J Gastrointest Surg

DOI 10.1007/s11605-015-2862-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas:

a 19-Year Multicenter Experience in China
Pengfei Yu 1 & Xiangdong Cheng 2 & Yian Du 1 & Litao Yang 1 & Zhiyuan Xu 2 &
Wenjuan Yin 1 & Zhengxiang Zhong 3 & Xiaoguang Wang 3 & Hongbao Xu 4 &
Conggang Hu 5

Received: 6 February 2015 / Accepted: 12 May 2015

# 2015 The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract

Abstract
Aim The aim of this study was to determine the clinicopathological features, surgical management, and prognosis of solid
pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) of the pancreas.
Methods This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 97 patients who underwent surgery for a pathologically confirmed SPN
in five hospitals between January 1996 and December 2014.
Results The 97 cases included 93 female and 4 male patients, and the average age was 31.2 years. The tumor was
located in the body or tail (70.1 %), the head (20.6 %), and the neck (9.3 %). All patients underwent surgical
exploration, including distal pancreatectomy (63.9 %), pancreaticoduodenectomy (20.6 %) (partial portal vein or
superior mesenteric vein resection and artificial vascular graft reconstruction performed in 4.1 % of the patients),
central pancreatectomy (10.3 %), enucleation (5.2 %), and liver resection (1.0 %). 16.5 % of the patients had
malignant tumors. The positive rate of Ki-67 was 66.7 % in patients diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm and
was comparable to 8.4 % of the patients diagnosed to have a benign neoplasm (p<0.001). After a median follow-up
of 70.1 months, three patients had recurrence and one patient died of liver metastasis.
Conclusions SPN is a rare neoplasm with low malignant potential. Surgical resection is warranted even in the presence of local
invasion or metastases as patients demonstrate excellent long-term survival. Positive immunoreactivity for Ki-67 may predict the
malignant potential and poor outcome of SPNs.

Keywords Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms . Diagnosis . Introduction

Treatment . Prognosis
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) are rare pancre-
atic tumors with a low potential for malignancy,
representing 1∼3 % of all pancreatic tumors and
,
10∼15 % of cystic tumors of the pancreas.1 2 A descrip-
tion of SPN was first published by Frantz in 1959.3 The
* Pengfei Yu
World Health Organization (WHO) classified these tu-
yupengfei23@163.com
mors as solid pseudopapillary tumors (SPTs) in 1996
and reclassified them as SPNs in 2010.4 SPN affects
1
Department of Abdominal Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, 38# primarily young women during their reproductive phase
Guangji Road, Hangzhou 310022, China
and exhibits relatively indolent biological behavior with
2
Zhejiang Province Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, a favorable prognosis; however, local recurrence or me-
Hangzhou, China
tastasis can occur after surgery.5 Many reports have
3
The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing Medical College, been published in recent years, but most of these stud-
Jiaxing, China
ies are single-center reports or small case series. Limited
4
Huzhou Center Hospital, Huzhou, China data are available on the pathogenesis, malignant poten-
5
Jinhua Guangfu Hospital, Jinhua, China tial, and optimal surgical strategy for SPN. So, we
 J Gastrointest Surg

conducted a retrospective review of SPNs in five med- Results

ical centers in order to further examine the clinical and
pathological features, surgical treatments, and outcomes Clinical Characteristics
of SPNs.
Three thousand four hundred sixty-two pancreatic neoplasms
were treated in these five institutions from January 1996 to
December 2014, and 113 patients were diagnosed as SPNs,
Methods
among which 97 cases were confirmed by pathology and rep-
resented 2.8 % of all pancreatic neoplasms. The 97 patients
This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients with SPN
included 93 females and 4 males, with a median age of
were identified from the hospital records in Zhejiang Can-
31.2 years (range 16∼57). The clinical presentation is unspe-
cer Hospital, Zhejiang Province Hospital of Traditional
cific, including abdominal pain (44.3 %), abdominal disten-
Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of
sion (37.1 %), back pain (13.4 %), and vomiting (8.2 %).
Jiaxing Medical College, Huzhou Center Hospital, and
7.2 % of patients whose SPNs were found during routine
Jinhua Guangfu Hospital. Eligible patients underwent sur-
physical examinations were asymptomatic. Two patients were
gery for a pancreatic SPN between January 1996 and De-
referred to the hospital for the management of jaundice. No
cember 2014. Patients’ clinical presentation, radiological
patients had weight loss and a history of trauma or pancreati-
details, surgical data, pathological features, postoperative
tis, and the median duration of symptoms was 2.1 months
course, and long-term survival were collected and ana-
(range 5 days to 13 months). The tumors were 5.9 cm in
lyzed. Outpatient records combined with telephone inter-
diameter on average (range 1.5 to 14 cm) and were located
views were used for follow-up. Written informed consent
in the body and/or tail (70.1 %), the head (20.6 %), and the
was obtained from all the study participants. The study
neck (9.3 %). The clinical features of the 97 patients are listed
was approved by the ethics committee of the five
in Table 1.
hospitals.
Pathologically, SPN was defined as malignant if it
demonstrated extrapancreatic invasion, distant metasta-
Tumor Markers and Radiological Investigations
ses, lymph node involvement, pancreatic parenchymal
invasion, and perineural or vascular invasion. Surgical
Ninety of the 97 patients underwent tumor marker detection.
morbidity was defined as any complication at any time
CA-125 in five patients (5.5 %), CA-199 in three patients
and was classified according to a previous report.6 Pan-
(3.3 %), and CA-242 in two patients (2.2 %) had values great-
creatic fistula was defined in accordance with the rec-
er than the upper limits of the normal range.
ommendations of the International Study Group on Pan-
creatic Fistula.7
Histopathological slides from all patients were Table 1 Clinical features of 97 patients with SPNs
reviewed by a specialized pathologist. Immunohisto-
chemical stains for vimentin, α-1-antitrypsin, neuron- Clinical characteristics No. of patients (n=97)
specific enolase, synaptophysin, and chromogranin were
Age (years)
carried out when it was difficult to differentiate the
Mean (range) 31.2 (16∼57)
neoplasm from other pancreatic tumors.8 Clinicopatho-
Gender
logical characteristics were compared between patients
Female/male 93/4
with malignant neoplasms and those with benign
Symptoms (%)
lesions.
Abdominal pain 43 (44.3)
Abdominal distension 36 (37.1)
Statistical Analysis Back pain 13 (13.4)
Vomiting 8 (8.2)
Continuous data are presented as median (i.q.r.) unless Asymptomatic 7 (7.2)
indicated otherwise, with analysis using the independent Location (%)
t test or Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. Compari- Body and/or tail 68 (70.1)
sons of categorical data were performed using χ2 and Head 20 (20.6)
Fisher’s exact tests. All statistical analyses were per- Neck 9 (9.3)
formed with the SPSS 16.0 statistics software package Size (cm)
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A p value <0.05 was Mean (range) 5.9 (1.5∼14)
considered to indicate statistical significance.
J Gastrointest Surg

Radiological investigations were performed before opera- One patient with liver metastasis underwent partial liver re-
tion, including computed tomography (CT, 76.3 %), ultraso- section. The total operation time was 260±118 min, and the
nography (US, 49.5 %), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, intraoperative blood loss was 275±130 ml. Blood transfusion
28.9 %), and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emis- was needed in nine patients during operation, each patient
sion tomography (PET, 4.1 %). Figure 1 shows the radiolog- received 2 U of blood.
ical images of SPN. The mass was described on cross- Ninety-six patients had R0 resections, and there were no
sectional imaging as heterogeneous (solid and cystic, surgical mortalities. Postsurgical complications occurred in 28
84.5 %), solid (12.4 %), and cystic (3.1 %). Calcifications patients, including pancreatic fistula (n=18), infection (n=8),
were present in 22.7 % of the patients, while hemorrhage delayed gastric emptying (n=4), and bleeding (n=1). Pancre-
and/or necrosis was detected in 25.8 % of the patients. One atic fistulas were classified as grade A in eight patients, grade
patient was found to have a single metastasis in the liver. B in seven patients, and grade C in three patients. Eight infec-
Inaccurate preoperative diagnoses were made for 33 % of tion cases included five pneumonia, two wound infection, and
the patients, including pancreatic adenocarcinoma (13.4 %), one intra-abdominal infection. Most of these patients were
neuroendocrine tumor (9.2 %), cystadenoma (5.2 %), islet cell conservatively managed with a successful outcome, but reop-
tumor (3.1 %), and pancreatic cyst (2.1 %). eration was necessary in one patient due to intra-abdominal
bleeding. The median postsurgical stay was 14.7 days (range 7
Surgical Management to 37 days) (Table 2).

All patients underwent surgical exploration. Sixty-two pa- Pathological Findings

tients underwent distal pancreatectomy, including laparoscop-
ic distal pancreatectomy in 5 patients, 20 patients underwent Most tumors were characterized to have both cystic and solid
pancreaticoduodenectomy, and 4 of them had partial portal components with hemorrhagic areas. The neoplasms showed
vein or superior mesenteric vein resection and artificial vas- typical pathological findings, that is, uniform cells with ovoid
cular graft reconstruction. Ten patients underwent central pan- nuclei and eosinophilic granules, arranged in sheets with
createctomy, and five patients underwent enucleation of SPN. pseudopapillary architecture. Sixteen patients were diagnosed

Fig. 1 a A CT scan showing a

low-density mass of the pancreas
head with calcification. b
Enhanced CT scan showing
slightly enhanced solid areas. c, d
MRI showing a well-demarcated
mass in the pancreas head, which
was close to the superior
mesenteric vein
 J Gastrointest Surg

Table 2 Surgical procedures and postoperative outcomes of 97 SPN

patients

No. of patients (n=97)

Operative procedure
Distal pancreatectomy (%) 62 (63.9)
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (%) 20 (20.6)
Central pancreatectomy (%) 10 (10.3)
Enucleation (%) 5 (5.2)
Liver resection (%) 1 (1.0)
Laparoscopic approach (%) 5 (5.2)
PV/SMV resection (%) 4 (4.1)
Operative time (min) 260±118
Blood loss (ml) 275±130
Postoperative complications (%) 28 (28.9)
Pancreatic fistula (%) 18 (18.6)
Grade A (%) 8 (8.2)
Grade B (%) 7 (7.2)
Grade C (%) 3 (3.1)
Infection (%) 8 (8.2)
Pneumonia (%) 5 (5.2)
Wound infection (%) 2 (2.1)
Intra-abdominal abscess (%) 1 (1.0)
Fig. 2 a Sheets and cords of cells arranged around fibrovascular septa
Delayed gastric emptying (%) 4 (4.1) and pseudopapillary structures are formed (H&E ×200). b Representative
Bleeding (%) 1 (1.0) micrographs of SPN exhibiting tumor invasion into the adjacent
Postoperative stay (days) 14.7 (7∼37) pancreatic parenchyma

PV portal vein, SMV superior mesenteric vein Follow-up and Survival

Follow-up included clinical examination, routine laboratory

with malignant SPN due to vascular invasion in seven tests, abdominal US, and CT/MRI every 3 to 6 months. Me-
patients (portal vein or superior mesenteric vein in four dian follow-up was 70.2 (3.5–221.5)months. Three patients in
patients and splenic vein in three patients), pancreatic the malignant group had recurrence. The patient who had
parenchyma infiltration in six patients, lymph node in- undergone partial resection of the liver developed liver metas-
volvement in two patients, and metastatic character in tases 5 months after operation. She received S-1 and was alive
one patient (Fig. 2). with liver metastasis for 25 months.
Immunohistochemical analysis was performed in selected
cases. Vimentin (Vim) was positive in 89 of 95 patients, α-1-
antitrypsin (AAT) was positive in 79 of 83 patients, neuron- Discussion
specific enolase (NSE) was positive in 75 of 87 patients, pro-
gesterone receptors (PRs) were positive in 73 of 89 patients, SPNs are a rare neoplasm with a low malignant potential,
and CD99 was positive in 53 of 61 patients. Estrogen recep- usually affecting young women in their second or third decade
tors (ERs), synaptophysin (Syn), cytokeratin (CK), and of life.8 The pathogenesis of the tumor is unknown, although
chromogranin A (CgA) were expressed only focally in a few its tendency to affect young women has suggested that sex
tumors (Fig. 3). hormones may be involved in the origin of SPT.9 However,
Patients were divided into two groups based on the no differences in immunohistochemical stains for sex hor-
standard of aggressiveness of SPNs (malignant group vs. mone receptor proteins or in clinicopathological characteris-
benign group). The clinicopathological details as predic- tics had been found attributable to gender alone.10 The risk
tive factors to evaluate malignant SPNs are shown in factor assessment showed that more than 50 % of SPN pa-
Table 3. The positive rate of Ki-67 was 66.7 % (10/15) tients were infected with hepatitis B virus,11 and in our study,
in patients diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm and was 76.3 % of female patients had taken contraceptive drugs for a
comparable to 8.4 % (6/71) of the patients diagnosed to long time. This suggests that an investigation is needed to
have a benign neoplasm (p<0.001). determine whether hepatitis B virus infection or contraceptive
J Gastrointest Surg

Fig. 3 a Immunohistochemical
staining for vimentin (original
magnification ×400). b
Immunohistochemical staining
for α-1-antitrypsin (original
magnification ×400). c
Immunohistochemical staining
for neuron-specific enolase
(original magnification ×400). d
Immunohistochemical staining
for CD99 (original magnification
×400). e Immunohistochemical
staining for Ki-67 (original
magnification ×400)

drugs may be involved in the pathogenesis of SPNs, since neoplastic cells and complications, such as bleeding, pancre-
these factors are still unclear. atic fistula, and biliary fistula during the procedure, also had
As patients lack distinctive symptoms, the majority of these been reported.18 PET may not add additional information for
tumors are diagnosed during complementary abdominal im- diagnosis.19 The accuracy of preoperative diagnosis in this
aging techniques such as US, CT, and MRI.12 On US or CT, study was 67.0 % even in the absence of FNAC. The results
the lesion is usually large and its internal structure goes from show that abdominal images combined with age and gender
having cystic thick wall or with an inner irregular margin to a are sufficient for making a diagnosis of SPN, and FNAC
predominantly solid mass with some cystic component.13,14 should be performed when the radiological diagnosis was
On dynamic contrast-enhanced CT, the tumor enhanced less not clear enough.
than the adjacent normal pancreas.15 MRI is better than CT in Surgery is the only curative treatment for SPN.20 Surgical
differentiating the cystic or solid component inside the tumor approach depends on the location, size, as well as the nature of
and providing information about resectability.16 The use of the neoplasms. The feasibility of organ-preserving or laparo-
fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) either percutaneously scopic surgery for SPNs has been reported,21,22 as also con-
or EUS guided can help distinguish SPNs from other pancre- firmed in the current cases. Routine lymphadenectomy is not
atic tumors.17 However, seeding of the needle tract by recommended in recent studies, due to the rare incidence of
 J Gastrointest Surg

Table 3 Predictive factors of malignant SPNs In our study, 16 patients were diagnosed with malignant
Clinicopathologic factors Malignant (n=16) Benign (n=81) p value SPN due to vascular invasion, pancreatic parenchyma infiltra-
tion, lymph node involvement, or liver metastasis. Some stud-
Mean age (years) 34.4 (19–57) 29.3 (16–53) 0.56a ies have shown a correlation between tumor size >5 cm, tumor
Sex ratio (F:M) 15:1 78:3 0.64b necrosis, male sex, and SPNs with malignant potential.10,28,29
Symptoms However, several univariate analyses indicated that the clini-
Present 15 75 cal factors, including sex, age, tumor size, tumor location,
Absent 1 6 0.87b increased tumor markers, and tumor characteristics, were not
Tumor location intensively related to the malignant potential of SPNs.30,31
Body and/or tail 13 55 These results were consistent with those in our study. Besides,
Head 3 17 0.34b we found that the positive rate of Ki-67 was 66.7 % in patients
Neck 0 9 diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm and was comparable to
Tumor size (cm) 8.4 % of the patients diagnosed to have a benign neoplasm
<5 4 35 (p<0.001). Our findings indicate that positive status for Ki-67
>5 12 46 0.17b may correlate with the malignancy and poor outcome of
Tumor markers SPNs. However, the accumulation of large-scale clinical data
Increased 3 7 is still necessary to support this view.
Normal 13 74 0.22b An SPN is composed of small, uniform tumor cells with
Calcification round nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm. The tumor is char-
Present 5 17 acterized by a combination of solid components consisting of
Absent 11 64 0.37b pseudopapillae with fibrovascular stalks and cystic compo-
Hemorrhage/necrosis nents with variable degeneration and hemorrhage.32 The typ-
Present 3 22
ical immunohistochemistry of SPNs includes positive staining
Absent 13 59 0.48b
for Vim, AAT, α-1-antichymotrypsin (AACT), and NSE,33,34
Tumor feature
but the unique immunohistochemical features with expression
of PR and CD10 were not consistent.8,35 According to recent-
Solid and cystic 12 70
ly published data, a particular dot-like intracytoplasmic ex-
Solid 4 8 0.20b
pression of CD99 appears to be highly unique for SPN,36,37
Cystic 0 3
and this distinctive staining pattern was present in 86.9 % of
Ki-67 (positive rate) 66.7 % (10/15) 8.4 % (6/71) <0.001b
our cases. Thus, CD99 accompanied by other useful markers
a
Mann-Whitney U test would help establish the diagnosis of SPNs.
b
Fisher’s exact test The prognosis of SPNs is good, even with invasion as well
as metastases or local recurrence. More than 95 % of patients
with SPN limited to the pancreas are cured by complete sur-
lymph node metastasis.23 However, complete, aggressive sur- gical excision,38 and long-term survival was also observed in
gical resection should be performed for these neoplasms even patients with malignant SPNs.39 The overall 5-year survival
in the presence of invasion into adjacent organs and distant was estimated to be 95 % in a review of 718 patients reported
metastases based on the prolonged survival after complete in the English literature.40 Due to the favorable prognosis and
surgical resection.24,25 Cheng and colleagues reported that excellent long-term survival, predictive factors of survival are
en bloc synchronous portal vein-superior mesenteric vein or difficult to identify. Therefore, all SPN patients need long-
adjacent organ resection should be carried out to achieve a term follow-up, which is as important as the evaluation of
complete resection.26 In our study, most patients who had benign and malignant tumors.
pancreatic parenchyma infiltration or vascular invasion with
R0 resection did not develop local recurrence or distant
metastasis.
The role of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for the Conclusion
treatment of SPN is unclear, and some investigators have re-
ported successful treatment using gemcitabine or paclitaxel SPNs are an infrequent tumor with low malignant potential;
therapy.21,27 One patient who underwent aggressive surgery however, surgical resection is warranted even in the presence
for liver metastases in this series developed recurrence of local invasion or metastases as patients demonstrate excel-
5 months later. S-1 was administered, and she was alive lent long-term survival. The proliferative index assessed by
25 months after treatment, thus suggesting that S-1 may be a immunohistochemical staining for Ki-67 may predict the ma-
useful treatment for malignant SPN. lignant potential and poor outcome of SPNs. Further studies
J Gastrointest Surg

should aim at acquiring more understanding of SPNs and 14. Yin Q, Wang M, Wang C, Wu Z, Yuan F, Chen K, Tang Y, Zhao X,
Miao F. Differentiation between benign and malignant solid
establishing guidelines for diagnosis and treatment.
pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas by MDCT. Eur J Radiol
2012;81:3010–8.
Acknowledgments We express our appreciation to Dr. Thomas Aloia 15. Kawamoto S, Scudiere J, Hruban RH, Wolfgang CL, Cameron JL,
(Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson) who has offered many valuable com- Fishman EK. Solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas:
ments and suggestions. This study is supported by the Department of spectrum of findings on multidetector CT. Clin Imaging 2011;35:
Health of Zhejiang Province (2013KYB043). 21–8.
16. Ventriglia A, Manfredi R, Mehrabi S, Boninsegna E, Negrelli R,
Pedrinolla B, Pozzi Mucelli R. MRI features of solid
Conflict of Interest No benefits in any form have been received or will
pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. Abdom Imaging.
be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the
2014;39:1213–20.
subject of this article.
17. Law JK, Stoita A, Wever W, Gleeson FC, Dries AM, Blackford A,
Kiswani V, Shin EJ, Khashab MA, Canto MI, Singh VK, Lennon
AM. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration im-
References proves the pre-operative diagnostic yield of solid-pseudopapillary
neoplasm of the pancreas: an international multicenter case series
(with video). Surg Endosc 2014;28:2592–8.
1. Yang F, Jin C, Long J, Yu XJ, Xu J, Di Y, Li J, Fu de L, Ni QX. 18. Virgilio E, Mercantini P, Ferri M, Cunsolo G, Tarantino G,
Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: a case series of 26 Cavallini M, Ziparo V. Is EUS-FNA of solid-pseudopapillary neo-
consecutive patients. Am J Surg 2009;198:210–5. plasms of the pancreas as a preoperative procedure really necessary
2. Wang XG, Ni QF, Fei JG, Zhong ZX, Yu PF. Clinicopathologic and free of acceptable risks? Pancreatology 2014;14:536–8.
features and surgical outcome of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the 19. Lee JK, Tyan YS. Detection of a solid pseudopapillary tumor of the
pancreas: analysis of 17 cases. World J Surg Oncol 2013;11:38. pancreas with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography. Clin Nucl
3. Franz, VK. Papillary tumors of the pancreas: benign or malignant? Med 2005;30:187–8.
In: Franz VK (ed.) Tumors of the Pancreas. Atlas of Tumor 20. Nguyen NQ, Johns AL, Gill AJ, Ring N, Chang DK, Clarkson A,
Pathology. Washington, DC: US Armed Forces Institute of Merrett ND, Kench JG, Colvin EK, Scarlett CJ, Biankin AV.
Pathology, 1959: 32–33. Clinical and immunohistochemical features of 34 solid
4. Klöppel G, Hruban RH, Klimstra DS, Maitra A, Morohoshi T, pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas. J Gastroenterol Hepatol
Notohara K, Shimizu M, Terris B. Solid-pseudopapillary tumor of 2011;26:267–74.
pancreas. In: Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND, 21. Morikawa T, Onogawa T, Maeda S, Takadate T, Shirasaki K,
editors. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of Yoshida H, Ishida K, Motoi F, Naitoh T, Rikiyama T, Katayose Y,
the digestive system. Lyon: IARC 2010; pp: 327–330. Egawa S, Unno M. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancre-
5. Cai H, Zhou M, Hu Y, He H, Chen J, Tian W, Deng Y. Solid- as: an 18-year experience at a single Japanese Institution. Surg
pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: clinical and patholog- Today 2013;43:26–32.
ical features of 33 cases. Surg Today 2013;43:148–54. 22. Cavallini A, Butturini G, Daskalaki D, Salvia R, Melotti G, Piccoli
6. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical M, Bassi C, Pederzoli P. Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for solid
complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of pseudo-papillary tumors of the pancreas is a suitable technique;
6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. our experience with long-term follow-up and review of the litera-
ture. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:352–7.
7. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J,
23. Estrella JS, Li L, Rashid A, Wang H, Katz MH, Fleming JB,
Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M; International
Abbruzzese JL, Wang H. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the
Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition. Postoperative pan-
pancreas: clinicopathologic and survival analyses of 64 cases from
creatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition.
Surgery 2005;138:8–13. a single institution. Am J Surg Pathol 2014;38:147–57.
24. Lee JS, Han HJ, Choi SB, Jung CW, Song TJ, Choi SY. Surgical
8. Yu PF, Hu ZH, Wang XB, Guo JM, Cheng XD, Zhang YL, Xu Q.
outcomes of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: a
Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: a review of 553 cases
single institution’s experience for the last ten years. Am Surg
in Chinese literature. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:1209–14.
2012;78:216–9.
9. Hu S, Huang W, Lin X, Wang Y, Chen KM, Chai W. Solid 25. Cai Y, Ran X, Xie S, Wang X, Peng B, Mai G, Liu X. Surgical
pseudopapillary tumour of the pancreas: distinct patterns of com- management and long-term follow-up of solid pseudopapillary tu-
puted tomography manifestation for male versus female patients. mor of pancreas: a large series from a single institution. J
Radiol Med 2014;119:83–9. Gastrointest Surg 2014;18:935–40.
10. Kim MJ, Choi DW, Choi SH, Heo JS, Sung JY. Surgical treatment 26. Cheng K, Shen B, Peng C, Yuan F, Yin Q. Synchronous portal-
of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas and risk factors superior mesenteric vein or adjacent organ resection for solid
for malignancy. Br J Surg 2014;101:1266–71. pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: a single-institution ex-
11. Sun GQ, Chen CQ, Yao JY, Shi HP, He YL, Zhan WH. Diagnosis perience. Am Surg 2013;79:534–9.
and treatment of solid pseudopapillary tumor of pancreas: a report 27. Reddy S, Cameron JL, Scudiere J, Hruban RH, Fishman EK, Ahuja
of 8 cases with review of domestic literature. Chin J Gen Surg 2008; N, Pawlik TM, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Wolfgang CL. Surgical
17: 902–7 management of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas
12. Ren Z, Zhang P, Zhang X, Liu B. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (Franz or Hamoudi tumors): a large single-institutional series. J
of the pancreas: clinicopathologic features and surgical treatment of Am Coll Surg 2009;208:950–9.
19 cases. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014;7:6889–97. 28. Kang CM, Kim KS, Choi JS, Kim H, Lee WJ, Kim BR. Solid
13. Jung WS, Kim JK, Yu JS, Kim JH, Cho ES, Chung JJ. Comparison pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas suggesting malignant poten-
of abdominal ultrasonographic findings with endoscopic ultrasono- tial. Pancreas 2006;32:276–80.
graphic findings of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancre- 29. Machado MC, Machado MA, Bacchella T, Jukemura J, Almeida
as. Ultrasound Q 2014;30:173–8. JL, Cunha JE. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas:
 J Gastrointest Surg

distinct patterns of onset, diagnosis, and prognosis for male versus 35. Suzuki S, Hatori T, Furukawa T, Shiratori K, Yamamoto M. Clinical
female patients. Surgery 2008; 143: 29–34. and pathological features of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the
30. Lee SE, Jang JY, Hwang DW, Park KW, Kim SW. Clinical pancreas at a single institution. Dig Surg 2014;31:143–50.
features and outcome of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: dif- 36. Li L, Li J, Hao C, Zhang C, Mu K, Wang Y, Zhang T.
ferences between adults and children. Arch Surg 2008;143: Immunohistochemical evaluation of solid pseudopapillary tumors
1218–21. of the pancreas: the expression pattern of CD99 is highly unique.
31. Park JK, Cho EJ, Ryu JK, Kim YT, Yoon YB. Natural history and Cancer Lett 2011;310:9–14.
malignant risk factors of solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pan- 37. Laje P, Bhatti TR, Adzick NS. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of
creas. Postgrad Med 2013;125:92–9. the pancreas in children: a 15-year experience and the identification
32. Ho HK, Sang Y, Jung CK, Eun KP, Jin SS, Young HH, Koh YS, of a unique immunohistochemical marker. J Pediatr Surg 2013;48:
Cho CK, Shin SS, Kweon SS, Kim HS, Kim HJ. Clinical features 2054–60.
and surgical outcome of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancre- 38. Geers C, Moulin P, Gigot JF, Weynand B, Deprez P, Rahier J,
as: 30 consecutive clinical cases. Hepatogastroenterology 2011;58: Sempoux C. Solid and pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas—
1002–8. review and new insights into pathogenesis. Am J Surg Pathol
33. Yagcı A, Yakan S, Coskun A, Erkan N, Yıldırım M, Yalcın E, 2006; 30:1243–49.
Postacı H. Diagnosis and treatment of solid pseudopapillary tumor 39. Kim CW, Han DJ, Kim J, Kim YH, Park JB, Kim SC. Solid
of the pancreas: experience of one single institution from Turkey. pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: can malignancy be predict-
World J Surg Oncol 2013;11:308. ed? Surgery 2011; 149: 625–34.
34. Yang F, Fu DL, Jin C, Long J, Yu XJ, Xu J, Ni QX. Clinical 40. Papavramidis T, Papavramidis S. Solid pseudopapillary tumors of
experiences of solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas in the pancreas: review of 718 patients reported in English literature. J
China. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:1847–51. Am Coll Surg 2005; 200: 965–72.