OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the impact of a standardized pathological protocol on resection margin status after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A total of 150 patients operated during 2008-2010 were included in a prospective multicentre study using a 'quality protocol'. Multicolour inking by the surgeon identified three resection margins: the portal vein-superior mesenteric vein margin (PV-SMVm) or mesenterico-portal vein groove; the superior mesenteric artery margin (SMAm), and the posterior margin. Resection margins were stratified by 0.5-mm increments (range: 0-2.0 mm). Pancreatic neck, bile duct and intestinal margins were also analysed. Correlations between histopathological factors and survival in the 0-mm resection margin group were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (24%) had a PV-SMV resection (PV-SMVR). An analysis of resections categorized according to margin distances of 0 mm, <1.0 mm, <1.5 mm and <2.0 mm confirmed R1 resections in 35 (23%), 91 (61%), 94 (63%) and 107 (71%) patients, respectively. The most frequently invaded resection margin was the PV-SMVm (35% of all patients) and PV-SMVR was the only factor correlated with a higher risk for at least one 0-mm positive resection margin on multivariate analysis (P < 0.001). Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) and median PFS time in patients with R0 and R1 resections (at 0 mm), respectively, were 42.0% and 26.5%, and 19.5 months and 10.5 months, respectively (P = 0.02). A positive PV-SMVm and SMAm had significant impact on PFS, whereas a positive posterior margin had no impact. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreaticoduodenectomy requiring PV-SMVR was associated with a higher risk for R1 resection. The standardization of histopathological analysis has a clinically relevant impact on PFS data.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the impact of a standardized pathological protocol on resection margin status after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A total of 150 patients operated during 2008-2010 were included in a prospective multicentre study using a 'quality protocol'. Multicolour inking by the surgeon identified three resection margins: the portal vein-superior mesenteric vein margin (PV-SMVm) or mesenterico-portal vein groove; the superior mesenteric artery margin (SMAm), and the posterior margin. Resection margins were stratified by 0.5-mm increments (range: 0-2.0 mm). Pancreatic neck, bile duct and intestinal margins were also analysed. Correlations between histopathological factors and survival in the 0-mm resection margin group were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (24%) had a PV-SMV resection (PV-SMVR). An analysis of resections categorized according to margin distances of 0 mm, <1.0 mm, <1.5 mm and <2.0 mm confirmed R1 resections in 35 (23%), 91 (61%), 94 (63%) and 107 (71%) patients, respectively. The most frequently invaded resection margin was the PV-SMVm (35% of all patients) and PV-SMVR was the only factor correlated with a higher risk for at least one 0-mm positive resection margin on multivariate analysis (P < 0.001). Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) and median PFS time in patients with R0 and R1 resections (at 0 mm), respectively, were 42.0% and 26.5%, and 19.5 months and 10.5 months, respectively (P = 0.02). A positive PV-SMVm and SMAm had significant impact on PFS, whereas a positive posterior margin had no impact. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreaticoduodenectomy requiring PV-SMVR was associated with a higher risk for R1 resection. The standardization of histopathological analysis has a clinically relevant impact on PFS data.
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Stefan Post; Peter Neuhaus; Klaus Gellert; Jan Langrehr; Karsten Ridwelski; Harald Schramm; Joerg Fahlke; Carl Zuelke; Christof Burkart; Klaus Gutberlet; Erika Kettner; Harald Schmalenberg; Karin Weigang-Koehler; Wolf-Otto Bechstein; Marco Niedergethmann; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Lars Roll; Bernd Doerken; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer F Tseng; Chandrajit P Raut; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Eddie K Abdalla; Henry F Gomez; Charlotte C Sun; Christopher H Crane; Robert A Wolff; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: J F Pingpank; J P Hoffman; E A Ross; H S Cooper; N J Meropol; G Freedman; W H Pinover; T E LeVoyer; A R Sasson; B L Eisenberg Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2001 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ioannis T Konstantinidis; Andrew L Warshaw; Jill N Allen; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Vikram Deshpande; Theodore S Hong; Eunice L Kwak; Gregory Y Lauwers; David P Ryan; Jennifer A Wargo; Keith D Lillemoe; Cristina R Ferrone Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Christian Wittekind; Carolyn Compton; Phil Quirke; Iris Nagtegaal; Susanne Merkel; Paul Hermanek; Leslie H Sobin Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James R Butler; Syed A Ahmad; Matthew H Katz; Jessica L Cioffi; Nicholas J Zyromski Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Manju D Chandrasegaram; Su C Chiam; John W Chen; Aisha Khalid; Murthy L Mittinty; Eu L Neo; Chuan P Tan; Paul M Dolan; Mark E Brooke-Smith; Harsh Kanhere; Chris S Worthley Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-02-28 Impact factor: 2.754