Hyo Jun Park1, Dong Do You, Dong Wook Choi, Jin Seok Heo, Seong Ho Choi. 1. Hepatobiliary Service, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50 Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea, kipling22c@naver.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have claimed that in the surgical treatment of pancreas body and tail cancer, radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is associated with effective tangential margin and extensive lymph node dissection. In the present study, the authors have compared the surgical outcomes between RAMPS and conventional distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas body and tail, and also identified prognostic factors associated with survival after surgery. METHODS: Retrospective review of 92 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for pancreas body and tail adenocarcinoma with curative intent between 1995 and 2010. Median follow-up duration was 16.1 months. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients, 38 patients received RAMPS and 54 patients received DPS. Patients who underwent RAMPS had a greater number of retrieved lymph nodes than patients undergoing DPS [median 14 (5-52) vs. 9 (1-36), p < 0.05]. Conventional DPS, no adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT), and non-curative resection were associated with poor overall survival (OS) on univariate analysis. After multivariate analysis for these variables, only the lack of adjuvant CRT and resection margin status were found to adversely affect OS. CONCLUSIONS: While the RAMPS procedure is effective in performing an extensive LN dissection, it is not associated with better retroperitoneal resection margin or retrieval of more positive LNs, and it does not lead to better curability or OS survival compared to DPS. Lack of adjuvant CRT and resection margin status are poor prognostic factors in patients with pancreas body and tail cancer.
BACKGROUND: Studies have claimed that in the surgical treatment of pancreas body and tail cancer, radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is associated with effective tangential margin and extensive lymph node dissection. In the present study, the authors have compared the surgical outcomes between RAMPS and conventional distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas body and tail, and also identified prognostic factors associated with survival after surgery. METHODS: Retrospective review of 92 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for pancreas body and tail adenocarcinoma with curative intent between 1995 and 2010. Median follow-up duration was 16.1 months. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients, 38 patients received RAMPS and 54 patients received DPS. Patients who underwent RAMPS had a greater number of retrieved lymph nodes than patients undergoing DPS [median 14 (5-52) vs. 9 (1-36), p < 0.05]. Conventional DPS, no adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT), and non-curative resection were associated with poor overall survival (OS) on univariate analysis. After multivariate analysis for these variables, only the lack of adjuvant CRT and resection margin status were found to adversely affect OS. CONCLUSIONS: While the RAMPS procedure is effective in performing an extensive LN dissection, it is not associated with better retroperitoneal resection margin or retrieval of more positive LNs, and it does not lead to better curability or OS survival compared to DPS. Lack of adjuvant CRT and resection margin status are poor prognostic factors in patients with pancreas body and tail cancer.
Authors: J P Neoptolemos; J A Dunn; D D Stocken; J Almond; K Link; H Beger; C Bassi; M Falconi; P Pederzoli; C Dervenis; L Fernandez-Cruz; F Lacaine; A Pap; D Spooner; D J Kerr; H Friess; M W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-11-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J H Klinkenbijl; J Jeekel; T Sahmoud; R van Pel; M L Couvreur; C H Veenhof; J P Arnaud; D G Gonzalez; L T de Wit; A Hennipman; J Wils Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Aaron R Sasson; John P Hoffman; Eric A Ross; Steven A Kagan; James F Pingpank; Burton L Eisenberg Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2002 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: C J Yeo; J L Cameron; K D Lillemoe; J V Sitzmann; R H Hruban; S N Goodman; W C Dooley; J Coleman; H A Pitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Marc G Besselink; Awad Shamali; Giovanni Butturini; Olivier R Busch; Bjørn Edwin; Roberto Troisi; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Ibrahim Dagher; Claudio Bassi; Mohammad Abu Hilal Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Bjørn Edwin; Mushegh A Sahakyan; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink; Marco Braga; Jean-Michel Fabre; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Brice Gayet; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Thomas L Sutton; Kristin C Potter; Skye C Mayo; Rodney Pommier; Erin W Gilbert; Brett C Sheppard Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 3.282