Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objectives: Kyoto high-risk stigmata (HRS) guide resection of branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) but miss a substantial proportion of high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma (HGD/IC). We characterized the pathologic, molecular, and anatomic features of HGD/IC that Kyoto HRS fail to identify, and examined whether they are detectable before surgery by endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (EUS-nCLE) and cyst-fluid molecular analysis. Methods: BD-IPMNs resected from 2015 to 2024 in two prospective trials were retrospectively analyzed. Dysplasia and IPMN-subtype were reassessed by blinded pancreaticobiliary pathologists with consensus and immunohistochemistry. Papillary architecture was classified as macropapillary versus non-macropapillary (micropapillary or flat). Diagnostic performance for HGD/IC was assessed against the consensus pathology reference standard. Results: Among 68 BD-IPMNs, 26 (38.2%) had HGD/IC, concentrated in non-macropapillary lesions (53.1%, 17/32, vs. 25.0%, 9/36; P =0.017), with the micropapillary pattern carrying the highest proportion (71.4%, 10/14). GNAS mutation was less frequent in non-macropapillary than macropapillary lesions (25.0% vs. 85.2%; P <0.001). Kyoto HRS were highly specific (95.2%) but only 53.8% sensitive; among 52 HRS-negative lesions, 23.1% (12/52) harbored HGD/IC, predominantly non-macropapillary, GNAS -negative, and located in the body or tail. Adding EUS-nCLE raised sensitivity from 52% to 80% (McNemar P =0.016) at 81% specificity, but nCLE was least sensitive in non-macropapillary lesions (43.8%), where absent GNAS provided a complementary preoperative marker. Conclusions: The HGD/IC missed by Kyoto HRS was characteristically micropapillary, GNAS -negative, and/or in the body or tail. Because architecture and subtype are histopathologic, preoperative recognition rests on combining Kyoto HRS, EUS-nCLE, and cyst-fluid molecular testing. Prospective external validation is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maloof et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: