Clinical differences between mass-forming autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer

Abstract

Objective. Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) needs to be differentiated from pancreatic cancer (PC). We aimed to clarify the findings specific for AIP by comparing the clinical differences between mass-forming AIP and PC. Material and methods. We retrospectively compared 36 patients with mass-forming AIP and 60 with PC without metastasis regarding clinical, imaging, serological, histological differences and other organ involvement (OOI). We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of these findings for the differential diagnosis between AIP and PC. Results. The findings 100% specific for AIP were a capsule-like rim on computed tomography (CT), skipped lesion of main pancreatic duct (MPD) on endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), γ-globulin > 2 g/dl, OOI (extrapancreatic biliary stricture, salivary gland swelling and retroperitoneal fibrosis) and ruling out PC by histopathological findings of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. The findings over 90% specific were IgG4 > 280 mg/dl (98%), IgG > 1800 mg/dl (97%), maximal diameter of upstream MPD < 5 mm on MRCP (95%) and IgG4 > 135 mg/dl (94%), respectively. Conclusions. Clinical, imaging, serological, histological findings and OOI differed between mass-forming AIP and PC. Capsule-like rim on CT, skipped lesion of MPD on ERP or MRCP, IgG4 > 280 mg/dl, and OOI were highly specific findings for AIP. These findings are useful in the differential diagnosis of mass-forming AIP from PC.

Key Words::

• autoimmune pancreatitis
• diagnostic criteria
• mass-forming
• pancreatic cancer

Acknowledgments

This study was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Culture and Science of Japan (23790803 and 23591015) and by the Research Program of Intractable Disease provided by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.