Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3863_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
11 Мб
Скачать
☆
15 Surgical Treatment ofPancreatic Islet Cell Tumors
25. Ehrlich L, Hall C, Meng F, Lairmore T, Alpini G, Glaser S.A review of the scaffold protein
Menin and its role in hepatobiliary pathology. Gene Expr. 2017;17(3):251–63.
26. Yates CJ, Newey PJ, Thakker RV. Challenges and controversies in management of pan-
creatic neuroendocrine tumours in patients with MEN1. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3(11):895–905.
27. Frost M, Lines KE, Thakker RV.Current and emerging therapies for PNETs in patients with or
without MEN1. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(4):216–27.
28. Jensen RT, Norton JA.Treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in multiple endocrine
neoplasia type 1: some clarity but continued controversy. Pancreas. 2017;46(5):589–94.
29. Varshney N, Kebede AA, Owusu-Dapaah H, Lather J, Kaushik M, Bhullar JS.A review of Von
Hippel-Lindau syndrome. J Kidney Cancer VHL. 2017;4(3):20–9.
30. Keutgen XM, Hammel P, Choyke PL, Libutti SK, Jonasch E, Kebebew E.Evaluation and
management of pancreatic lesions in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(9):537–49.
31. Tirosh A, Sadowski SM, Linehan WM, Libutti SK, Patel D, Nilubol N, etal. Association of
VHL genotype with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor phenotype in patients with von Hippel­Lindau disease. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(1):124–6.
32. Morgat C, Vélayoudom-Céphise FL, Schwartz P, Guyot M, Gaye D, Vimont D, et al.
Evaluation of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET/CT for the detection of duodenopancreatic neuroen­docrine tumors in patients with MEN1. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(7):1258–66.
33. van Asselt SJ, Brouwers AH, van Dullemen HM, van der Jagt EJ, Bongaerts AH, Kema IP,
etal. EUS is superior for detection of pancreatic lesions compared with standard imaging in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):159–67.e2.
34. Barbe C, Murat A, Dupas B, Ruszniewski P, Tabarin A, Vullierme MP, etal. Magnetic reso-
nance imaging versus endoscopic ultrasonography for the detection of pancreatic tumours in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44(3):228–34.
35. Hashim YM, Trinkaus KM, Linehan DC, Strasberg SS, Fields RC, Cao D, etal. Regional
lymphadenectomy is indicated in the surgical treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs). Ann Surg. 2014;259(2):197–203.
36. Bilimoria KY, Talamonti MS, Tomlinson JS, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY, et al.
Prognostic score predicting survival after resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: anal­ysis of 3851 patients. Ann Surg. 2008;247(3):490–500.
37. Roland CL, Bian A, Mansour JC, Yopp AC, Balch GC, Sharma R, etal. Survival impact
of malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine and islet cell neoplasm phenotypes. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105(6):595–600.
38. Ekeblad S, Skogseid B, Dunder K, Oberg K, Eriksson B.Prognostic factors and survival in
324 patients with pancreatic endocrine tumor treated at a single institution. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(23):7798–803.
39. Postlewait LM, Ethun CG, Baptiste GG, Le N, McInnis MR, Cardona K, etal. Pancreatic neu-
roendocrine tumors: preoperative factors that predict lymph node metastases to guide opera­tive strategy. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(4):440–5.
40. Ballian N, Loefer AG, Rajamanickam V, Norstedt PA, Weber SM, Cho CS. A simpli-
ed prognostic system for resected pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11(5):422–8.
41. Conrad C, Kutlu OC, Dasari A, Chan JA, Vauthey JN, Adams DB, etal. Prognostic value of
lymph node status and extent of lymphadenectomy in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors con­ned to and extending beyond the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(12):1966–74.
42. Tomassetti P, Campana D, Piscitelli L, Casadei R, Santini D, Nori F, etal. Endocrine pancre-
atic tumors: factors correlated with survival. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(11):1806–10.
43. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, et al.
Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244(6):931–7; discussion 7–9.
227
228
44. Di Sabatino A, Carsetti R, Corazza GR.Post-splenectomy and hyposplenic states. Lancet.
2011;378(9785):86–97.
45. Hernandez MC, Khasawneh M, Contreras-Peraza N, Lohse C, Stephens D, Kim BD, etal.
Vaccination and splenectomy in Olmsted County. Surgery. 2019;166(4):556–63.
46. Senthinathan P, Jankar SV, Sabnis SC, Kaje V, Srivatsan Gurumurthy S, Anand Vijai N,
etal. Laparoscopic total pancreatectomy for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 syndrome­associated multifocal, non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: a case report. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2017;10(4):434–7.
47. Hüttner FJ, Koessler-Ebs J, Hackert T, Ulrich A, Büchler MW, Diener MK.Meta-analysis of
surgical outcome after enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Surg. 2015;102(9):1026–36.
48. Huang LC, Poultsides GA, Norton JA.Surgical management of neuroendocrine tumors of the
gastrointestinal tract. Oncology (Williston Park). 2011;25(9):794–803.
49. Zogakis TG, Gibril F, Libutti SK, Norton JA, White DE, Jensen RT, et al. Management
and outcome of patients with sporadic gastrinoma arising in the duodenum. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):42–8.
50. Burghardt L, Meier JJ, Uhl W, Kahle-Stefan M, Schmidt WE, Nauck MA.Importance of local-
ization of insulinomas: a systematic analysis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2019;26(9):383–92.
51. Spinelli A, Del Fabbro D, Sacchi M, Zerbi A, Torzilli G, Lutman FR, et al. Intraoperative
ultrasound with contrast medium in resective pancreatic surgery: a pilot study. World J Surg. 2011;35(11):2521–7.
52. Norton JA, Harris EJ, Chen Y, Visser BC, Poultsides GA, Kunz PC, etal. Pancreatic endocrine
tumors with major vascular abutment, involvement, or encasement and indication for resec­tion. Arch Surg. 2011;146(6):724–32.
53. Thiels CA, Bergquist JR, Laan DV, Croome KP, Smoot RL, Nagorney DM, etal. Outcomes
of pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: are combined procedures justied? J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(5):891–8.
54. Prakash L, Lee JE, Yao J, Bhosale P, Balachandran A, Wang H, et al. Role and operative
technique of portal venous tumor thrombectomy in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(11):2011–8.
55. Prakash L, Bhosale P, Cloyd J, Kim M, Parker N, Yao J, etal. Role of uorouracil, doxorubi-
cin, and streptozocin therapy in the preoperative treatment of localized pancreatic neuroendo­crine tumors. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(1):155–63.
56. Hüttner FJ, Schneider L, Tarantino I, Warschkow R, Schmied BM, Hackert T, etal. Palliative
resection of the primary tumor in 442 metastasized neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: a population-based, propensity score-matched survival analysis. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2015;400(6):715–23.
57. Bertani E, Fazio N, Radice D, Zardini C, Spinoglio G, Chiappa A, etal. Assessing the role
of primary tumour resection in patients with synchronous unresectable liver metastases from pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour of the body and tail. A propensity score survival evaluation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(2):372–9.
58. Starr JS, Sonbol MB, Hobday TJ, Sharma A, Kendi AT, Halfdanarson TR.Peptide receptor
radionuclide therapy for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: recent insights. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:3545–55.
59. Bertani E, Fazio N, Radice D, Zardini C, Grana C, Bodei L, etal. Resection of the primary
tumor followed by peptide receptor radionuclide therapy as upfront strategy for the treatment of G1-G2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with unresectable liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(Suppl 5):981–9.
60. Brighi N, Lamberti G, Maggio I, Manuzzi L, Ricci C, Casadei R, etal. Biliary stone disease in
patients receiving somatostatin analogs for neuroendocrine neoplasms. A retrospective obser­vational study. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(5):689–94.
J. Kearney et al.
15 Surgical Treatment ofPancreatic Islet Cell Tumors
61. Jayakrishnan TT, Groeschl RT, George B, Thomas JP, Clark Gamblin T, Turaga KK.Review
of the impact of antineoplastic therapies on the risk for cholelithiasis and acute cholecystitis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(1):240–7.
62. Mirakhur B, Pavel ME, Pommier RF, Fisher GA, Phan AT, Massien C, etal. Biochemical
responses in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with neuroendocrine tumors: pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials. Endocr Pract. 2018;24(11):948–62.
63. Gerson JN, Witteles RM, Chang DT, Beygui RE, Iagaru AH, Kunz PL.Carcinoid syndrome
complicating a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: a case report. Pancreas. 2017;46(10):1381–5.
64. Tsoukalas N, Chatzellis E, Rontogianni D, Alexandraki KI, Boutzios G, Angelousi A, etal.
Pancreatic carcinoids (serotonin-producing pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms): report of 5 cases and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(16):e6201.
65. Lillemoe HA, Aloia TA.Enhanced recovery after surgery: hepatobiliary. Surg Clin North Am.
2018;98(6):1251–64.
66. Lavu H, McCall NS, Winter JM, Burkhart RA, Pucci M, Leiby BE, etal. Enhancing patient
outcomes while containing costs after complex abdominal operation: a randomized controlled trial of the Whipple accelerated recovery pathway. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;228(4):415–24.
67. Linnemann RJA, Patijn GA, van Rijssen LB, Besselink MG, Mungroop TH, de Hingh IH,
etal. The role of abdominal drainage in pancreatic resection- a multicenter validation study for early drain removal. Pancreatology. 2019;19(6):888–96.
68. Zaghal A, Tamim H, Habib S, Jaafar R, Mukherji D, Khalife M, etal. Drain or no drain follow-
ing pancreaticoduodenectomy: the unsolved dilemma. Scand J Surg. 2020;109(3):228–37.
69. Narayanan S, Martin AN, Turrentine FE, Bauer TW, Adams RB, Zaydfudim VM.Mortality
after pancreaticoduodenectomy: assessing early and late causes of patient death. J Surg Res. 2018;231:304–8.
70. Kagedan DJ, Ahmed M, Devitt KS, Wei AC.Enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery: a
systematic review of the evidence. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17(1):11–6.
71. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM Jr. A prospectively validated clinical
risk score accurately predicts pancreatic stula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(1):1–14.
72. Trudeau MT, Casciani F, Ecker BL, Maggino L, Seykora TF, Puri P, etal. The stula risk score
catalog: toward precision medicine for pancreatic stula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004068.
73. Søreide K, Healey AJ, Mole DJ, Parks RW.Pre-, peri- and post-operative factors for the devel-
opment of pancreatic stula after pancreatic surgery. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21(12):1621–31.
74. Strobel O, Cherrez A, Hinz U, Mayer P, Kaiser J, Fritz S, etal. Risk of pancreatic stula after
enucleation of pancreatic tumours. Br J Surg. 2015;102(10):1258–66.
75. Chua TC, Yang TX, Gill AJ, Samra JS.Systematic review and meta-analysis of enucleation
versus standardized resection for small pancreatic lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(2):592–9.
76. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, etal. The 2016 update
of the international study group (ISGPS) denition and grading of postoperative pancreatic stula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161(3):584–91.
77. Malleo G, Pulvirenti A, Marchegiani G, Butturini G, Salvia R, Bassi C.Diagnosis and man-
agement of postoperative pancreatic stula. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2014;399(7):801–10.
78. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Vollmer CM Jr. Prevention and management of pancreatic stula. J
Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(1):163–73.
79. McMillan MT, Fisher WE, Van Buren G 2nd, McElhany A, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, etal.
The value of drains as a stula mitigation strategy for pancreatoduodenectomy: something for everyone? Results of a randomized prospective multi-institutional study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(1):21–30; discussion −1.
80. Tseng DS, Molenaar IQ, Besselink MG, van Eijck CH, Borel Rinkes IH, van Santvoort
HC.Pancreatic exocrine insufciency in patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer: a systematic review. Pancreas. 2016;45(3):325–30.
229
230
81. Rickels MR, Bellin M, Toledo FG, Robertson RP, Andersen DK, Chari ST, etal. Detection,
evaluation and treatment of diabetes mellitus in chronic pancreatitis: recommendations from PancreasFest 2012. Pancreatology. 2013;13(4):336–42.
82. Wu L, Nahm CB, Jamieson NB, Samra J, Clifton-Bligh R, Mittal A, etal. Risk factors for
development of diabetes mellitus (Type 3c) after partial pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Clin Endocrinol. 2020;92(5):396–406.
J. Kearney et al.
Part V
Interventional Treatment of Endocrine
Disorders
Chapter 16
Interventional Treatment ofPrimary Aldosteronism
ChristosGeorgiades, PanagiotisLiasides, andKelvinHong

Introduction

Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the excessive production of aldosterone by one or both adrenal glands resulting in related clinical signs and symptoms. It is an under­appreciated cause of hypertension with a reported prevalence between 2.7% and 10% among the hypertensive population [1–3]. Considering there are more than 65 million Americans diagnosed with hypertension (HTN) [4], PA is the causative fac­tor in two to seven million patients who are mislabeled as “essential” hypertensives. In approximately one-third of these, PA is due to a unilateral functioning adrenal adenoma, while the rest are due to bilateral hyperplasia or bilateral adenomas [5]. It is staggering then to consider that one to two million Americans are suffering from a more virulent form of HTN compared to its “essential” counterpart one that can potentially be cured if diagnosed and treated. Indeed, it has been shown that PA is associated with accelerated and worse cardiovascular outcomes compared to those from primary hypertension, including the risk of coronary artery disease and cere­brovascular stroke [6].
Unilateral total, or when feasible partial, adrenalectomy is the standard of care for a functioning adrenal adenoma causing medication-resistant PA. Minimally invasive, image-guided treatments have recently become available to the wider
C. Georgiades (*) · K. Hong Department of Radiology & Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA e-mail: Khong1@jhmi.edu
P. Liasides USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Switzerland AG 2022 H. Yu et al. (eds.), Diagnosis and Management of Endocrine Disorders in Interventional Radiology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87189-5_16
233© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
234
public, and accumulating evidence points to high efcacy and an excellent safety prole. These image-guided treatments include percutaneous ablation and endovas­cular embolization of the unilateral functioning adrenal adenoma.
C. Georgiades et al.

Adrenal Vein Sampling

Prior to any non-pharmaceutical denitive treatment, conrmation of a unilateral source of independent and excessive aldosterone production as well as lateraliza­tion is necessary [7]. This is achieved with adrenal vein sampling (AVS). Rarely, unilateral adrenal hyperplasia and contralateral nonfunctioning adenoma can coexist. If resection of the adenoma is performed without prior AVS conrmation, the patient will continue to suffer from PA and miss the opportunity for curative resection. There exist different technical protocols on how to perform AVS.The most rigorous, sensitive, and specic one includes pre- and post-adrenocortico­tropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation sampling and the use of C-arm CT to conrm selectivity in order to render biochemical lateralization reliable [3, 8]. Briey, both adrenal veins are selected with catheters from a common femoral vein approach (Fig.16.1cand d). A C-arm CT is performed during contrast injection to conrm selectivity (Fig.16.1cand d). Venous blood sampling is performed, followed by ACTH administration. Sampling is repeated 30 min post-ACTH stimulation. Cortisol adrenal vein levels are compared to that from inferior vena cava (IVC) levels to conrm catheter selectivity. Once selectivity is conrmed, aldosterone levels are compared between adrenal vein samples to conrm lateral­ization. If both catheter selectivity and biochemical lateralization are conrmed, surgical or image-guided treatment can be undertaken. Less rigorous protocols sample the adrenal veins only post- ACTH stimulation. Though less time-consum­ing, this protocol can result in false- negative results in approximately 22% of patients tested [8].

Ablation

Ablation refers to the destruction of targeted tissue by way of heating (radiofre­quency ablation [RFA] or microwave ablation [MWA]) or freezing (cryoablation). Current technology allows effective ablation for lesions up to around 3–4 cm in diameter, which is inclusive of the majority of functioning adrenal adenomas. The technical objective of ablation is to kill the entire targeted functioning adrenal tissue without damaging nearby collateral structures such as the bowel, pancreas, kidney, etc. The clinical objective is to signicantly reduce the patient’s blood pressure, eliminate/reduce the number of antihypertensive medications, and eliminate hypo­kalemia and the need for potassium supplementation.
16 Interventional Treatment ofPrimary Aldosteronism
235
a
c d
b
Fig. 16.1 Adrenal vein sampling in a patient with PA and a left adrenal adenoma noted on diag­nostic MRI.Right adrenal venogram (a) via a catheter shows the classic “feathery” appearance of the adrenal gland (white arrowhead). Coronal C-arm CT during the venogram (b) shows diffuse parenchymal enhancement of the right adrenal gland (white arrowhead), conrming catheter selec­tivity. Digital subtraction venogram of the left adrenal gland (c) via a super-selective microcatheter (white arrow) shows enhancement of the left adrenal nodule (white arrowhead). Axial C-arm CT during the left adrenal venogram (d) shows enhancement of the left adrenal adenoma (white arrow­head), conrming catheter selectivity
Patient Preparation
Unilateral functioning aldosteronoma is conrmed by AVS.A cross-sectional imag­ing study (CT or MRI, Fig.16.2a) is reviewed to ensure there is a safe ablation window. Eight-hour fasting is required as the procedure is performed with the patient under conscious sedation or possibly general anesthesia. One of the periop­erative risks is catecholamine shock, which manifests as severe hypertension and/or arrhythmia and can be life-threatening. To reduce this risk, a 5-day premedication
236
a
b
C. Georgiades et al.
c
d
e
Fig. 16.2 A 55-year-old male with severe chronic hypertension resistant to ve antihypertensive medications and with hypokalemia. The plasma aldosterone-to-renin ratio was elevated. The patient had a prior AVS, which conrmed a functioning aldosteronoma in the left adrenal gland. Contrast-enhanced, T1-weighted, fat-suppressed MR image (a) shows a 2.5cm hyper-vascular left adrenal mass (white arrow). Axial CT image during cryoablation (b) shows the cryo-needle pene­trating the left adrenal mass (white arrowheads). Post-cryoablation CT (c) shows the still frozen left adrenal mass (white arrowheads) and the “ghost” trajectory of the removed cryo-needle (white arrow). Within days post-cryoablation, the patient’s blood pressure showed a signicant reduction, the number of antihypertensive medications dropped from 5 to 2, and the patient no longer required potassium supplementation. One-month post-cryoablation, coronal, contrast-enhanced MR image (d) shows a complete devascularization (lack of contrast enhancement) of the ablated adrenal nodule (white arrowheads). One-year, axial, post-ablation, contrast-enhanced CT image (e) shows size reduction and persistent devascularization (lack of enhancement) of the left adrenal nodule (white arrowheads)
16 Interventional Treatment ofPrimary Aldosteronism
with both alpha- and beta-blockers is strongly recommended. Ablation is performed with the patient in the prone position and in the CT scanner. In addition, if cryoabla­tion is chosen, it should be remembered that in case of emergency, the cryoprobes will take 2–3min to be adequately thawed for removal. To further reduce the risk of adverse outcomes from possible arrhythmia, the placement of external pacing pads is also recommended.
237
Procedure
The procedure is performed under continuous patient monitoring. After sedation induction and aseptic preparation, a baseline CT is obtained to plan probe access/ trajectory. The probe is inserted into the targeted lesion (Fig.16.2b). After ablation is completed, the probe is removed, and a repeat non-contrast CT is obtained to exclude immediate complications, such as hemorrhage or pneumothorax (Fig. 16.2c). The patient is recovered, observed for a minimum of 3h, and dis­charged to home.
Follow-Up
Because of the possibility of the post-ablation precipitous blood pressure drop as aldosterone levels drop, the patient is advised to monitor blood pressure at home and consult his/her primary care or interventionalist for a possible reduction of the number or dosages of his/her antihypertensive medications. Long-term follow-up relies solely on the stability or recurrence of symptoms and/or signs of hyperaldo­steronism and not on imaging response, though the latter can be conrmatory for complete tissue ablation (Fig.16.2d and e).
Outcomes
An important meta-analysis by Liang etal. included a total of 89 patients (7 studies) with clinical symptoms from PA who were treated with thermal ablation. During the nearly 4-year follow-up, 75% of patients saw signicant and sustained improve­ment or the resolution of their HTN with a mean systolic blood pressure reduction of 29.06mm Hg (95% condence interval [CI], −33.93 to −24.19) and mean dia­stolic blood pressure reduction of 16.03mm Hg (95% CI, −18.33 to −13.73). All patients saw a reduction in the number of antihypertensives used and potassium levels normalized in all seven studies [9]. Though not as important as clinical fol­low-up, imaging response can also provide evidence as to the efcacy of percutane­ous ablation. In a prospective study, Nunes TF etal. reported a 94% (16/17) complete