Kassmeyer, Blake

ImportanceIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are pancreatic cysts that can give rise to pancreatic cancer (PC). Limited population data exist on their prevalence, natural history, or risk of malignant transformation (IPMN-PC).ObjectiveTo fill knowledge gaps in epidemiology of IPMNs and associated PC risk by estimating population prevalence of IPMNs, associated PC risk, and proportion of IPMN-PC.Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Using the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP), patients aged 50 years and older with abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans between 2000 and 2015 were randomly selected (CT cohort). All patients from the REP with PC between 2000 and 2019 were also selected (PC cohort). Data were analyzed from November 2021 through August 2023.Main outcomes and MeasuresCIs for PC incidence estimates were calculated using exact methods with the Poisson distribution. Cox models were used to estimate age, sex, and stage–adjusted hazard ratios for time-to-event end points.ResultsThe CT cohort included 2114 patients (1140 females [53.9%]; mean [SD] age, 68.6 [12.1] years). IPMNs were identified in 231 patients (10.9%; 95% CI, 9.7%-12.3%), most of which were branch duct (210 branch-duct [90.9%], 16 main-duct [6.9%], and 5 mixed [2.2%] IPMNs). There were 5 Fukuoka high-risk (F-HR) IPMNs (2.2%), 39 worrisome (F-W) IPMNs (16.9%), and 187 negative (F-N) IPMNs (81.0%). After a median (IQR) follow-up of 12.0 (8.1-15.3) years, 4 patients developed PC (2 patients in F-HR and 2 patients in F-N groups). The PC incidence rate per 100 person years for F-HR IPMNs was 34.06 incidents (95% CI, 4.12-123.02 incidents) and not significantly different for patients with F-N IPMNs compared with patients without IPMNs (0.16 patients; 95% CI, 0.02-0.57 patients vs 0.11 patients; 95% CI, 0.06-0.17 patients; P = .62). The PC cohort included 320 patients (155 females [48.4%]; mean [SD] age, 72.0 [12.3] years), and 9.8% (95% CI, 7.0%-13.7%) had IPMN-PC. Compared with 284 patients with non-IPMN PC, 31 patients with IPMN-PC were older (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [9.2] vs 71.3 [12.5] years; P = .02) and more likely to undergo surgical resection (14 patients [45.2%] vs 60 patients [21.1%]; P = .003) and more-frequently had nonmetastatic PC at diagnosis (20 patients [64.5%] vs 130 patients [46.8%]; P = .047). Patients with IPMN-PC had better survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94; P = .03) than patients with non-IPMN PC.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, CTs identified IPMNs in approximately 10% of patients aged 50 years or older. PC risk in patients with F-N IPMNs was low and not different compared with patients without IPMNs; approximately 10% of patients with PC had IPMN-PC, and they had better survival compared with patients with non-IPMN PC.

Abstract Background and study aims Adequacy of endoscope disinfection in resource-limited settings is unknown. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) testing is useful for evaluation of endoscope reprocessing, and ATP <200 relative light units (RLUs) after manual endoscope cleaning has been associated with adequacy of endoscope disinfection. Methods Consecutive endoscopes undergoing reprocessing at five World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO) training centers underwent ATP testing before and after an on-site educational intervention designed to optimize reprocessing practices. Results A total of 343 reprocessing cycles of 65 endoscopes were studied. Mean endoscope age was 5.3 years (range 1–13 years). Educational interventions, based on direct observation of endoscope reprocessing practices at each site, included refinements in pre-cleaning, manual cleaning, high-level disinfection, and endoscope drying and storage. The percentage of reprocessing cycles with post-manual cleaning ATP ≧200 decreased from 21.4% prior to educational intervention to 14.8% post-intervention (P=0.11). In multivariable logistic modelling, gastroscopes were significantly less likely (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01–0.19; P<0.001) than colonoscopes to achieve post-manual cleaning ATP < 200. No other factor (educational intervention, study site, endoscope age) was significantly associated with improved outcomes. Endoscope ID was not significantly associated with ATP values, and sites that performed manual versus automated HLD did not have significantly different likelihood of post-manual cleaning ATP <200 (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.56–2.50; P=0.67). Conclusions In resource-limited settings, approximately 20% of endoscope reprocessing cycles may result in inadequate disinfection. This was not significantly improved by a comprehensive educational intervention. Alternative approaches to endoscope reprocessing are needed.