Chronic pancreatitis is a putative risk factor for pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the magnitude and temporality of this association. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for observational studies investigating the association between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. We computed overall effect estimates (EEs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects meta-analytic model. The EEs were stratified by length of follow-up from chronic pancreatitis diagnosis to pancreatic cancer (lag period). Robustness of the results was examined in sensitivity analyses. We identified 13 eligible studies. Pooled EEs for pancreatic cancer in patients with chronic pancreatitis were 16.16 (95% CI: 12.59-20.73) for patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer within 2 years from their chronic pancreatitis diagnosis. The risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with chronic pancreatitis decreased when the lag period was increased to 5 years (EE: 7.90; 95% CI: 4.26-14.66) or a minimum of 9 years (EE: 3.53; 95% CI: 1.69-7.38). In conclusion, chronic pancreatitis increases the risk of pancreatic cancer, but the association diminishes with long-term follow-up. Five years after diagnosis, chronic pancreatitis patients have a nearly eight-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer. We suggest that common practice on inducing a 2-year lag period in these studies may not be sufficient. We also recommend a close follow-up in the first years following a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis to avoid overlooking a pancreatic cancer.
In a nationwide, population-based, matched cohort study, we observed an association between a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and long-term risk of pancreatic cancer.
The present study, which is the largest ever conducted in this treatment area, supports the hypothesis that PC is an effective treatment modality for critically ill patients with ACC unfit for surgery and results in a low rate of 30-day mortality.
Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been adopted widely to ensure optimal treatment for patients with cancer. Agreements in tumour staging, resectability assessments and treatment allocation between different MDTs were assessed.Methods: Of all patients referred to one hospital, 19 patients considered to have non-metastatic pancreatic cancer for evaluation were selected randomly for a multicentre study of MDT decisions in seven units across Northern Europe. Anonymized clinical information and radiological images were disseminated to the MDTs. All patients were reviewed by the MDTs for radiological T, N and M category, resectability assessment and treatment allocation. Each MDT was blinded to the decisions of other teams. Agreements were expressed as raw percentages and Krippendorff's values, both with 95 per cent confidence intervals.Results: A total of 132 evaluations in 19 patients were carried out by the seven MDTs (1 evaluation was excluded owing to technical problems). The level of agreement for T, N and M categories ranged from moderate to near perfect (46⋅8, 61⋅1 and 82⋅8 per cent respectively), but there was substantial variation in assessment of resectability; seven patients were considered to be resectable by one MDT but unresectable by another. The MDTs all agreed on either a curative or palliative strategy in less than half of the patients (9 of 19). Only fair agreement in treatment allocation was observed (Krippendorff's 0⋅31, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅16 to 0⋅45). There was a high level of agreement in treatment allocation where resectability assessments were concordant.Conclusion: Considerable disparities in MDT evaluations of patients with pancreatic cancer exist, including substantial variation in resectability assessments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.