Digestive System
Online Learning Platform

The majority of pancreatic cancers are due to spontaneous mutations in a complex combination of usually several mutations ((KRAS) mutations are common in 90% of pancreatic cancers, but in combination with different other mutations, DNA damage and usually other risk factors.

There is however a very important percentage (5%-10%) of new PC which associate familial pancreatic cancer (Defined by two first-degree-relatives with pancreatic cancer), There are indeed genes involved such as BRCA2 gene  mutations  ( 3.5-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer ).  Other inherited mutations in the STK11 gene cause the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and individuals with Peutz-Jeghers have a 130-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer

To put in context,

One degree relative with PC  makes relative having an 80% increased risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma (this is RR: 1.8)

individuals with 2 degree relatives with PC have a nine fold risk , and this rises to thirty-two times greater risk if three or more first degree relatives have been previously diagnosed

Hb needs to be kept 7-8g/dl at least,  and a target of >9-10g/dl  if significant cardiovascular disease.  Andenaxet is recommended if life threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, like this case which is responding only partially to resucitation with fluids and continues to pass blood, so it could be prescribed.  If not available, 4-F PCC can be used instead.  Urgent sigmoidoscopy in general has no role and it would likely be useless without an adequate bowel preparation as we would expect to have very poor visibility due to stool and blood remains.

Unprepped colonoscopy or any form of sigmoidoscopy is NOT recommended in acute lower GI Bleeding unless very clear that the source is known to be anorectal or very distal colon (see American Guidelines) BSG guidelines also recommneds Colonoscopy as  inpatient with adequate bowel preparation, not urgently but  ideally after stabilising the patient.

If after resucitation and transfusion the patient remains unstable, then a joined plan with intensivist and surgical colleagues should be made (i.e, Interventional radiology, vs quick preparation with movicol, vs enema and salvage lower endoscopy, vs surgical approach)

Check the guidelines

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm account for around 5% of pancreatic neoplasm. They are almost exclusively found in females (f:m ratio 10:1) and usually appear in their 20s.  CT and EUS can show well-encapsulated mass with varying solid and cystic components, caused by hemorrhagic degeneration. Peripheral calcification may occur.  They appearance can vary from solid to purely cystic- therefore even a small cystic lesion in a young female without previous pancreatitis episodes must make us consider this diagnosis

These lesion have a potential for malignant degeneration (Around 15%) therefore surgical removal is recommended . Cytology can show cluster  or sheets of papillary cells, PAS + and Vimentin.

• CLINICAL CASE AND Image: Dr Hajar Adil
• Source: Endosonography, 5th Edition by Shyam Varadarajulu, MD, Paul Fockens, MD, PhD and Robert H. Hawes, MD.
• Learning point brought by Dr Sarto Paquin

Misty mesentery refers to a non-specific radiological finding characterized by increased attenuation within the mesenteric fat on computed tomography  imaging.  It mimics mistiness as localised fat stranding in the mesentery.  Many processes can lead to the appearance including infiltration by inflammatory cells, oedema, lymphatic accumulation, haemorrhage, tumour infiltration, and fibrosis.  Tipically reflects mesentery panniculitis  ( rare  benign condition characterized by chronic inflammation  of adipose tissue mainly of the small bowel mesentery) But can be the results of any inflammatory or neoplasic process. That is why it is needed to consider also vasculitis, lymphomas, inflammatory process or GI neoplasia.

ESGE recommends offering treatment to all the patients with CBD stones (symptomatic or not) who are fit enough to undergo procedure.
This is true that we should explain always the option of intervention, and we should at least talk about risks of complication from leaving untreated biliary stones (Roughly about 25%  - biliary colic, pancreatitis, cholangitis- vs 12% if we clear the bile stones) this is  based on this  Gallrisk sweddish cohort   where they followed 3969 patients with untreated CBD stones, during follow-up ranging from 0 to 4 years. 

In summary: Explain why there is an indication to treat, which risks ERCP associates, what the alternatives may be  (ie Cholecystectomy plus surgical bile duct exploration in the same setting when approppriate) and their own risks.  And last but not least, explain the alternative of not treating and only monitoring, and the risks of this approach as well.

Difficult question, but summarizes the (sometimes) difficult scores.
Montreal classification is easy - A for Age  L for location and B for phenotype.  There is ileal and colonic involvement so it is L3 (Ileocolonic) Small p is added when it is perianal disease (abscesses, ulcers or fistulae , but not skin tags or fissures)

The HBI takes into account the general well being , Abdominal pain   Number of liquid stools per day, Abdominal mass and extrainestinal Complications ( arthralgia, uveitis, erythema nodosum, aphthous ulcers, pyoderma gangrenosum ,anal fissure , new fistula or abscess)

<5 Remission   5-7 Mild disease  8-16 Moderate disease  >16 Severe disease

Her score is 9 (Moderate) But this could be guessed based on her level of pain, stools and absence of systemic inflamamtory reponse.

Check the HBI score

For standard colonoscopies,  ASGE  and ESGE  agree that it should be an overall > 25% (for men ≥30%, for women ≥20%)

The  BSG minimum standard is slightly lower to > 15% (aspirational 20%)

Based on this metanalysis of real life Colonoscopy findings in >3.5 million patients, this percentage are pooled to real life colonoscopies

This rate is for standard colonoscopies, does not take into account FIT/FOBT  positive patients (Positive faecal blood patients in bowel screening) in which the aspirational should be at least 40-50% of adenoma or cancer detection. (See report from bowel screening in the UK)

ALD is the most common diagnose on referral for liver transplant in men but the second for women after MASLD.  MASLD is the most rapidly increasing indication for liver transplant worldwide.