Retrospective analysis identifies lower malignancy rate in mixed IPMNs compared to main and branch duct types, suggesting revised risk assessment.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of malignancy in radiologically classified mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) undergoing surgical resection compared to main-duct (MD) and branch-duct (BD) IPMNs. BACKGROUND: Mixed-IPMNs are widely perceived as high-risk lesions; however, limited and heterogeneous data available on this category raise uncertainty regarding their true risk profile. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 836 consecutive resected IPMNs (2000-2025) from a prospectively maintained single-institution database. IPMNs were classified and compared based on preoperative imaging. Malignancy was defined as high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma. RESULTS: Of 773 patients who met inclusion criteria, 305 (39.4%) had a radiologically defined mixed-IPMN, 135 (17.5%) MD-IPMN, and 333 (43.1%) BD-IPMN. Malignancy was observed in 46.5% of mixed-IPMNs (142/305), 79.2% MD-IPMNs (107/135), and 33.9% BD-IPMNs (113/333). The rate of invasive carcinoma was 19.0% (58/305) in mixed-IPMNs and 45.9% (62/135) in MD-IPMNs ( P <0.001). In the absence of high-risk stigmata, the malignancy rate of mixed-IPMNs decreased to 24.7% (46/186), and did not differ from that of BD-IPMNs (51/252, 20.2%; P =0.263). Moreover, when main pancreatic duct (MPD) dilatation was the single worrisome feature, the malignancy rate was 6.3%, with risk increasing significantly only in the presence of multiple worrisome features or when MPD dilatation reached 7-8 mm. Furthermore, in one-third of radiologically defined mixed-IPMNs (103/305), final pathology revealed no MPD involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed-IPMNs are highly heterogeneous and have a lower malignancy rate than previously reported in resected cohorts. In the absence of high-risk stigmata, most lesions are benign, highlighting limitations of current risk stratification and selection for surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stefano et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: