Conference Report: Korea-Japan Symposium on Autoimmune Pancreatitis

Abstract

A consensus meeting on autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) was held in Seoul on August 31, 2007. Many Korean and Japanese gastroenterologist interested in AIP participated in the joint symposium, and issues related to histology, radiology, clinical manifestation, serology, and diagnostic criteria were discussed. This joint meeting indicated the need for unified diagnostic criterion for AIP in Korea and Japan. Here, we provide a summary of the symposium presentations and discussions. (Gut and Liver 2008;2:81-87)

Autoimmune pancreatitis in Japan: overview and perspective

“…To bridge the gap, Japanese and Korean AIP experts held three meetings in 2007 and 2008 to discuss the consensus criteria of AIP [98][99][100]. Concerning the use of MRCP in place of ERCP, both sides agreed to understand ERCP as an essential imaging modality due to the currently unsatisfactory resolution of MRI in visualizing the narrowed MPD in AIP patients.…”

The role of CD19+CD24highCD38high and CD19+CD24highCD27+ regulatory B cells in patients with type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis

“…There are several diagnostic criteria in each countries and areas. The diagnosis of AIP must be made on the presence of a unique set of characteristics [13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

Magnetic resonance imaging findings of the mass‐forming type of autoimmune pancreatitis: Comparison with pancreatic adenocarcinoma

“…AIP is usually first suggested by an imaging test such as contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), both of which are frequently used to evaluate pancreatic disease (4). Sometimes this rare, benign disease, especially when it is associated with a tumor‐like lesion of fibrosis and obliterative venulitis, both clinically and radiologically, resembles pancreatic carcinoma (5–9). As AIP may present as a stricture in the common bile duct (CBD) or with the finding of a focal lesion in the head of the pancreas with or without dilation of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) and distal pancreatic parenchymal atrophy, it often suggests malignancy, and it is a true clinical dilemma to distinguish it from pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) based on imaging tests, as treatment strategies for the two diseases are very different (10, 11).…”

“…Until now, several types of diagnostic criteria have been proposed, and AIP diagnosis may be attained through well‐established diagnostic criteria (6–8, 13, 14). The revised HISORt criteria (5) is one of the suggestive diagnostic criteria, which emphasize not only features highly suggestive or supportive of diagnosis of AIP but also features highly suggestive of PAC.…”