67; p=0.04) compared to non-smokers at adjusted multivariable analysis.
At transcriptomic analysis on a subset of 84 patients, current smokers were more prevalent in patients developing the more aggressive basal-like subtype (50% vs 15%; p=0.03), had lower expression of the classical marker GATA6 (3.27 vs 3.92; p=0.03) as also different activated pathways such as activated MAPK signalling, Axon guidance, Hypoxia and epithelial-mesenchymal-transition signalling among the others.
At in vitro experiments, for cell survival analysis, CAPAN-1 PDAC cells showed a significant reduced response to Folfirinox treatment when treated in combination with nicotin compounds, which was not observed for gemcitabine alone or in combination.

Conclusion

Collectively, our results consistently point towards a deleterious effect of smoking on response to Folfirinox regimen. Clinical data show that current smoking is a predictive factor for lower DCR-6, shorter PFS and OS; transcriptomic analyses show different gene expressions between smokers and non-smokers, with a transition toward reduced expression of classical phenotype and activation of inflammatory and pro-mesenchimal pathways. In vitro experiments support the negative effect of smoking on the response to Folfirinox. Smoking should be considered as a covariate to be investigated when choosing chemotherapy regimens in patients with PDAC, and patients should be discouraged to continue smoking.

Introduction

Avoidant/restrictive eating is common in people with neurogastroenterology disorders including functional dyspepsia (FD). There is debate on whether avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is an expected response to severe symptoms or simply a common comorbid disorder. To address this, among adults with FD, we aimed to contrast those with and without ARFID on FD symptoms, quality of life, psychosocial factors, nutrient tolerance, and gut transit.

Aims & Methods

Adults with Rome-IV confirmed FD and healthy controls (HC) from an ongoing study participated. ARFID diagnosis was assigned based on a semi-structured DSM-5 diagnostic interview. Surveys: Patient Assessment of GI Disorders Symptom Severity Index (PAGI-SYM), Short Form Nepean Dyspepsia Inventory (SF-NDI), Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), Fear of Food Questionnaire (FFQ), Visceral Sensitivity Index (VSI), and Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale (HADS). Nutrient Drink Test (NDT) measured gastric tolerance—liquid nutrient ingestion at 30mL/minute until subject reported unbearable fullness. Wireless Motility Capsule (WMC) measured gut transit. Height/weight was measured for body mass index (BMI).

Results

Sample (80% female, M_age=37.1±14.4y) included 37 FD+ARFID, 14 FD only, and 18 HC. Groups did not significantly differ in sex or age. Adjusted pairwise comparisons showed small (r=.1-.2) non-significant differences between FD and FD+ARFID on FD symptoms by PAGI-SYM and SF-NDI (Table 1). However, FD+ARFID had significantly worse scores compared to FD with medium effects (r=.3-.4) on: FD-related quality of life by SF-NDI, Fear of Food by NIAS-Fear and FFQ, GI-anxiety by VSI, and anxiety by HADS. FD+ARFID vs FD also had small differences (rs=.2) on: feeling more bothered by FD symptoms on SF-NDI, worse depression by HADS, lower BMI, and less NDT consumption. Compared to HC, FD and FD+ARFID had significantly worse survey scores with large effects for FD+ARFID (r=.6-.8) and medium effects for FD vs HC (r=.3-4). For the NDT, FD+ARFID consumed significantly less than HC with large effect (r=.6) but with a trend medium effect for FD consuming less than HC (r=.3). Groups did not significantly differ in WMC transit times.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest ARFID, when present in FD, does not reflect a response to more severe FD symptoms. Thus, ARFID is a legitimate secondary condition in FD. ARFID may reflect more profoundly altered distress around symptoms (e.g., fear of symptoms, anxiety sensitivity) and greater negative impacts (e.g., FD-related quality of life, lower liquid nutrient tolerance).

Introduction

The rising number of patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) in countries with aging populations in the near future is predictable considering that the incidence of pancreatic cystic tumors is positively correlated with patient age and that IPMNs occur most frequently among multifocal pancreatic cystic tumors. Although the majority of IPMNs detected incidentally through various imaging tests have a tumor diameter ≤10 mm and are thus deemed low-risk for carcinogenesis, the possibility of malignant transformation persists. Thus, such IPMNs are subject to periodic follow-up diagnostic imaging. Therefore, an appropriate surveillance system must be established to effectively and efficiently identify cases of IPMN-related malignant transformation, which develops only in few IPMN cases, under the constraints of limited national healthcare funding.

Aims & Methods

In the current study, we analyzed the clinical background observed at initial patient presentation that affect long-term prognosis and tried to narrow the population for whom continued evaluation is inevitable. The study included 1645 patients with IPMNs (776 men and 869 women) treated at our hospital since 2010. We examined the types and timing of medical intervention (surgical resection or pancreatic carcinogenesis) selected mainly in terms of worrisome features (WF) as advocated by the international guidelines (Pancreatology, 2024:24;255–70) for IPMN treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards model, with statistical significance set at α = 0.05.

Results

During the entire observation period, 123 patients (7.5%) had IPMN-derived carcinoma (IPMN-DC), whereas 41 patients (2.5%) had concomitant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which required medical intervention. The proportion of cases with c-Stage I, II, III, and IV (UICC 8th edition) at the time of diagnosis were 52.0%, 43.9%, 0.8%, and 3.3%, respectively, for IPMN-DC and 39.0%, 31.7%, 9.8%, and 19.5%, respectively for PDAC. A significantly higher proportion of PDAC cases were diagnosed with an advanced disease stage that developed earlier in time. Factors with significantly shorter time for IPMN-DC medical intervention were: maximum cyst diameter ≥30 mm, non-branched type, main pancreatic duct diameter ≥5 mm, and septal nodal structure for IPMN-DC. For PDAC, these factors were maximum cyst diameter ≥30 mm, main duct type, main pancreatic duct diameter ≥5 mm, septal nodal structure, cyst enlargement (≥2.5 mm/year), and abnormally high levels of CA19-9. Both groups could be significantly stratified by the number of WFs. However, the difference was more distinct in IPMN-DC, whereas <1% (9/1190) medical intervention from the group with 0 WFs was noted in PDAC. Relative risk (hazard ratio, HR) analysis of WF in which proportional hazard was maintained revealed that the presence of septal nodular structure (HR 5.2), maximum cyst diameter ≥30 mm (HR 3.3), and main pancreatic duct diameter ≥5 mm (HR 2.6) were significant factors for IPMN-DC, whereas abnormally high CA19-9 levels (HR 5.0) and septal nodular structure (HR 4.8) were significant for PDAC. Conversely, a significantly higher percentage of patients who exhibited these factors at initial presentation also later developed IPMN-DC or PDAC.

Conclusion

Ten percent of IPMN cases will develop IPMN-DC or PDAC, thereby requiring careful follow-up, especially in cases with septal nodules, abnormally high CA19-9 levels, and cysts with a maximum diameter of ≥30 mm.

Introduction

Incidence of sporadic ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in the Czech Republic is the third highest in Europe (23.1/100,000 population). New-onset diabetes mellitus with weight loss (> 5% within < 6 months) in patients over sixty can be an early sign of PDAC. New-onset diabetes mellitus was recorded in 12.2% subjects three years prior to the diagnosis of PDAC (in the 60-74+ age group:13.8%) in the Czech Republic in the period 2017-2021 [ref. 1].

Aims & Methods

The aim of this study was to evaluate the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of PDAC in patients with diabetes mellitus with and without previous history of any other malignancy within a 12-year period.
Methods: The analysis was based on individual population data from the Czech National Registry of Reimbursed Health Services, the National Cancer Registry, and the Death Certificate Information System in the period 2010 - 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: the first one included subjects with diabetes mellitus who had a history of any malignancy prior to the diagnosis of diabetes (follow-up 865,956 person-years); the second cohort consisted of people with diabetes mellitus who had no history of malignancy prior to the diagnosis of diabetes (7,971,090 person-years). The calculated person-years at risk were stratified by sex, age and time periods (2010-2013; 2014-2017; 2018-2021). Subgroup analyses were performed considering follow-up and age at diagnosis of diabetes. The first report of any antidiabetic drug (ATC group A10) was the determinant for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in a particular individual. SIR was calculated as the ratio of observed to expected (estimated from incidence in the general population) cases of PDAC.

Results

Selected SIRs stratified according to age and follow-up are displayed in Table 1.
A significantly higher risk of PDAC in diabetes mellitus with a history of previous malignant diseases (compared to the general population) was found for the following: head and neck cancer (SIR 2.54), gastric cancer (2.12), colorectal cancer (1.38), laryngeal cancer (2,51), malignant melanoma (1.65), breast cancer (1.61), cervical cancer (2.22), uterine cancer (1.72), prostate cancer (1.59), testicular cancer (3.1), kidney cancer (1.75), urinary bladder cancer (1.74), thyroid cancer (2.13), Hodgkin lymphoma (2.74), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2.15) and leukaemias (1.93).

Table 1
Risk of PDAC in diabetes mellitus

Conclusion

Risk of PDAC in patients with diabetes mellitus was higher in subjects with a history of various malignant diseases compared to those with no previous history of any malignancy. Particular attention should be paid to new-onset diabetes (diagnosis made within one last year). History of a malignancy, as an important risk factor for PDAC, should be taken into account when surveilling patients with diabetes mellitus.

Funding: Research projects MO1012 (DZVRO) and MH CZ-DRO (UHHK, 00179906).

References

Ref. 1: UEG Journal 2024; 12 (Suppl S8): 565.

Disclosure

There is conflict of interest.