99 43rd European Pancreatic Club (EPC) Meeting June 22–25, 2011, Magdeburg, Germany Guest Editor: Halangk, W. (Magdeburg) (available online only) 276 Erratum 277 IAP Society News 278 EPC Society News No. 3

Somatic mutations of MMR gene are not often present in HNPCC and in sporadic RER+ colorectal cancers. Complete studies were made according to Bethesda and Amsterdam Criteria, and 35 patients belonged to the group with sporadic colorectal cancer, and 9 patients belonged to HNPCC group. The results of our studies showed that there is no significant difference between RER phenotype of HNPCC and sporadic cancer (p>0,05) in regard to microsatellite status. It can be a good indicator that there are so called 'susspected' on HNPCC among sporadic cancers which were not detected yet. The reason for this was an incomplete familial history of illness of patients and as such it was selected as sporadic cancer. Microsatellite analysis together with medical and familial history of illness can be a successful instrument for efficient HNPCC identification. However, successful solving of this problem lies in making an accurate diagnosis in comparative findings, which can be provided by genetic and clinical tests.

Colorectal cancer with its frequency, high mortality rate as well as many etiological unknowns is a challenge to contemporary science. Finally, genetic information could be used in near future for prevention of colorectal cancer, its early diagnosis and selection for the most suitable hospital treatment. In this study, we analysed genetic alterations of tumor suppressor genes and the possibility of quick and efficient screening method for identification of colorectal cancer. The study consisted of 54 samples of tumor and surrounding healthy tissue of patients with colorectal cancer, which is clasificated according to Bethesda and Amsterdams criterias. The investigation showed that genetic alterations of tumor suppressor gene NM 23 were present in 19/35 (54,29%) samples, and tumor suppressor gene p53 in 18/35 (51,43%), APC in 18/35 (51,43%), DCC2 tumor suppressor gene in 12/35 (34,29%), tumor suppressor gene RB1 in 8 /35 (22, 86%) and DCC 1 in 10/35 ( 28,57%) tumor tissue.

their poor general condition and because it would be difficult to discriminate between necrotic and normal tissue during the sur-gery. Besides, the risk of uncontrolled hem-orrhage during or immediately after the surgery would be very high. Open necrosectomy results in signifi-cant deterioration of organ dysfunction scores after the procedure [2]. M IPN is less aggressive compared to open surgery but it is a much more aggressive method com-pared to percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) using 8- or 10-Fr catheters under ultrasound or CT control (general anes-thesia, progressive dilatation of the drain tract to 30 Fr allowing insertion of a trocar, using grasping forceps for removal of ne-crotic tissue) [1, 3]. P CD seems technically feasible in the vast majority of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis [4, 5] . B-esides, with this method a few catheters can be simultaneously introduced into liquid areas of necroses (into different pancreatic and peripancreatic regions) without gen-eral anesthesia and with fewer traumas, performing vigorous irrigation with simi-lar or better effects than by MIPN. On the basis of our long-term experi-ence [4, 6] , we believe that necrosecto-my (including MIPN) as a primary treat-ment may represent overtreatment of IPN. Therefore, we consider that sole conserva-tive treatment with proper intravenous hy-dration and administration of proper an-tibiotics should be performed at the begin-ning of the disease. PCD with vigorous D e a rE d itor, We read with great interest the article by Ahmad et al. [1] published in issue 1 of Pancreatology 2 011, volume 11. The article describes a case series outlining the expe-rience and results of retroperitoneal mini-mally invasive pancreatic necrosectomy (MIPN) and demonstrates that MIPN can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality and with good end results. The authors note that multiple MIPNs may be needed to eradicate the necrosis satisfactorily [1] . However, we wish to highlight certain issues regarding the statement that multiple MIPNs represent the optimal treatment for infected pancre-atic necroses (IPN). In the beginning of acute necrotizing pancreatitis, pancreatic and peripancreatic necroses are solid and the discrimination between necrotic tissue and normal tissue is very difficult. However, during the course of IPN, after the transition from solid ne-crotic tissue to more liquid contents takes place, there is a chance of a higher success rate in evacuating the necrotic tissue from the cavities, regardless of the method that is used. The presence of infection and vigor-ous irrigation can accelerate the process of transition from solid necrotic tissue to more liquid content. In those conditions, patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are not good candidates for surgery because of