Keywords

Brunner Glands; Endoscopy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Polyps

Abbreviations

DCP: duodenocephalopancreatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Brunner’s gland hyperplasia is a rare lesion which, since it was first described by Salvioli in 1872 [1], has been reported in only 200 cases in the literature [2]. It develops from the alkaline-secreting submucosal glands which protect the mucosa from the pylorus to the second portion of the duodenum. Brunner’s glands develop from the anterior primitive intestine. Most reports of this lesion are those of incidental findings seen on barium radiographs or during endoscopic examination, although Brunner's gland hyperplasia represents 6.8% of duodenal polyps removed endoscopically [3, 4]. More than half (57%) originate at the bulb of the duodenum; the incidence decreases with increasing distance from the pyloric ring [5].

Feyter [6] classified Brunner's gland hyperplasia into three main categories: circumscribed nodular hyperplasia (the most frequent), diffuse nodular hyperplasia, and adenomatous hyperplasia (the rarest). Robertson explained these classifications as being a pathologic progression [7]. More recently, they have been classified as being the same clinical entity. However, the pathophysiology and etiology of Brunner's gland hyperplasia remain obscure.

The prevailing opinion as to the etiology of these lesions is that they are hamartomas [8, 9]. Even though these tumors are benign, the literature reports a proven case of cancer developing from Brunner’s hyperplasia [10] and a case associated with two foci of microcarcinoids [11]. Brunner's gland hyperplasia is often associated with chronic renal failure [12], chronic pancreatitis [13] and peptic ulcer disease [14], and has been known to regress, in some cases, after effective treatment of gastric hyperacidity [15]. It is noteworthy that hamartomas are commonly associated with a generalized polyposis syndrome, mandating examination of the entire gastrointestinal tract [16].

Most patients with Brunner's gland hyperplasia are completely asymptomatic, but when symptoms are present they consist of abdominal pain and upper gastrointestinal bleeding [17]. The abdominal pain is usually late postprandial or nocturnal and is often due to obstructive episodes; the bleeding is mostly occult, is often associated with sideropenic anemia and, on rare occasions, can cause hematemesis or melena.

Rare complications include intestinal obstructions, intussusception and, in the paravaterian localization, pancreatitis and obstructive jaundice [18].

Most of the lesions described have been less than 2 cm in dimensions, and only 25 cases in the literature have reported larger dimensions [11]. These large lesions make a differential diagnosis between Brunner’s gland hyperplasia and carcinomas of the duodenalpancreatic district difficult. We report a case of a Brunner's gland hyperplasia, 6 cm in size mimicking a carcinoma of the duodenalpancreatic area, 'over-treated' with a duodenocephalopancreatectomy (DCP).

CASE REPORT

A 60-year-old man was referred to our hospital in March 2003 because of belt-like upper abdominal pain. The anamnestic data showed alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis which gave the patient post-prandial epigastric belt-like pain. The patient had been treated with substitutive therapy since 1998, and had had a laparoscopic cholecystectomy in January 2001. Serum chemistry revealed only an increase in the amylase level (717 U/L; reference range: 0-130 U/L). Ultrasound examination showed a slight dilatation of the choledochus (1.3 cm in diameter), an ectasia of the Wirsung duct with images referable to microcalculi (0.3 cm in diameter) and a voluminous anecogenic formation 5.5 cm in diameter situated below the head of the pancreas. An attempt at ERCP failed, since cannulation of the papilla of Vater was impossible owing to the presence of a 5.5 cm bulky mass which occupied part of the bulb and the second portion of the duodenum. An endoscopic pinch biopsy was performed; the pathologic finding showed aspecific phlogosis. A radiological examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract showed stenosis of the second part of the duodenum (Figure 1). A CT examination confirmed the ectasia of the Wirsung duct, and showed a volumetric reduction in the body of the pancreas, together with a thickening of the upper duodenal angle and the second part of the duodenal wall. Surgery was indicated for a duodenopancreatic mass of unknown nature.

Figure 1. Radiological examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract showing stenosis of the second part of the duodenum.

Laparotomy showed a mass which appeared hard upon palpation, vegetating in the duodenal lumen, occupying the duodenum from the bulb to the second portion with intense periduodenitis. The surgeon performed an intra-operative biopsy of the periduodenal tissue which he believed to be neoplastic. A frozen section of the biopsy showed only aspecific chronic phlogosis. In the belief that this histological finding was due only to an error in sampling a malign tumor, a duodenocephalopancreatectomy was performed.

The histological examination showed diffuse nodular Brunner’s gland hyperplasia (Figure 2) with extension to the antro-pyloric region, dilatation of the pancreatic ducts with chronic suppurative phlogosis, an abscess in correspondence to the papilla and in the adjacent areas, fibrosis of the pancreatic gland, wide gastric metaplasia of the duodenum, and thickening of the antrum and the fundus mucosa which did not show any sign of phlogosis or tumor.

Figure 2. Histological examination showing diffuse nodular Brunner’s gland hyperplasia.

The post-operative period was uneventful and the patient was discharged on day 13 without any complications. At a 12-month follow-up the patient was seen to be in good health and subsequent instrumental examination excluded the presence of polyps in the gastrointestinal tract.

DISCUSSION

This case report points out the problem of the diagnosis, and consequently of the treatment, of those cases in which Brunner’s gland hyperplasia manifests itself by mimicking a malign neoformation.

In most cases, endoscopy combined with biopsy and duodenography leads to a diagnosis. However, both examinations have some limitations: duodenography has a reliability of 61% [19] with 20% of false negatives and 10% of uncertain interpretations [20]; esophagogastroduodenoscopy has a sensitivity ranging from 72 to 89%, and in some cases, such as the one we present here, the endoscopic biopsy is nondiagnostic. This is because these lesions are submucosal and may be missed by a pinch biopsy, which will only show signs of aspecific reactive phlogosis [21].

These considerations may explain why, in some cases, it is not possible to achieve an accurate pre-operative diagnosis.

The medical treatment for these lesions consists of the control of gastric hyperacidity, and only rarely causes the regression of gland hyperplasia; therefore, excision would appear to be the treatment of choice. Since most of the lesions are less than 1 cm in diameter, an endoscopic polypectomy is feasible with instruments such as U-shaped snares [22]. However, surgical intervention is still needed in complicated cases and those with excessively large or sessile type tumors, [23, 24, 25] and may consist of a surgical polypectomy, wedge duodenal resection or a partial gastrectomy extended to the duodenal bulb.

In exceptional cases, such as the one we present here and the one already reported by Skellenger et al. [26], a voluminous Brunner’s gland hyperplasia can mimic a carcinoma of the duodenal-pancreatic region and can lead to major destruction such as a DCP.

Skellenger et al. suggested solving the diagnostic problem with a biopsy at surgery [26]. The latter, although having a sensitivity of 83-92% [27, 28, 29] and yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 91% and 97% in two studies, respectively [30, 31], presents some problems peculiar to this technique. It is wellknown that a biopsy of the pancreaticduodenal region performed with a wedge biopsy or trucut needle gives rise to a high occurrence of complications, such as hemorrhage, fistulas, pancreatitis or abscess formation. The reported rate of complications judged to be related to the biopsy varies from 0 to 10% and the mortality rates from 0 to 4% [27, 31, 32, 33, 34]. The wedge biopsy is regarded as safe, since it can be kept as superficial as possible, avoiding lesions of the Wirsung duct. However, the fear of complications may lead the surgeon to obtain biopsy specimens which are too superficial and that will thus often resulting in a false negative, as cancers in this area are often surrounded by a large rim of phlogistic tissue [32]. This situation may even be found more readily in cases of, voluminous Brunner’s gland hyperplasia, since this condition involves the inner layers of the duodenum.

Even though intra-operative biopsy did not solve the diagnostic problem in our case, our still valid suspicion of malignancy warranted a DCP. In fact, the literature now holds that it is appropriate to perform a DCP in the case of a suspected but unproven malignancy [35, 36]. This aggressive approach has been justified by the better outcome of patients after DCP in the last few years since the mortality rate related to surgery dropped from 20% in 1970 to 5% in 1990, and postoperative morbidity from 50 to 25% in high volume centers [37]. In our institution, the surgery-related mortality rate has dropped in the past few years to 3.5% and postoperative morbidity to 20% (most cases due to a pancreatic fistula from the pancreatic stump).

Thompson et al. reported a 45% incidence of cancer in patients who underwent DCP for suspected but unproven cancer in which a preoperative or an intra-operative biopsy was not performed or was not informative. The same author states that an intra-operative biopsy for confirmation of malignancy should be reserved only for those patients in whom it is not possible to perform a resection [35].

Finally, this experience points out a relatively rare situation in which the impossibility of having a correct pre-operative and intraoperative histologic diagnosis of a rare, but absolutely benign, lesion has led to 'overtreatment'; the correct treatment for this lesion, in fact, would have been a local excision.

However, we deem that this aggressive behavior can be justified, since nowadays the consequences of leaving a misdiagnosed cancer of the pancreatic-duodenal area are much worse than the risk of post-operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing DCP.

References

1. Salvioli G. Contribuzioneallo studio degliadenomi. L’Osservatore e GazzettaMedica di Torino 1876;12:481.
2. Kaplan EL, Dyson WL, Fitts WT Jr. The relationship of gastric hyperacidity to hyperplasia of Brunner's glands. Arch Surg 1969;98:636-9. [PMID 5778701]
3. Ghazi A, Ferstenberg H, Shinya H. Endoscopic gastroduodenalpolypectomy. Ann Surg 1984; 200:175-80. [PMID 6465972]
4. Hochter W, Weingart J, Seib HJ, Ottenjann R. Duodenal polyps. Incidence, histologic substrate and significance. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1984; 109:1183- 6. [PMID 6745123]
5. Silverman L, Waugh JM, Huizenga KA, Harrison EG Jr. Large adenomatous polyp of Brunner's glands. Am J ClinPathol 1961; 36:438-43. [PMID 13912933]
6. Feyter F. OuberWucherun gender BrunnerschenDrusen. Virchow Arch Path Anat 1934; 293:509.
7. Robertson HE. The pathology of Brunner's glands. Arch Pathol 1941; 31:112-31.
8. Coppola D, Karl RC. Brunner's Gland Hamartoma: Is It Just a Morphologic Curiosity? Cancer Control 1997; 4:359-63. [PMID 10763043]
9. Levine JA, Burgart LJ, Batts KP, Wang KK. Brunner's gland hamartomas: clinical presentation and pathological features of 27 cases. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90:290-4. [PMID 7847303]
10. Christie AC. Duodenal carcinoma with neoplastic trasformation of the underlying Brunner’s glands. Br J Cancer 1953; 765-67.
11. Matsui T, Iida M, Fujischima M, Sakamoto K, Watanabe H. Brunner's gland hamartoma associated with microcarcinoids. Endoscopy 1989; 21:37-8. [PMID 2917535]
12. Paimela H, Harkonen M, Karonen SL, Tallgren LG, Stenman S, Ahonen J. Relation between serum group II pepsinogen concentration and the degree of Brunner's gland hyperplasia in patients with chronic renal failure. Gut 1985; 26:198-202. [PMID 3967837]
13. Saenz de Santa Maria J, Pajuelo F, Lozano F, Cordero R, Perez-Miranda M. Diffuse hyperplasia of Brunner's glands in relation to pancreatic and/or renal disease. Med Clin (Barc) 1983; 80:646. [PMID 6876924]
14. Fuse Y, Tsuchihashi Y, Takamasu M, Kodama T, Fujita S, Kashima K. Thickness of Brunner's glands and its clinical significance in peptic ulcer diseases. GastroenterolJpn 1989; 24:512-8. [PMID 2806830]
15. De Angelis G, Villanacci V, Lovotti D, Gianni E, Mazzi A, Buonocore M, et al. Hamartomatous polyps of Brunner's gland. Presentation of 2 cases. Review of the literature. Minerva Chir 1989; 44:1761-6. [PMID 2682368]
16. Singh K, Singh LM, Nagi B, Malik AK. Endoscopic removal of duodenal bruneroma. Trop Gastroenterol 1991; 12:40-2. [PMID 2058011]
17. Fuller JW, Cruse CW, Williams JW. Hyperplasia of Brunner's glands of the duodenum. Am Surg 1977;43:246-50. [PMID 851297]
18. de Silva S, Chandrasoma P. Giant duodenal hamartoma consisting mainly of Brunner's glands. Am J Surg 1977; 133:240-3. [PMID 835800]
19. Gourtsoyiannis NC, Bays D, Papaioannou N, Theotokas J, Barouxis G, Karabelas T. Benign tumors of the small intestine: preoperative evaluation with abarium infusion technique. Eur J Radiol 1993; 45:99-107. [PMID 8462575]
20. Cwikiel W, Andren-Sandberg A. Diagnostic difficulties with duodenal malignancies revisited: a new strategy. GastrointestRadiol 1991; 16:301-4. [PMID 1936770]
21. Hedges AR. Hamartoma of Brunner's gland causing pyloric obstruction and a biliary fistula. ActaChirScand 1988; 154:475-6. [PMID 3263743]
22. Huang CH, Perng CL, Yang YH, Shyr YM, Lin HJ, Tseng GY, et al. Endoscopic removal of a huge duodenal Brunner's gland adenoma: a new technique. GastrointestEndosc 1999; 50:868-9. [PMID 10570360]
23. Adell-Carceller R, Salvador-Sanchis JL, Navarro- Navarro J, Segarra-Soria M, Garcia-Calvo R, Gibert- Gerez J, Colom-Costa J. Laparoscopically treated duodenal harmatoma of Brunner's glands. SurgLaparoscEndosc 1997; 7:298-300. [PMID 9282760]
24. Bac SW, Lee DK, Baik SG, Kwon SO, Cho MY. A Brunner's gland adenoma removed by endoscopic polypectomy. Kor J GastrointestEndosc 1993; 13:83- 8.
25. De Castella H. Brunner's gland adenoma: unusual cause of intestinal bleeding. Br J Surg 1966; 53:153- 15. [PMID 4952891]
26. Skellenger ME, Kinner BM, Jordan PH Jr. Brunner's gland hamartomas can mimic carcinoma of the head of the pancreas. SurgGynecolObstet 1983; 156:774-6. [PMID 6857456]
27. Lightwood R, Reber HA, Way LW. The risk and accuracy of pancreatic biopsy. Am J Surg 1976; 132:189-94. [PMID 182028]
28. Ingram DM, Sheiner HJ, Shilkin KB. Operative biopsy of the pancreas using the Trucut needle. Aust N Z J Surg 1978; 48:203-6. [PMID 280329]
29. Tweedle DE. Peroperativetransduodenal biopsy of the pancreas. Gut 1979; 20:992-6. [PMID 527875]
30. Spjut HJ, Ramos AJ. An evaluation of biopsyfrozen section of ampullary region and pancreas. Ann Surg 1957; 146:923. [PMID 13488370]
31. Isaacson R, Weiland LH, McIlrath DC. Biopsy of the pancreas. Arch Surg 1974; 109:227-30. [PMID 4136176]
32. Forsgren L, Hansson K, Lundh G, Nordenstam H. Pancreatic biopsy. ActaChirScand 1968; 134:457-60. [PMID 5731287]
33. George P, Brown C, Gilchrist J. Operative biopsy of the pancreas. Br J Surg 1975; 62:280-3. [PMID 1131506]
34. Schultz NJ, Sanders RJ. Evaluation of pancreatic biopsy. Am J Surg 1963; 158:1053-7. [PMID 14081541]
35. Thompson JS, Murayama KM, Edney JA, Rikkers LF. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for suspected but unproven malignancy. Am J Surg 1994; 168:571-3. [PMID 7977998]
36. Bottger TC, Junginger T. Treatment of tumors of the pancreatic head with suspected but unproved malignancy: is a nihilistic approach justified? World J Surg 1999; 23:158-62. [PMID 9880425]
37. Tsiotos GG, Farnell MB, Sarr MG. Are the results of pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer improving? World J Surg 1999; 23:913-9. [PMID 10449820]