SM tumors are divided into a number of groups and GISTs and leiomyomas are the most common of these gastric SM tumors. HP is also one of the differential diagnoses. It is often difficult to differentiate SM tumors into the respective groups [5]. Pang’s retrospective study of thirty-two cases of HP showed that there were no cases which were diagnosed properly before the operations were performed [8]. Regarding an endoscopic study, Kubota’s review of 26 cases of SM tumor suggested that most HPs are yellowish, cloudy, small, soft, and nodular in shape [4]. On the one hand, solid tumors such as neuro-endocrine tumors (NETs) generally extend vertically and are papillary while; on the other hand, soft tumors such as HPs tend to extend horizontally and show cushion sign positive. The case described in this study showed a cushion sign positive which means a soft tumor but with a formed papillary architecture and gastroduodenal invagination, atypical for a soft tumor like HP. And the correlation pedunculated shape and HP’s pathological type was obscure.
The SM location of pancreatic heterotopia is often evaluated using endoscopic ultrasound with the recognition of features distinguishing it from a GIST or leiomyoma, the major clinical and endoscopic differential diagnoses. Moreover, EUS-FNA is reported to be useful [3] for a precise diagnosis. In the case study, endoscopic biopsy could have been performed at the same time but tissue specimens obtained using standard endoscopic biopsy forceps would not have been adequate for histopathological diagnosis of HP [9].
It has been reported that the proper diagnosis rate of HP by CT is only 16.7% [10], while the proper diagnosis rate using MRI is higher. MRI often shows HP as T1 WI high, T2 WI low [11]. In the case study, the mass lesion showed low intensity in T1 WI and high intensity in T2 WI. The density of the tumor’s content suggested that this tumor included water-like content and resembled that of a pancreatic serous cystic neoplasm (SCN) and gastric duplication and was atypical as HP or a GIST. However, the resected specimen was filled with solid tumor. Pathologically, there were many secretory glands and this stroma was edematous, which might show a T2 WI, water-like image. The correlation between image by CT and MRI and pathological type of HP is obscure; however, some reports suggested that the enhancement on CT is typically similar to that of the normal pancreas but the enhancement degree depends heavily on the histopathologic composition. Duct dominant type including type 3 HP exhibits lower enhancement than the normal pancreas [12]. MRI could show the variable image according to HP’s subtype.
Pathologically, HP is variably composed of pancreatic acini, ducts, or endocrine islets. Some cases contain all components of the pancreas, including ducts, acini, and endocrine islets, whereas others consist of pancreatic ducts only. In 1909, Heinrich classified the HP into three types histologically: type 1, the most common, with all the components of the pancreas including acini, ducts, and endocrine islets; type 2, with acini and ducts and no endocrine islets; and type 3, with ducts alone [6]. In the case study, immuno-histochemical analysis showed MUC1-positive cells, which revealed the existence of benign pancreatic ducts, identifying it as belonging to type 3. They are usually characterized by only dilated pancreatic ducts and are surrounded by prominent smooth muscle proliferation while some of them are cystically dilated [7]. In type 3, because only the pancreatic ducts exist, differentiation between HP and SM heterotopic glands is very difficult. The case study was diagnosed as HP because of two reasons. First, the mass expressed MUC1 on the glands’ membranes, which was expressed specifically in the pancreatic glands’ membranes and cytoplasm. Secondly, the muscle proliferation existed in the mass which was also specific to type 3 HP.
HP is usually asymptomatic [1, 13, 14] and commonly found incidentally on imaging studies, at endoscopy or at autopsy. Only a few cases are clinically significant, particularly larger lesions, because they can be associated with abdominal pain, vomiting [15] and gastric outlet obstruction [5, 16]. Dysphagia and heartburn can occur in the very rare cases when the lesion is located near the esophago-gastric junction [2, 17, 18]. Gastroduodenal invagination is a rare symptom and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, only a few cases of HP as a cause of gastric outlet obstruction in adult have been observed [5, 15, 16, 19,20,21,22,23]. Almost all gastric HP is situated in the submucosa of the distal stomach, and often within 50 mm of the pylorus [1]. This location and the larger size of a tumor may lead to several symptoms similar to the case study where the lesion was near the pylorus and 6 cm in size [1]. About treatment of HP, if HP is discovered as an incidental finding, local excision is recommended. Increasingly, some are removed endoscopically with satisfactory postoperative results [16]. However, endoscopic excision can be considered in select case. In our case, the reduction of incarceration was expected to be difficult endoscopically and laparoscopically, and open strategy was performed. Moreover, the adenocarcinoma could not be excluded completely and DG was performed. In some case, DG was also performed because of obscure diagnosis [5].
The HP tissue can undergo secondary changes and complications such as acute pancreatitis, pseudo-cyst formation, development of mucinous cysts, and pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia [7, 19, 24,25,26]. Rare cases of ectopic pancreatic tissue complicated by adenocarcinoma or even endocrine tumors have been described. In symptomatic lesions, if a preoperative diagnosis can be secured, minimally invasive techniques should be the treatment of choice, including endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery [2, 13, 18]. The case study was thought to be difficult to resect completely by endoscopy and showed invagination; therefore, an open gastrectomy was performed.
