Visceral adipose tissue plays a critical role in numerous diseases. Although imaging studies often show adipose involvement in abdominal diseases, their outcomes may vary from being a mild self-limited illness to one with systemic inflammation and organ failure. We therefore compared the pattern of visceral adipose injury during acute pancreatitis and acute diverticulitis to determine its role in organ failure. Acute pancreatitis–associated adipose tissue had ongoing lipolysis in the absence of adipocyte triglyceride lipase (ATGL). Pancreatic lipase injected into mouse visceral adipose tissue hydrolyzed adipose triglyceride and generated excess nonesterified fatty acids (NEFAs), which caused organ failure in the absence of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic triglyceride lipase (PNLIP) increased in adipose tissue during pancreatitis and entered adipocytes by multiple mechanisms, hydrolyzing adipose triglyceride and generating excess NEFAs. During pancreatitis, obese PNLIP-knockout mice, unlike obese adipocyte-specific ATGL knockouts, had lower visceral adipose tissue lipolysis, milder inflammation, less severe organ failure, and improved survival. PNLIP-knockout mice, unlike ATGL knockouts, were protected from adipocyte-induced pancreatic acinar injury without affecting NEFA signaling or acute pancreatitis induction. Therefore, during pancreatitis, unlike diverticulitis, PNLIP leaking into visceral adipose tissue can cause excessive visceral adipose tissue lipolysis independently of adipocyte-autonomous ATGL, and thereby worsen organ failure.

Introduction: The increasing use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology to examine pancreatic neoplasms has led to an increase in the diagnosis of metastases to the pancreas. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common metastasis to the pancreas. Our study examines 33 cases of metastatic RCC to the pancreas sampled by EUS-FNA from four large tertiary care hospitals. Materials and Methods: We searched the cytopathology database for RCC metastatic to the pancreas diagnosed by EUS-FNA from January 2005 to January 2015. Patient age, history of RCC, nephrectomy history, follow-up postnephrectomy, radiological impression, and EUS-FNA cytologic diagnosis were reviewed. Results: Thirty-three patients were identified. The average age was 67.5 years (range, 49–84 years). Thirty-two patients had a previous documented history of RCC. One patient had the diagnosis of pancreatic metastasis at the same time of the kidney biopsy. Thirty-one patients had been treated with nephrectomy. Twenty-seven patients were being monitored annually by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Twenty-five patients had multiple masses by imaging, but 8 patients had a single mass in the pancreas at the time of EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA of 20 cases showed classic morphology of RCC. Thirteen cases had either “atypical” clinical-radiologic features or morphologic overlaps with primary pancreatic neoplasms or other neoplasms. Cell blocks were made on all 13 cases and immunochemical stains confirmed the diagnosis. Conclusions: EUS-FNA cytology is useful for the diagnosis of metastatic RCC to the pancreas. Cytomorphology can be aided with patient history, imaging analyses, cell blocks, and immunochemical stains.

A combination of several factors, including the increasing use of cross-sectional imaging and an aging population, has led to pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) becoming the most detected incidental pancreatic lesions. Accurate diagnosis and risk stratification of PCLs is challenging. In the last decade, several evidence-based guidelines have been published addressing the diagnosis and management of PCLs. However, these guidelines cover different subsets of patients with PCLs and offer varying recommendations regarding diagnostic assessment, surveillance, and surgical resection. Further, recent studies comparing the accuracy of various guidelines have reported significant variations in the rate of missed cancer versus unnecessary surgical resections. In clinical practice, it is challenging to decide which guideline to follow specifically. This article reviews the varying recommendations of the major guidelines and results of comparative studies, provides an overview of newer modalities not included in the guidelines, and offers perspectives on translating the guidelines into clinical practice.