Treatment Strategy for Main Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas Based on the Assessment of Recurrence in the Remnant Pancreas After Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: To clarify the recurrence pattern after resection of main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (MD-IPMNs) using molecular analyses and determine the most adequate treatment strategy. Background: The most appropriate resection line for MD-IPMNs remains an unresolved issue. Methods: Medical records of 56 patients with pancreatectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Histological subtypes and Kras/GNAS mutations were assessed in patients with recurrence in the remnant pancreas. Results: Forty-nine patients underwent partial pancreatectomy and 7 underwent total pancreatectomy. Thirty-six patients (64%) had malignant MD-IPMNs. Recurrence was observed in 7 of 49 patients (14%), including 6 with malignant IPMNs and 1 with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, all of whom underwent remnant pancreatectomy. The cumulative disease-specific survival rate of patients with pancreatic recurrence was greater than that of patients with extrapancreatic recurrence (P < 0.001). Although the pancreatic margin status at the initial operation did not affect the pancreatic recurrence rate, all 4 recurrent IPMNs examined had histological subtypes and Kras/GNAS mutations identical to those of the initial lesions. Four patients experienced recurrence in the remnant pancreas or systemic recurrence after resection of high-grade dysplasia of MD-IPMN. Three of the 56 patients had concomitant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas and MD-IPMNs. Conclusions: One-step total pancreatectomy can be avoided, and remnant total pancreatectomy would lead to favorable outcomes even in patients with pancreatic recurrence, some cases of which seem to involve residual lesions. Postoperative surveillance of high-grade dysplasia should be performed as if malignant, and close attention should be paid to the occurrence of concomitant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in patients with MD-IPMNs. In view of histological subtypes and Kras/GNAS mutations, recurrent lesions in the remnant pancreas after resection of main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms seem to involve residual lesions at the initial operation. However, remnant pancreatectomy would lead to a favorable outcome, and 1-step total pancreatectomy can be avoided in patients with negative margins.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".