Eleven patients underwent surgery based on their positive cytologic results. A further 6 patients were later referred for surgery based on progression of main PD and branch duct dilatation (4 patients) and enlarging mural nodules (2 patients). The resection specimens in these 17 patients showed adenoma in 5, in situ carcinoma in 8, and invasive carcinoma in 4. Thus, 12 of 44 patients (27%) were found to have malignant branch duct IPMNs and 32 of 44 (73%) had nonmalignant
IPMNs. There were no false-positive results and 1 false-negative result. The authors calculated that the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the cell-block method for discriminating benign branch duct IPMNs from malignant ones in this study were 92%, 100%, buy PLX-4720 100%, and 97%, respectively. The histologic (H&E) results and immunochemical staining (for MUC proteins) were reportedly in agreement in 88% (15/17), 94% (16/17), 88% (15/17), and 100% (17/17) of the cases, respectively. We congratulate
the authors for their useful contribution to the debate on how best to make an accurate tissue-based diagnosis in cases of branch duct IPMN. Historically, the negative predictive value of standard cytology for IPMN has been low, so any technique that promises to increase it to 100% is worthy of serious consideration. What are the limitations of this study? First and foremost, it is a single-center, prospective study of a novel technique, with no comparison Fulvestrant with existing methodology. We believe that a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of pancreatic lavage cytology and cell-block histology versus EUS-FNA cytology of suspicious lesions (mural nodules/masses) and fluid aspirates in suspected branch duct IPMN is necessary to put this new technique in perspective. We have concerns about the risk of acute pancreatitis from infusing saline solution into the PD. The dual-channel catheter used by the authors to perform simultaneous or sequential injection and aspiration of saline solution for PD lavage is (presumably) an extension of
GBA3 existing technology: aspiration catheters have been touted as reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis from sphincter of Oddi manometry for years.9 As mentioned previously, it is rumored that pancreatography (endoscopic retrograde pancreatography) in the setting of an IPMN, especially the main duct variety, carries significantly increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. We were surprised to learn that hyperamylasemia developed in only 5 of 44 (11%) of the patients undergoing PD lavage in this study, 4 of whom had “slight abdominal pain or discomfort” only, which resolved within 24 hours. Based on the Cotton et al10 classification of post-ERCP complications, procedure-related pancreatitis developed in none of their patients. This seems quite remarkable to us because the authors report that more than 30 mL of lavage fluid was recovered within 2 minutes.