Objectives
To delineate the clinical and pathological characteristics of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN), compare them between adults and children, and determine the predictive features suggesting malignant potential.
Design
Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent surgery for a pathologically confirmed SPN.
Setting
Tertiary care referral center.
Patients
Sixty-two consecutive patients who underwent surgery for a pathologically confirmed SPN between 1985 and 2006.
Main Outcome Measures
Demographic information and clinical presentation, radiological details, surgical data, pathological characteristics, postoperative course, and long-term survival.
Results
Among 62 patients, 47 patients were adults (mean age, 36 years; range, 18-63 years) and 15 patients were children (mean age, 12 years; range, 8-13 years). A palpable mass was the most common presenting symptom in children (9 of 15; 60%) and an incidentally detected pancreatic mass, in adults (18 of 47; 38.3%) (P = .001). The mean tumor size in children was significantly larger than in adults (8.0 vs 6.0 cm; P < .03). In children, the tumor was located in the head of the pancreas (10 of 15; 66.7%) and in adults, in the body or tail (38 of 47; 80.9%) (P = .001). Nine patients (14.5%) had malignant SPN. There was no significant clinical factor suggesting malignant potential. Two patients had a tumor recurrence. They were still alive after debulking surgery. There were no tumor-related deaths.
Conclusion
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm had different clinical features in adults and children. Because long-term survival can be achieved, even with the synchronous or metachronous metastatic lesions, SPN should be treated aggressively, with complete resection, even if this requires metastatectomy.
A solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) is a rare primary neoplasm of the pancreas with low-grade malignant potential. Despite a recent increase in recognition, the pathogenesis and guidelines for SPN treatment remain unclear. Even in the event of metastases, extension into adjacent structures, or nodal involvement, radical surgical resection provides long-term survival.1-3 Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm in children is rare.4-7 Because of the rarity of this neoplasm, the reported information available is limited. To our knowledge, there is no prior report of a comparison of the clinical and pathological features in adults and children. In this study, we evaluated the clinical and pathological characteristics of SPN, the features suggesting malignant potential, and the long-term outcome, comparing them between adults and children, by examining a single institution's experience.
Between January 1985 and December 2006, 62 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for a pathologically confirmed SPN at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University Children's Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Of the 62 patients, 47 patients were adults (mean age, 36 years; range, 18-63 years) and 15 were children (mean age, 12 years; range, 8-13 years). Demographic information and clinical presentation, radiological details, surgical data, pathological characteristics, postoperative course, and long-term survival were evaluated. We compared the outcomes of the clinical and pathological characteristics between females and males and between benign and malignant SPN in the adults and children. Pathologically, SPN was defined as malignant if it demonstrated deep pancreatic invasion, perineural invasion, vascular invasion, or lymph node metastasis.
Statistical comparisons between the 2 groups were made using the χ2 test or the Fisher exact test for categorical parameters and the t test for continuous variables. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
Comparison of clinical and patholgical features between adults and children
The clinical and pathological features of the 62 patients are summarized in Table 1. In the adult group, the diagnosis was usually made incidentally during screening by detection of a mass. By contrast, all of the children were symptomatic. This difference in presentation was significant (P = .001). Only 38 patients' (61.3%) SPN was diagnosed before surgery. The mean diameter of the tumors based on pathological examination was 6.0 cm (range, 1.5-14 cm) in adults and 8.0 cm (range, 3.5-14 cm) in children. The tumor size was significantly larger in children than in adults (P = .03). The most common location of the tumor in all patients was the pancreatic body or tail (43 of 62; 69.4%). In adults, the pancreatic body or tail was the most common location of the tumor. However, in children, the pancreatic head was the most common site (P = .001).
All patients underwent surgical resection for the tumor. Pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 18 patients; distal pancreatectomy, in 38 patients; central pancreatectomy, in 2 patients; and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection, in 1 patient (Table 1). Concurrent resection of other organs was performed in 4 patients (6.5%). Two patients underwent a transverse colon resection and anastomosis, and 1 patient underwent portal vein resection and anastomosis because tumor infiltration was suspected; pathology reports showed no tumor involvement. One child underwent a left lateral sectionectomy of the liver because of a synchronous liver metastasis. There was no surgery-related mortality. Postoperative complications were noted in 19 patients (30.6%), including pancreatic fistula in 6 patients, intra-abdominal fluid collection in 6 patients, and delayed gastric emptying in 3 patients. None of the complications required surgical intervention.
Characteristics of malignant spn
The pathological findings suggesting malignancy are listed in Table 1. Nine patients (14.5%) had malignant SPN. Perineural invasion was the most common pathological finding. A 13-year-old girl had a synchronous liver metastasis; she underwent near total pancreatectomy with left lateral sectionectomy and was treated with chemotherapy with the OCCG321P2 (combination of cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and etoposide phosphate) regimen for a total of 13 cycles. At 3 years' follow-up, this patient was living, with no evidence of recurrence. During the follow-up period that ranged from 5 months to 20 years (mean, 47.5 months), 2 patients had tumor recurrence. A 25-year-old patient underwent debulking surgery because of SPN in the tail of the pancreas and peritoneal seeding. This patient rejected adjuvant chemotherapy, and 13 years after the initial operation, the size of seeding nodules increased and debulking surgery was performed again. Sixteen years after the initial operation, liver metastasis was detected and a left lateral sectionectomy was performed. Twenty years after the initial operation, the patient was still living. The other patient was 8 years of age and she underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy because of a ruptured SPN. There were no pathological features suggesting a malignancy. Seven years after the initial operation, peritoneal seeding was detected. Debulking surgery was performed. There were no tumor-related deaths and all of the patients are still living.
Predictive features of malignant spn
We compared the clinical features of malignant and benign SPN. On univariate analyses, none of the preoperative features, including age, sex, tumor size, tumor location, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels, and elevated carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels, were predictive of a malignant SPN (Table 2).
Recently, the number of cases of SPNs reported in the literature has been steadily increasing. However, there have been only a few large series reporting a single institution's experience.1,8-10 Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is no prior report comparing the clinical and pathological features in adults and children.
This study evaluated 47 adults and 15 children with pathologically proven SPN. The adults and children had different clinical features. A palpable mass was the most common symptom in children with SPN (9 of 15; 60%) and no child's diagnosis was made incidentally. By contrast, an incidentally detected pancreatic mass was the most common presentation in adults (18 of 47; 38.3%) (P = .001). These results are different from the results of other reported studies. Abdominal pain was reported as the most common symptom.11 The incidental diagnosis in adults may be because of the improved generalized screening programs in Korea. The mean tumor size in children was significantly larger than in adults (6.0 vs 8.0 cm; P < .03). Because only a few cases of children have been reported and prior reports did not divide adult and childhood cases for comparison, we cannot confirm our findings by comparing the results with previous studies. In children, the tumor was more commonly located in the head of the pancreas (10 of 15; 66.7%), and in adults, location in the body or tail of the pancreas was more common (38 of 47; 80.9%) (P = .001). The tail of the pancreas has been the most commonly reported location of the tumor,12,13 except for 1 report from our institution.7 However, all prior reports analyzed the adults and children together, and therefore, potential differences could not be identified.
Although our study is one of the largest clinical and pathological studies to date, consistent with prior reports, there was no factor identified that predicted the malignant potential of an SPN.1,14 Malignant behavior (recurrence or metastasis) could not be completely excluded even in the absence of pathological features suggesting a malignant potential; therefore, aggressive tumor behavior was not predictable. In fact, 2 patients with recurrence in our study had no pathological features suggesting malignant potential. Therefore, regardless of the malignant potential, all patients with SPN must be observed closely. A few cases of SPN with peritoneal seeding have been reported who lived for several years after surgery.15-19 Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm is considered to be a tumor that grows slowly and can have stable metastatic disease. For these reasons, despite the large size of these tumors and their ability to extend locally, a complete excision can provide benefits for most patients.
The role of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for SPN is currently poorly defined because of the difficulty in obtaining data on adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy.20-22 In our study, 2 patients were given adjuvant chemotherapy. To our knowledge, there are only 2 published case reports showing successful use of radiotherapy21 and neoadjuvant chemotherapy22 for locally advanced unresectable SPN. Further studies are needed to determine the radiosensitivity and chemosensitivity of SPN.
In summary, SPN demonstrated different clinical features in adults and children. Further study is required to elucidate the pathophysiology of these differences. Because long-term survival can be achieved even with the synchronous or metachronous metastatic lesions, SPN of the pancreas should be treated aggressively, with surgical resection, even if this requires metastasectomy.
Correspondence: Sun-Whe Kim, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea (sunkim@plaza.snu.ac.kr).
Accepted for Publication: December 20, 2007.
Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Lee, Jang, Hwang, Park, and Kim. Acquisition of data: Lee. Analysis and interpretation of data: Lee, Jang, Hwang, Park, and Kim. Drafting of the manuscript: Lee, Jang, Hwang, Park, and Kim. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Lee, Jang, Park, and Kim. Statistical analysis: Lee, Jang, Hwang, and Kim. Obtained funding: Lee and Jang. Administrative, technical, and material support: Lee, Jang, Hwang, and Kim. Study supervision: Jang, Park, and Kim.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
1.Martin
RCKlimstra
DSBrennan
MFConlon
KC Solid-pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: a surgical enigma?
Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9
(1)
35- 40
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 2.Pettinato
GManivel
JCRavetto
C
et al. Papillary cystic tumor of the pancreas: a clinicopathologic study of 20 cases with cytologic, immunohistochemical, ultrastructural, and flow cytometric observations, and a review of the literature.
Am J Clin Pathol 1992;98
(5)
478- 488
PubMedGoogle Scholar 3.Petrakis
IVrachassotakis
NKogerakis
NHatzidakis
AZoras
OChalkiadakis
G Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: report of a case after a 10-year follow-up and review of the literature.
Pancreatology 2001;1
(2)
123- 128
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4.Ward
HCLeake
JSpitz
L Papillary cystic cancer of the pancreas: diagnostic difficulties.
J Pediatr Surg 1993;28
(1)
89- 91
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 5.Poustchi-Amin
MLeonidas
JCValderrama
E
et al. Papillary-cystic neoplasm of the pancreas.
Pediatr Radiol 1995;25
(7)
509- 511
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 6.Wang
KSAlbanese
CDada
FSkarsgard
ED Papillary cystic neoplasm of the pancreas: a report of three pediatric cases and literature review.
J Pediatr Surg 1998;33
(6)
842- 845
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 7.Jung
SEKim
DYPark
KWLee
SCJang
JJKim
WK Solid and papillary epithelial neoplasm of the pancreas in children.
World J Surg 1999;23
(3)
233- 236
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 8.Peng
CHChen
DFZhou
GW
et al. The solid-pseudopapillary tumor of pancreas: the clinical characteristics and surgical treatment.
J Surg Res 2006;131
(2)
276- 282
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 9.Sun
CDLee
WJChoi
JSOh
JTChoi
SH Solid-pseudopapillary tumours of the pancreas: 14 years experience.
ANZ J Surg 2005;75
(8)
684- 689
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 10.Salvia
RBassi
CFesta
L
et al. Clinical and biological behavior of pancreatic solid pseudopapillary tumors: report on 31 consecutive patients.
J Surg Oncol 2007;95
(4)
304- 310
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 11.Papavramidis
TPapavramidis
S Solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas: review of 718 patients reported in English literature.
J Am Coll Surg 2005;200
(6)
965- 972
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 12.Choi
SHKim
SMOh
JTPark
JYSeo
JMLee
SK Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: a multicenter study of 23 pediatric cases.
J Pediatr Surg 2006;41
(12)
1992- 1995
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 13.Rebhandl
WFelberbauer
FXPuig
S
et al. Solid-pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas (Frantz tumor) in children: report of four cases and review of the literature.
J Surg Oncol 2001;76
(4)
289- 296
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 14.Goh
BKTan
YMCheow
PC
et al. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: an updated experience.
J Surg Oncol 2007;95
(8)
640- 644
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 15.de Castro
SMSinghal
DAronson
DC
et al. Management of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: a comparison with standard pancreatic neoplasms.
World J Surg 2007;31
(5)
1130- 1135
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 17.Nishihara
KNagoshi
MTsuneyoshi
MYamaguchi
KHayashi
I Papillary cystic tumors of the pancreas: assessment of their malignant potential.
Cancer 1993;71
(1)
82- 92
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 18.Matsunou
HKonishi
F Papillary-cystic neoplasm of the pancreas: a clinicopathologic study concerning the tumor aging and malignancy of nine cases.
Cancer 1990;65
(2)
283- 291
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 19.Hibi
TOjima
HSakamoto
Y
et al. A solid pseudopapillary tumor arising from the greater omentum followed by multiple metastases with increasing malignant potential.
J Gastroenterol 2006;41
(3)
276- 281
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 20.Tipton
SGSmyrk
TCSarr
MG
et al. Malignant potential of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas.
Br J Surg 2006;93
(6)
733- 737
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 21.Fried
PCooper
JBalthazar
E
et al. A role for radiotherapy in the treatment of solid and papillary neoplasms of the pancreas.
Cancer 1985;56
(12)
2783- 2785
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 22.Maffuz
ABustamante Fde
TSilva
JA
et al. Preoperative gemcitabine for unresectable, solid pseudopapillary tumour of the pancreas.
Lancet Oncol 2005;6
(3)
185- 186
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref