Part 1: Basic-Level MCQs

---

MCQ 1

1. Question

   Which imaging modality can detect up to 49.1% of pancreatic cystic lesions in tested individuals?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Abdominal ultrasound

   B. Computed tomography (CT)

   C. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/MRCP

   D. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

3. Correct Answer

   C. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/MRCP

4. Explanation

   • Why C is correct: According to the excerpt, MRI/MRCP can reveal pancreatic cysts in 2.4% to 49.1% of tested individuals, making it highly sensitive for detecting cystic pancreatic lesions.
   • Why A, B, and D are incorrect:
     • A. Abdominal ultrasound typically detects far fewer lesions (0.21%);
     • B. CT scans have a detection rate of about 2.6%;
     • D. ERCP is not routinely used solely for identifying incidental pancreatic cysts and is more invasive.
5. Key Takeaways
   • MRI/MRCP provides detailed visualization of pancreatic cysts, including communication with the ductal system and internal septations.
   • Detection rates vary considerably depending on the imaging modality.
   • With increasing use of high-quality cross-sectional imaging, more asymptomatic cystic lesions are being identified.
   • Accurate imaging is crucial for proper diagnosis and subsequent management decisions.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Introduction and Epidemiology" (pp. 868–869)

---

MCQ 2

1. Question

   A classic microcystic “honeycomb” appearance with a characteristic “stellate” central scar is most typical of which pancreatic cystic tumor?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN)

   B. Serous cystadenoma (SCA)

   C. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)

   D. Solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT)

3. Correct Answer

   B. Serous cystadenoma (SCA)

4. Explanation

   • Why B is correct: Serous cystadenomas frequently have a microcystic “honeycomb” architecture and may contain a fibrous or calcified central scar arranged in a stellate pattern.
   • Why A, C, and D are incorrect:
     • A. MCNs tend to be macrocystic, often with an ovarian-type stroma, and generally located in the body or tail of the pancreas.
     • C. IPMNs often communicate with the main pancreatic duct and produce mucin.
     • D. SPTs commonly appear as mixed solid-cystic lesions, usually in young females, without the stellate scar.
5. Key Takeaways
   • Serous cystadenomas (SCAs) are typically benign with a very low (<1%) risk of malignant transformation.
   • Their classic radiological hallmark is the honeycomb or spongy microcystic pattern.
   • Most SCAs are discovered incidentally, though large lesions (>4 cm) can become symptomatic due to mass effect.
   • Correct imaging interpretation can often distinguish SCAs from mucinous tumors without immediate need for resection.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Serous Cystadenomas" (pp. 870–871)

---

MCQ 3

(All are true EXCEPT)

1. Question

   All of the following statements regarding the malignant potential of pancreatic cystic neoplasms are true EXCEPT:

2. Answer Choices

   A. Mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) can harbor invasive carcinoma in up to 10–50% of cases.

   B. Main-duct IPMNs may have up to a 45% risk of invasive disease.

   C. Serous cystadenomas (SCAs) have a malignant transformation rate approaching 25%.

   D. Solid pseudopapillary tumors (SPTs) can metastasize in about 15% of patients.

3. Correct Answer

   C. Serous cystadenomas (SCAs) have a malignant transformation rate approaching 25%.

4. Explanation

   • Why C is correct (the EXCEPT statement): SCAs are typically benign lesions with an exceedingly low (<1%) malignant transformation rate. Therefore, a 25% rate is incorrect and overestimates their malignant potential.
   • Why A, B, and D are correct:
     • A. MCNs do show a wide range (10–50%) of invasive or malignant potential.
     • B. Main-duct IPMNs can harbor high-risk or invasive disease in a significant proportion (up to ~45%).
     • D. SPTs, though generally indolent, can indeed metastasize or demonstrate malignant behavior in up to 15% of cases.
5. Key Takeaways
   • SCAs are almost always benign, with only rare case reports of malignant transformation.
   • MCNs and IPMNs (especially main-duct type) pose a significant risk for cancer progression.
   • SPTs often affect younger women and, despite a typically low malignant potential, can sometimes spread.
   • Clinical and radiological features guide the decision to observe or resect these neoplasms.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Malignant Potential of Cystic Neoplasms" (pp. 871–872)

---

MCQ 4

1. Question

   A 45-year-old woman is discovered to have a 2.5 cm solitary cyst in the body/tail of the pancreas with “eggshell” calcifications and no communication with the main pancreatic duct. Which of the following is the most likely diagnosis?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN)

   B. Serous cystadenoma (SCA)

   C. Pseudocyst

   D. Branch-duct IPMN

3. Correct Answer

   A. Mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN)

4. Explanation

   • Why A is correct: MCNs are often found in middle-aged women, typically located in the distal pancreas, can have eggshell-like calcifications on imaging, and do not communicate with the main pancreatic duct.
   • Why B, C, and D are incorrect:
     • B. SCAs are commonly microcystic and can feature a central scar; the presence of eggshell calcifications is more characteristic of MCNs.
     • C. Pseudocysts lack an epithelial lining and are commonly associated with a history of pancreatitis or trauma.
     • D. Branch-duct IPMNs usually communicate with the pancreatic duct system, which is not seen here.
5. Key Takeaways
   • MCNs predominantly affect females and typically involve the pancreas body/tail.
   • Calcifications in the cyst wall, especially a thin “eggshell” pattern, are a strong radiologic clue for MCN.
   • MCNs are mucin-producing neoplasms with significant malignant potential (10–50%).
   • Distinguishing MCNs from IPMNs (lack of ductal communication) and SCAs (microcystic pattern) is vital for management.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms" (pp. 872–873)

---

MCQ 5

1. Question

   A 60-year-old patient undergoes abdominal CT for nonspecific discomfort. Imaging reveals a 3 cm pancreatic cyst with thickened cyst walls and uncertain features. According to current guidelines, what is the most appropriate next step in management?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Immediate surgical resection

   B. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with cyst fluid analysis

   C. Serum amylase test alone

   D. No further evaluation; observe clinically

3. Correct Answer

   B. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with cyst fluid analysis

4. Explanation

   • Why B is correct: EUS allows detailed evaluation of mural nodules, septations, and cystic fluid analysis (CEA, cytology, molecular markers). This step is recommended when the lesion has concerning radiographic features or is ≥ 3 cm.
   • Why A, C, and D are incorrect:
     • A. Immediate resection without further characterization risks unnecessary surgery for benign or indolent lesions.
     • C. Serum amylase alone does not adequately characterize the cyst type or malignant risk.
     • D. Observation is premature if the cyst demonstrates “worrisome” features like thickened walls and a ≥3 cm size.
5. Key Takeaways
   • Guideline-based management of pancreatic cysts focuses on identifying features suggestive of malignancy before deciding on resection.
   • EUS-FNA can measure cyst fluid CEA, cytology, and even molecular markers.
   • A 3 cm size threshold and certain imaging features (mural nodules, thick walls) necessitate further diagnostic steps.
   • Proper evaluation balances the risk of overtreatment versus the need to catch high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer early.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Diagnostic Evaluation and Guidelines" (pp. 873–875)

---

(User Prompt)

“I like that”

(Please see Part 2: Advanced-Level MCQs below.)

---

Part 2: Advanced-Level MCQs

---

MCQ 6

1. Question

   In patients with a known mucin-producing pancreatic cyst (e.g., IPMN or MCN), which of the following molecular markers is most strongly associated with progression to invasive carcinoma?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Amylase

   B. VHL gene mutation

   C. KRAS and GNAS mutations

   D. Low cyst fluid CEA (< 5 ng/mL)

3. Correct Answer

   C. KRAS and GNAS mutations

4. Explanation

   • Why C is correct: In IPMNs, especially the intestinal type, GNAS and KRAS mutations are frequently implicated in neoplastic progression. GNAS mutations are particularly unique to IPMNs (versus MCNs), whereas KRAS is common in multiple pancreatic neoplasms.
   • Why A, B, and D are incorrect:
     • A. Amylase alone is nonspecific; it can be elevated in pseudocysts, IPMNs, or other lesions.
     • B. VHL is classically mutated in serous cystadenomas, not mucin-producing cysts.
     • D. Low cyst fluid CEA typically argues against a mucinous lesion.
5. Key Takeaways
   • Characterizing molecular alterations (KRAS, GNAS, RNF43, etc.) helps distinguish cystic neoplasms and may guide management.
   • GNAS mutations are strongly linked to IPMN pathogenesis, while KRAS is more broadly found in pancreatic tumors.
   • Noninvasive methods of cyst fluid genetic testing (e.g., CompCyst) are increasingly used to stratify malignancy risk.
   • Understanding the molecular profile of pancreatic cysts is an evolving field with diagnostic and therapeutic implications.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Genetics of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms" (pp. 873–874)

---

MCQ 7

(All are true EXCEPT)

1. Question

   Regarding solid pseudopapillary tumors (SPTs) of the pancreas, all of the following statements are true EXCEPT:

2. Answer Choices

   A. They predominantly affect young females in their 20s and 30s.

   B. They are often well-encapsulated and can show mixed solid-cystic architecture.

   C. They typically demonstrate KRAS and TP53 gene alterations in the majority of cases.

   D. Complete surgical extirpation offers an excellent long-term prognosis in most patients.

3. Correct Answer

   C. They typically demonstrate KRAS and TP53 gene alterations in the majority of cases.

4. Explanation

   • Why C is correct (the EXCEPT statement): SPTs are not commonly driven by KRAS or TP53 mutations. Instead, they are more frequently associated with aberrant β-catenin signaling (Wnt pathway).
   • Why A, B, and D are true:
     • A. SPTs have a marked female predilection and often occur in younger age groups.
     • B. A characteristic feature is the encapsulated, mixed solid-cystic nature.
     • D. Surgical resection is curative in most cases, even in the presence of some metastasis.
5. Key Takeaways
   • Solid pseudopapillary tumors are rare but distinct pancreatic neoplasms.
   • They are often benign or low-grade malignant and can be resected with excellent survival rates.
   • Their molecular profile commonly features β-catenin mutations rather than the classic pancreatic cancer genes (KRAS, TP53).
   • Early surgical intervention is essential if the tumor is resectable, given the generally indolent behavior and favorable outcomes.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor (SPT)" (pp. 874–875)

---

MCQ 8

1. Question

   Mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) involve which of the following ductal structures?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Common bile duct plus main pancreatic duct

   B. Diffuse areas of the branch ducts only

   C. Both the main pancreatic duct and one or more branch ducts

   D. Minor papilla ductal system exclusively

3. Correct Answer

   C. Both the main pancreatic duct and one or more branch ducts

4. Explanation

   • Why C is correct: Mixed-type IPMNs are defined by concurrent involvement of the main duct (≥5 mm dilatation) and the branch ducts.
   • Why A, B, and D are incorrect:
     • A. IPMNs do not arise from the common bile duct; that would be an extrahepatic biliary lesion.
     • B. Branch-duct IPMNs involve only side branches without main duct dilation.
     • D. The minor papilla (duct of Santorini) can be involved in IPMNs, but this is not the standard definition of “mixed-type.”
5. Key Takeaways
   • IPMNs are categorized as main-duct, branch-duct, or mixed based on radiologic and ductal involvement.
   • Mixed-type IPMNs generally carry a higher risk of malignancy than pure branch-duct IPMNs but slightly lower than purely main-duct lesions.
   • Proper imaging of main duct dilation and side-branch cysts helps guide management decisions (e.g., resection vs surveillance).
   • Early detection and classification of IPMNs are critical to prevent progression to invasive carcinoma.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "IPMN Classification and Subtypes" (pp. 872–873)

---

MCQ 9

1. Question

   In a patient with suspected main-duct IPMN (diffuse dilation of the main pancreatic duct >10 mm) but no radiologic evidence of an invasive mass, which of the following best describes a key surgical management controversy?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Whether to perform an extended lymph node dissection for prophylaxis

   B. Whether to attempt a total pancreatectomy versus a segmental resection

   C. Whether to administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy before resection

   D. Whether to resect the lesion endoscopically rather than surgically

3. Correct Answer

   B. Whether to attempt a total pancreatectomy versus a segmental resection

4. Explanation

   • Why B is correct: Diffuse or segmental dilation of the main duct raises concern for extensive IPMN involvement throughout the pancreas. The decision between performing a subtotal (segmental) resection—with potential residual risk in the remaining gland—or a total pancreatectomy—with resultant diabetes and quality-of-life issues—is a significant clinical dilemma.
   • Why A, C, and D are incorrect:
     • A. Standard lymphadenectomy is performed with resection of invasive lesions; prophylactic “extended” node dissection is not the major controversy.
     • C. Neoadjuvant therapy is more common in ductal adenocarcinoma or borderline resectable disease; routine neoadjuvant therapy for IPMN is not standard.
     • D. Endoscopic resection is generally not viable for extensive IPMN within the main pancreatic duct.
5. Key Takeaways
   • Main-duct IPMNs have a high malignant potential, often prompting surgical resection.
   • Determining the extent of resection—especially if ductal changes are diffuse—is challenging: total pancreatectomy carries high morbidity and lifelong endocrine/exocrine insufficiency.
   • Segmental resection plus careful intraoperative frozen sections may spare some gland but can risk future malignant transformation in the unresected portion.
   • Surgical planning involves balancing oncologic risk against the patient’s quality of life and comorbidities.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Main-Duct IPMN: Indication and Extent of Resection" (pp. 873–875)

---

MCQ 10

1. Question

   A 58-year-old patient with a branch-duct IPMN (2.8 cm cyst) exhibits worrisome features on imaging but no high-risk stigmata. An endoscopic ultrasound confirms the absence of a solid mural nodule ≥5 mm. Current guidelines would most likely recommend which next step?

2. Answer Choices

   A. Immediate total pancreatectomy

   B. Close radiologic surveillance with repeat EUS in 3–6 months

   C. Pancreaticoduodenectomy without lymph node dissection

   D. Liver MRI to rule out metastatic disease

3. Correct Answer

   B. Close radiologic surveillance with repeat EUS in 3–6 months

4. Explanation

   • Why B is correct: According to IAP and European guidelines, branch-duct IPMNs with “worrisome features” (e.g., ≥3 cm size, thickened cyst wall, growth rate ~5 mm/year, mild main duct dilation) but no “high-risk stigmata” (e.g., obstructive jaundice, solid nodule ≥5 mm, duct ≥10 mm) often warrant further surveillance. EUS re-evaluation in a few months helps detect early changes that might indicate malignancy.
   • Why A, C, and D are incorrect:
     • A. Total pancreatectomy is excessive for a branch-duct IPMN without definitive high-risk findings.
     • C. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (the Whipple procedure) is typically reserved for head lesions with high-risk or invasive features.
     • D. IPMNs do not routinely necessitate liver MRI unless there is suspicion of metastasis or advanced disease.
5. Key Takeaways
   • “Worrisome features” in branch-duct IPMN call for further investigation (EUS) or close follow-up, rather than immediate resection, if high-risk stigmata are absent.
   • Radiologic surveillance intervals vary but often occur every 3–6 months for moderate-risk lesions.
   • The approach aims to balance timely detection of progression against the morbidities of unnecessary surgery.
   • IPMNs require an individualized decision-making process, incorporating patient age, comorbidities, and lesion evolution.

Reference:
Blumgart's Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas, 7th edition,
Chapter 60: "Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Epidemiology, clinical features, assessment, and management",
Subtopic: "Branch-Duct IPMN and Guidelines" (pp. 873–875)

---

Key Takeaways for the Entire Topic

• Rising Incidence: Improved cross-sectional imaging and an aging population contribute to the increasing detection of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.
• Classification and Risks: Neoplastic pancreatic cysts are commonly serous (SCA), mucinous (MCN, IPMN), or solid pseudopapillary (SPT). Their malignant potentials vary considerably (lowest in SCAs, higher in mucinous lesions, IPMNs, and certain SPTs).
• Guideline-Based Management: Size, symptoms, worrisome features, and certain imaging/lab findings determine surveillance vs. surgery. Main-duct IPMNs, large MCNs, or lesions with high-risk stigmata typically warrant resection.
• Role of EUS-FNA: Endoscopic evaluation with cyst fluid analysis (CEA, cytology, molecular markers) is central to differentiating cyst types and estimating malignancy risk.
• Complex Decision-Making: When diffuse IPMN or borderline lesions exist, the extent of surgical resection (segmental vs. total) and postoperative surveillance require individualized consideration to balance oncologic control with patient quality of life.