Intraductal papillary neoplasms of the bile duct (IPNBs) are known to show various pathologic features and biological behaviors. Recently, two categories of IPNBs have been proposed based on their histologic similarities to pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs): type 1 IPNBs, which share many features with IPMNs; and type 2 IPNBs, which are variably different from IPMNs. The four IPNB subtypes were re-evaluated with respect to these two categories. Intestinal IPNBs showing a predominantly villous growth may correspond to type 1, while those showing papillay-tubular or papillay-villous growth correspond to type 2. Regarding gastric IPNB, those with regular foveolar structures with varying numbers of pyloric glands may correspond to type 1, while those with papillary-foveolar structures with gastric immunophenotypes and complicated structures may correspond to type 2. Pancreatobiliary IPNBs that show fine ramifying branching may be categorized as type 1, while others containing many complicated structures may be categorized as type 2. Oncocytic type, which displays solid growth or irregular papillary structures, may correspond to type 2, while papillary configurations with pseudostratified oncocytic lining cells correspond to type 1. Generally, type 1 IPNBs of any subtype develop in the intrahepatic bile ducts, while type 2 IPNBs develop in the extrahepatic bile duct. These findings suggest that IPNBs arising in the intrahepatic ducts are biliary counterparts of IPMNs, while those arising in the extrahepatic ducts display differences from prototypical IPMNs. The recognition of these two categories of IPNBs with reference to IPMNs and their anatomical location along the biliary tree may deepen our understanding of IPNBs.
Bile Ducts ; Bile Ducts, Extrahepatic ; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic ; Bile ; Biliary Tract ; Cholangiocarcinoma ; Gastric Mucosa ; Mucins

The number of patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) is currently increasing in both Korea and Japan. The 5-year survival rate of patients with PC 13.0%; however, resection with minimal invasion (tumor size: ≤10 mm) increases the 5-year survival rate to 80%. For this reason, early detection is essential, but most patients with early-stage PC are asymptomatic. Early detection of PC has been reported to require screening of high-risk individuals (HRIs), such as those with a family history of PC, inherited cancer syndromes, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, or chronic pancreatitis. Studies on screening of these HRIs have confirmed a significantly better prognosis among patients with PC who were screened than for patients with PC who were not screened. However, to date in Japan, most patients with early-stage PC diagnosed in routine clinics were not diagnosed during annual health checks or by surveillance; rather, PC was detected in these patients by incidental findings during examinations for other diseases. We need to increase the precision of the PC screening and diagnostic processes by introducing new technologies, and we need to pay greater attention to incidental clinical findings.

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.