Currently, scientific interest has focused on fat accumulation outside of subcutaneous adipose tissue. As various imaging modalities are available to quantify fat accumulation in particular organs, fatty pancreas has become an important area of research over the last decade. The pancreas has an essential role in regulating glucose metabolism and insulin secretion by responding to changes in nutrients under various metabolic circumstances. Mounting evidence has revealed that fatty pancreas is linked to impaired β-cell function and affects insulin secretion with metabolic consequences of impaired glucose metabolism, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. It has been shown that there is a connection between fatty pancreas and the presence and severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which has become the predominant cause of chronic liver disease worldwide. Therefore, it is necessary to better understand the pathogenic mechanisms of fat accumulation in the pancreas and its relationship with NAFLD. This review summarizes the epidemiology, diagnosis, risk factors, and metabolic consequences of fatty pancreas and discusses its pathophysiology links to NAFLD.

Differentiating Crohn’s disease (CD) from intestinal tuberculosis (ITB) is a diagnostic dilemma, particularly in regions where ITB is prevalent and CD incidence is increasing, because both diseases can present quite similarly, and diagnostic tests to identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis in tissue samples have rather poor sensitivity. Studies that were conducted to determine the factors that differentiate CD from ITB identified some significant characteristics, but none of those characteristics are exclusive to either ITB or CD. Many diagnostic models or scoring systems that use one to several diagnostic parameters have been proposed to help distinguish these two intestinal diseases. Early models consisted of parameters common to routine clinical practice, such as clinical features, and endoscopic and pathologic findings. The later models also include more advanced diagnostic parameters like high-resolution imaging and serological testing. However, the number and types of parameters differ among diagnostic models, and the systems used to calculate scoring also vary from model to model. Enhanced awareness and understanding of the currently available diagnostic models will help physicians determine which model(s) is/are most suitable for differentiating CD from ITB in their clinical practice.

Background/Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the primary method for tissue acquisition of intra-abdominal masses. However, the main limitation of cytology alone is the lack of tissue architecture and inadequate samples. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation obtained from EUS-FNA of intra-abdominal masses without Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE). Methods: Cytologic smears and cell block slides of 166 patients undergoing EUS-FNA during 2010–2015 were reviewed by an experienced cytopathologist blinded to clinical data. Results: 125 patients had neoplastic lesions. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common etiology (35.5%), followed by lymph node metastasis (27.7%). The mean mass size was 2.5±1.3 cm. The mean number of passes was 1.9±1.28. Tissue adequacy for conventional cytology and cell block preparation was 78.9% and 78.1%, respectively. Factors associated with tissue adequacy were assessed. For cytology, lesions of > 2.1 cm, masses in the pancreatic body or tail, malignancy, and pancreatic cancer were positively associated with adequate cellularity. For cell block preparation, lesions of > 3 cm and malignancy were associated with increased tissue adequacy. The conventional cytology alone had a sensitivity of 68.5%, a specificity of 95.7%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of 0.821. The cell block preparation alone had a sensitivity of 65.4%, a specificity of 96%, and an AUROC of 0.807. The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation performed significantly better than either method alone (p<0.05), as demonstrated by an increased AUROC of 0.853. Furthermore, cell block detected malignancy in 9.3% of cases where the cytologic smears failed to identify malignant cells. Conclusions: The combined conventional cytology and cell block preparation increased the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA compared to either method alone. This approach should be implemented in routine practice, especially where ROSE is unavailable.