Diagnostic Dilemma in a Patient with Jaundice: How to Differentiate between Autoimmune Pancreatitis, Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis and Pancreas Carcinoma

A 68-year-old male patient was referred to our institution in May 2011 for a suspected tumor in the pancreatic head with consecutive jaundice. Using magnetic resonance imaging, further differentiation between chronic inflammation and a malignant process was not possible with certainty. Apart from cholestasis, laboratory studies showed increased values for CA 19-9 to 532 U/ml (normal <37 U/ml) and hypergammaglobulinemia (immunoglobulin G, IgG) of 19.3% (normal 8.0–15.8%) with an elevation of the IgG4 subtype to 2,350 mg/l (normal 52–1,250 mg/l). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography revealed a prominent stenosis of the distal ductus hepaticus communis caused by pancreatic head swelling and also a bihilar stenosis of the main hepatic bile ducts. Cytology demonstrated inflammatory cells without evidence of malignancy. Under suspicion of autoimmune pancreatitis with IgG4-associated cholangitis, immunosuppressive therapy with steroids and azathioprine was started. Follow-up endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after 3 months displayed regressive development of the diverse stenoses. Jaundice had disappeared and blood values had returned to normal ranges. Moreover, no tumor of the pancreatic head was present in the magnetic resonance control images. Due to clinical and radiological similarities but a consecutive completely different prognosis and therapy, it is of fundamental importance to differentiate between pancreatic cancer and autoimmune pancreatitis. Especially, determination of serum IgG4 levels and associated bile duct lesions induced by inflammation should clarify the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and legitimate immunosuppressive therapy

Management of patients with biliary sphincter of Oddi disorder without sphincter of Oddi manometry

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The paucity of controlled data for the treatment of most biliary sphincter of Oddi disorder (SOD) types and the incomplete response to therapy seen in clinical practice and several trials has generated controversy as to the best course of management of these patients. In this observational study we aimed to assess the outcome of patients with biliary SOD managed without sphincter of Oddi manometry.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifty-nine patients with biliary SOD (14% type I, 51% type II, 35% type III) were prospectively enrolled. All patients with a dilated common bile duct were offered endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and sphincterotomy whereas all others were offered medical treatment alone. Patients were followed up for a median of 15 months and were assessed clinically for response to treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At follow-up 15.3% of patients reported complete symptom resolution, 59.3% improvement, 22% unchanged symptoms, and 3.4% deterioration. Fifty-one percent experienced symptom resolution/improvement on medical treatment only, 12% after sphincterotomy, and 10% after both medical treatment/sphincterotomy. Twenty percent experienced at least one recurrence of symptoms after initial response to medical and/or endoscopic treatment. Fifty ERCP procedures were performed in 24 patients with an 18% complication rate (16% post-ERCP pancreatitis). The majority of complications occurred in the first ERCP these patients had. Most complications were mild and treated conservatively. Age, gender, comorbidity, SOD type, dilated common bile duct, presence of intact gallbladder, or opiate use were not related to the effect of treatment at the end of follow-up (p > 0.05 for all).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients with biliary SOD may be managed with a combination of endoscopic sphincterotomy (performed in those with dilated common bile duct) and medical therapy without manometry. The results of this approach with regards to symptomatic relief and ERCP complication rate are comparable to those previously published in the literature in cohorts of patients assessed by manometry.</p

Overview of cattle diseases listed under category C, D or E in the animal health law for wich control programmes are in place within Europe

13 páginas, 5 figuras, 3 tablas.The COST action “Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control),” aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.Peer reviewe