Literature DB >> 23374362

An anatomical-based mapping analysis of the pancreaticoduodenectomy retroperitoneal margin highlights the urgent need for standardized assessment.

Vlad Maksymov1, Michael Hogan, Mahmoud A Khalifa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of a pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen by pathologists requires specialized knowledge of anatomy. Standardized assessment, description and documentation of the retroperitoneal margin are crucial for the accurate interpretation of studies evaluating adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer patients.
METHODS: Twenty-five patients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinomas had their pathological specimens examined prospectively, using an anatomical-based mapping approach. All margins, including the bile duct, pancreatic neck, superior mesenteric artery, superior mesenteric vein and posterior surface of the uncinate process, were microscopically examined in their entirety. The assessment of an R1 margin in terms of distance was assessed in two ways: first defining it as a tumour at the margin or secondary as tumour within 1 mm (1 mm rule).
RESULTS: If the existing College of American Pathologists recommendations were applied (assessing only the bile duct, pancreatic neck and superior mesenteric artery margins), a R1 status would be achieved in only 9 of 25 patients. Extending the examination by assessment and reporting of the entire retroperitoneal resection margin, including the Superior Mesenteric Vein margin and the Posterior surface of the uncinate process margin, increased the number of patients with a R1 resection to 14 out of 25. Applying the 1-mm rule further increased the number of patient with a R1 resection to 20 of 25 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The above findings illustrate that different approaches to the assessment and reporting of the retroperitoneal margin can change the results and adversely affect the final statistics used in pancreatic cancer studies and clinical trials.
© 2012 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23374362      PMCID: PMC3572283          DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00561.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HPB (Oxford)        ISSN: 1365-182X            Impact factor:   3.647


  21 in total

1.  One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies.

Authors:  John L Cameron; Taylor S Riall; JoAnn Coleman; Kenneth A Belcher
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer--are we there yet?

Authors:  C S Verbeke
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2007-12-13       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 3.  Retroperitoneal margin of the pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen: anatomic mapping for the surgical pathologist.

Authors:  Mahmoud A Khalifa; Vlad Maksymov; Corwyn Rowsell
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  A margin-negative R0 resection accomplished with minimal postoperative complications is the surgeon's contribution to long-term survival in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Thomas J Howard; Joseph E Krug; Jian Yu; Nick J Zyromski; C Max Schmidt; Lewis E Jacobson; James A Madura; Eric A Wiebke; Keith D Lillemoe
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Redefining resection margin status in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Caroline S Verbeke; Krishna V Menon
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.647

6.  Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  C S Verbeke; D Leitch; K V Menon; M J McMahon; P J Guillou; A Anthoney
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Standardization of surgical and pathologic variables is needed in multicenter trials of adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: results from the ACOSOG Z5031 trial.

Authors:  Matthew H G Katz; Nipun B Merchant; Steven Brower; Megan Branda; Mitchell C Posner; L William Traverso; Ross A Abrams; Vincent J Picozzi; Peter W T Pisters
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  The need for standardized pathologic staging of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens.

Authors:  C A Staley; K R Cleary; J L Abbruzzese; J E Lee; F C Ames; C J Fenoglio; D B Evans
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 3.327

9.  Pancreatic Cancer Registry in Japan: 20 years of experience.

Authors:  Seiki Matsuno; Shinichi Egawa; Shoji Fukuyama; Fuyuhiko Motoi; Makoto Sunamura; Shuji Isaji; Toshihide Imaizumi; Shuichi Okada; Hiroyuki Kato; Kouichi Suda; Akimasa Nakao; Takehisa Hiraoka; Ryo Hosotani; Kazunori Takeda
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.327

10.  Margin clearance and outcome in resected pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  David K Chang; Amber L Johns; Neil D Merrett; Anthony J Gill; Emily K Colvin; Christopher J Scarlett; Nam Q Nguyen; Rupert W L Leong; Peter H Cosman; Mark I Kelly; Robert L Sutherland; Susan M Henshall; James G Kench; Andrew V Biankin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04-27       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  5 in total

1.  Whipple made simple for surgical pathologists: orientation, dissection, and sampling of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens for a more practical and accurate evaluation of pancreatic, distal common bile duct, and ampullary tumors.

Authors:  N Volkan Adsay; Olca Basturk; Burcu Saka; Pelin Bagci; Denizhan Ozdemir; Serdar Balci; Juan M Sarmiento; David A Kooby; Charles Staley; Shishir K Maithel; Rhonda Everett; Jeanette D Cheng; Duangpeng Thirabanjasak; Donald W Weaver
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Pathologic Evaluation and Reporting of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas and Other Tumoral Intraepithelial Neoplasms of Pancreatobiliary Tract: Recommendations of Verona Consensus Meeting.

Authors:  Volkan Adsay; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Toru Furukawa; Olca Basturk; Giuseppe Zamboni; Giovanni Marchegiani; Claudio Bassi; Roberto Salvia; Giuseppe Malleo; Salvatore Paiella; Christopher L Wolfgang; Hanno Matthaei; G Johan Offerhaus; Mustapha Adham; Marco J Bruno; Michelle D Reid; Alyssa Krasinskas; Günter Klöppel; Nobuyuki Ohike; Takuma Tajiri; Kee-Taek Jang; Juan Carlos Roa; Peter Allen; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo; Jin-Young Jang; David S Klimstra; Ralph H Hruban
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is Spread to the Peripancreatic Soft Tissue in the Majority of Resected Cases, Rendering the AJCC T-Stage Protocol (7th Edition) Inapplicable and Insignificant: A Size-Based Staging System (pT1: ≤2, pT2: >2-≤4, pT3: >4 cm) is More Valid and Clinically Relevant.

Authors:  Burcu Saka; Serdar Balci; Olca Basturk; Pelin Bagci; Lauren M Postlewait; Shishir Maithel; Jessica Knight; Bassel El-Rayes; David Kooby; Juan Sarmiento; Takashi Muraki; Irma Oliva; Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay; Gizem Akkas; Michael Goodman; Michelle D Reid; Alyssa Krasinskas; Rhonda Everett; Volkan Adsay
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Towards a More Standardized Approach to Pathologic Reporting of Pancreatoduodenectomy Specimens for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Cross-continental and Cross-specialty Survey From the Pancreatobiliary Pathology Society Grossing Working Group.

Authors:  Deepti Dhall; Jiaqi Shi; Daniela S Allende; Kee-Taek Jang; Olca Basturk; Volkan Adsay; Grace E Kim
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 6.298

5.  Whipple Grossing in the Era of New Staging: Should We Standardize?

Authors:  Jiaqi Shi; Olca Basturk
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.