Validation of at least 1 mm as cut‐off for resection margins for pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail.
Published: 8th May 2018
Authors: T. Hank, U. Hinz, I. Tarantino, J. Kaiser, W. Niesen, F. Bergmann et al.
The definition of resection margin (R) status in pancreatic cancer is under debate. Although a margin of at least 1 mm is an independent predictor of survival after resection for pancreatic head cancer, its relevance to pancreatic body and tail cancers remains unclear. This study aimed to validate R status based on a 1‐mm tumour‐free margin as a prognostic factor for resected adenocarcinoma involving the pancreatic body and tail.
Patients who underwent distal or total pancreatectomy for adenocarcinomas of the pancreatic body and tail between January 2006 and December 2014 were identified from a prospective database. Resection margins were evaluated using a predefined cut‐off of 1 mm. Rates of R0, R1 with invasion within 1 mm of the margin (R1 less than 1 mm), and R1 with direct invasion of the resection margin (R1 direct) were determined, and overall survival in each group assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of survival.
R0 resection was achieved in 107 (23·5 per cent) and R1 in 348 (76·5 per cent) of 455 patients. Among R1 resections, invasion within 1 mm of the margin was found in 104 (22·9 per cent) and direct invasion in 244 (53·6 per cent). The R0 rate was 28·9 per cent after distal and 18·6 per cent after total pancreatectomy. In the total cohort, median survival times for patients with R0, R1 (less than 1 mm) and R1 (direct) status were 62·4, 24·6 and 17·2 months respectively, with 5‐year survival rates of 52·6, 16·8 and 13·0 per cent (
A cut‐off of at least 1 mm for evaluation of resection margins is an independent determinant of survival after resection of adenocarcinomas of the pancreatic body and tail.Full text
You may also be interested in
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response influences outcomes in non‐colorectal, non‐neuroendocrine liver metastases.
Authors: A. M. Lucchese, A. N. Kalil, A. Ruiz, V. Karam, O. Ciacio, G. Pittau et al.
Notes: Multimodal therapy works
Authors: B. Groot Koerkamp, W. R. Jarnagin
Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection.
Authors: M. C. Halls, G. Berardi, F. Cipriani, L. Barkhatov, P. Lainas, S. Harris et al.
Notes: Helps improve selection for laparoscopic liver resection
Meta‐analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 946-958.
Authors: E. Versteijne, J. A. Vogel, M. G. Besselink, O. R. C. Busch, J. W. Wilmink, J. G. Daams et al.
Notes: Improved survival with neoadjuvant treatment
Authors: G. A. Margonis, K. Sasaki, S. Gholami, Y. Kim, N. Andreatos, N. Rezaee et al.
Notes: Predicts survival
Reappraisal of classification of distal cholangiocarcinoma based on tumour depth. BJS 2018; 105: 867-875.
Authors: H. Aoyama, T. Ebata, M. Hattori, M. Takano, H. Yamamoto, M. Inoue et al.
Notes: Better for T staging
Prediction of major complications after hepatectomy using liver stiffness values determined by magnetic resonance elastography.
Authors: N. Sato, A. Kenjo, T. Kimura, R. Okada, T. Ishigame, Y. Kofunato et al.
Notes: liver stiffness predicts complications
Prognostic impact of perihepatic lymph node metastases in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases.
Authors: M. Okuno, C. Goumard, T. Mizuno, S. Kopetz, K. Omichi, C.‐W. D. Tzeng et al.
Notes: Bad sign of advanced disease
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of the effect of a fibrin sealant patch on pancreatic fistula formation after pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 811-819.
Authors: M. Schindl, R. Függer, P. Götzinger, F. Längle, M. Zitt, S. Stättner et al.
Notes: Not effective in reducing complications
Trends in use of lymphadenectomy in surgery with curative intent for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2018; 105: 857-866.
Authors: X.‐F. Zhang, J. Chakedis, F. Bagante, Q. Chen, E. W. Beal, Y. Lv et al.
Notes: Lymphadenectomy is important
Meta‐analysis of an artery‐first approach versus standard pancreatoduodenectomy on perioperative outcomes and survival. BJS 2018; 105: 628-636.
Authors: N. Ironside, S. G. Barreto, B. Loveday, S. V. Shrikhande, J. A. Windsor, S. Pandanaboyana et al.
Notes: Benefits to artery‐first approach
Authors: A. Ito, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, T. Mizuno, J. Yamaguchi et al.
Notes: Ethanol ablation is effective