Cancer Risk After Initial Surveillance of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs): Are We Missing the Window for Prevention?

BACKGROUND: The management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) has evolved through successive International Association of Pancreatology guidelines, aiming to refine surgical indications and improve cancer prevention. With broader adoption of surveillance, the oncologic outcomes of patients resected after follow-up-and the effectiveness of current strategies in preventing malignancy-remain unclear. This study examined how evolving management has influenced surgical selection and cancer prevention, particularly by comparing patients resected at diagnosis versus after surveillance. METHODS: Patients with presumed IPMN across four International Association of Pancreatology guideline periods (pre-2006, 2006-2012 [Sendai], 2012-2017 [Fukuoka], and 2017-2024 [Fukuoka revisions]) were analysed by clinical trajectory: follow-up without surgery, upfront surgery (resection within 12 months of diagnosis), and post-surveillance resection (PR). Endpoints included surgical indications and rates of low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and invasive carcinoma (IC). RESULTS: Across guideline periods, patients managed with surveillance increased from 172 before 2006 to 828 in 2006-2012, 1,572 in 2012-2017, and 1,193 after 2017, while PR increased from 11 to 29, 60, and 204, respectively. Overall, among 3,304 patients, 2,452 (74%) were managed with surveillance, 548 (17%) underwent upfront surgery, and 304 (9%) had PR. In the PR group, resections for a single high-risk stigmata (HRS) increased from 9% to 48%, and those with multiple HRS up to 20% after 2017. At pathology, LGD decreased from 46% to 17%, whereas HGD and IC increased from 18 to 28% and from 36 to 45%, respectively. In the upfront surgery group, LGD decreased from 49% to 26%. Development of HRS during follow-up was associated with a higher risk of HGD/IC (odds ratio 2.18, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: While evolving IPMN management has reduced rates of LGD and increased detection of HGD, invasive carcinoma remains frequent at resection after surveillance, as surgery is often delayed until HRS emerge. Improved tools are needed to optimize timing and define appropriate oncologic outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published
2026-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-026-19898-2
Primary Topic
Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cancer Risk After Initial Surveillance of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs): Are We Missing the Window for Prevention?

Antonio Pea, Chiara Filippini, Elisa Venturini, Tommaso Dall’Olio et al.
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
article

Cancer Risk After Initial Surveillance of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs): Are We Missing the Window for Prevention?

Antonio Pea, Chiara Filippini, Elisa Venturini, Tommaso Dall’Olio, G. Zamboni, Dario Solinas, Mirko D’Onofrio, Stefano Crinò, Roberto Salvia, Claudio Luchini, Matteo De Pastena
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) has evolved through successive International Association of Pancreatology guidelines, aiming to refine surgical indications and improve cancer prevention. With broader adoption of surveillance, the oncologic outcomes of patients resected after follow-up-and the effectiveness of current strategies in preventing malignancy-remain unclear. This study examined how evolving management has influenced surgical selection and cancer prevention, particularly by comparing patients resected at diagnosis versus after surveillance. METHODS: Patients with presumed IPMN across four International Association of Pancreatology guideline periods (pre-2006, 2006-2012 [Sendai], 2012-2017 [Fukuoka], and 2017-2024 [Fukuoka revisions]) were analysed by clinical trajectory: follow-up without surgery, upfront surgery (resection within 12 months of diagnosis), and post-surveillance resection (PR). Endpoints included surgical indications and rates of low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and invasive carcinoma (IC). RESULTS: Across guideline periods, patients managed with surveillance increased from 172 before 2006 to 828 in 2006-2012, 1,572 in 2012-2017, and 1,193 after 2017, while PR increased from 11 to 29, 60, and 204, respectively. Overall, among 3,304 patients, 2,452 (74%) were managed with surveillance, 548 (17%) underwent upfront surgery, and 304 (9%) had PR. In the PR group, resections for a single high-risk stigmata (HRS) increased from 9% to 48%, and those with multiple HRS up to 20% after 2017. At pathology, LGD decreased from 46% to 17%, whereas HGD and IC increased from 18 to 28% and from 36 to 45%, respectively. In the upfront surgery group, LGD decreased from 49% to 26%. Development of HRS during follow-up was associated with a higher risk of HGD/IC (odds ratio 2.18, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: While evolving IPMN management has reduced rates of LGD and increased detection of HGD, invasive carcinoma remains frequent at resection after surveillance, as surgery is often delayed until HRS emerge. Improved tools are needed to optimize timing and define appropriate oncologic outcomes.

Annals of Surgical Oncology
University of Verona (IT), Pancreas Centre (Canada) (CA)
Fondazione Italiana per la ricerca sulle Malattie del Pancreas, Università degli Studi di Verona
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.