Background/Objectives: Groove pancreatitis (GP) is an uncommon pancreatic condition implying a challenging differential diagnosis. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the main risk factors, clinical presentation, imaging and endoscopic characteristics of patients with GP, providing insights into an effective diagnostic approach and therapeutic strategies. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients diagnosed with GP, with demographic and clinical data collected. The diagnostic route was followed by an upper endoscopy and was finally confirmed by cross-sectional imaging. In patients with high malignancy suspicion or with an uncertain diagnosis, a pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was further performed. According to imaging features, we divided patients into two categories: with and without tumor-like appearance. Results: Altogether, 23 patients were included, 11 in the tumor-like category, and 12 in the non-tumor-like group; 95.6% were men, 78.2% alcohol consumers, and 73.9% smokers. In both groups, the main symptom was abdominal pain, followed by nausea and vomiting. The most frequent finding at upper endoscopy was edematous duodenal mucosa (16 patients, 80%), followed by mucosal hyperemia (8 patients, 40%). The main finding at cross-sectional imaging was duodenal wall thickening (14 patients, 60.9%), followed by pancreatic head enlargement and duodenal wall cysts (both seen in 12 patients, 52.2%). The EUS predominantly showed duodenal wall thickening (13 patients, 68.4%), and intramural and paraduodenal cysts (10 patients, 52.6%). Conclusions: GP predominantly affects men with a history of chronic alcohol and tobacco use. Its primary diagnostic challenge lies in distinguishing it from pancreatic carcinoma, with an accurate diagnostic workup being crucial in clinical practice.

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most aggressive digestive neoplasms, especially due to late diagnosis. The aim of our study was to investigate cytokeratin-19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1), osteopontin (OPN), and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) clinical significance in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Our research is a single-center cross-sectional prospective study that included sixty hospitalized patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and fourteen controls. CYFRA 21-1, OPN, and HE4 were tested in all participants using Luminex x MAP technology. Serum CYFRA 21-1 levels were weakly correlated with those of OPN (r = 0.302; p = 0.009), HE4 (r = 0.485; p < 0.001), and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 125 (r = 0.376; p = 0.037). Similarly to CA 19-9 and CA 125, the serum OPN levels were higher in patients with pancreatic cancer when compared to controls, 3.37 (1.84; 9.12) ng/mL versus 1.59 (1.09; 2.51) ng/mL; p = 0.003. However, in multivariate analysis, the OPN was not an independent predictor for pancreatic cancer. Further, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis identified CA 19-9 as the biomarker with the highest diagnostic accuracy, while CYFRA 21-1, OPN, and HE4 did not reach clinically meaningful results. Further, the CYFRA 21-1 levels were significantly higher in cases subjected to significant weight loss before admission.

Background: Pancreatic steatosis (PS) has emerged as a potential risk factor for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While increasing evidence supports its role in pancreatic carcinogenesis, its prognostic significance after PDAC diagnosis remains unclear. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the association between PS and survival outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus was conducted in May 2026 according to PRISMA guidelines. Observational studies assessing pancreatic steatosis by imaging or histology and reporting survival outcomes in PDAC patients were included. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results: Five studies met inclusion criteria, comprising three imaging-based and two histology-based papers. Three studies reported findings suggestive of an adverse prognostic role of PS, whereas two found no significant association with survival. The strongest evidence originated from a study using quantitative histological assessment of pancreatic fat, which demonstrated that greater pancreatic fat accumulation was independently associated with poorer overall survival and recurrence-free survival following surgical resection. In contrast, imaging-based studies yielded inconsistent results. Histology-based studies consistently supported a negative prognostic impact, whereas CT-derived attenuation measures showed substantial variability. Risk of bias was moderate to high in most studies, largely due to retrospective designs, small sample sizes, heterogeneous definitions of pancreatic steatosis, and incomplete adjustment for metabolic confounders. Conclusions: Current evidence regarding the prognostic value of pancreatic steatosis in PDAC is limited and conflicting. While histology-based studies suggest an adverse impact on survival, imaging-based data remain inconsistent.