Sergio Pedrazzoli1. 1. University of Padua, Via Crescini, 39, 35126 Padova, Italy. Electronic address: sergio.pedrazzoli@unipd.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To define the extent of lymphadenectomy to associate with surgery for pancreatic head cancer. BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy fails to prolong patient survival. METHODS: Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NRCTs), meta-analyses, retrospective reviews, consensus conferences and pre- and intraoperative diagnoses of lymph node (LN) metastases were retrieved. Standard and extended lymphadenectomies were reviewed, including their effects on postoperative complications, mortality rate and long-term survival. The minimum total number of LN examined (TNLE) for adequate tumor staging, and the incidence of metastasis to each LN station were also considered. A pros and cons analysis was performed on the removal of each LN station. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective studies (2514 patients), five prospective NRCTs (545 patients), and five prospective RCTs (586 patients) described different lymphadenectomies, which obtained similar long-term results. Five meta-analyses showed they did not influence long-term survival. However, N status is an important component of tumor staging. The recommended minimum TNLE is 15. The percent incidence of metastasis to each LN station was calculated considering at least 385 and up to 3725 patients. Preoperative imaging and intraoperative exploration frequently fail to identify metastatic nodes. A pros and cons analysis suggests that lymph node status is better established removing the following LN stations: 6, 8a-p, 12a-b-c, 13a-b, 14a-b-c-d, 16b1, 17a-b. Metastasis to 16b1 LNs significantly worsens prognosis. Their removal and frozen section examination, before proceeding with resection, may contraindicate resection. CONCLUSION: A standard lymphadenectomy demands an adequate TNLE and removal of the LN stations metastasizing more frequently, without increasing the surgical risk.
OBJECTIVES: To define the extent of lymphadenectomy to associate with surgery for pancreatic head cancer. BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy fails to prolong patient survival. METHODS: Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NRCTs), meta-analyses, retrospective reviews, consensus conferences and pre- and intraoperative diagnoses of lymph node (LN) metastases were retrieved. Standard and extended lymphadenectomies were reviewed, including their effects on postoperative complications, mortality rate and long-term survival. The minimum total number of LN examined (TNLE) for adequate tumor staging, and the incidence of metastasis to each LN station were also considered. A pros and cons analysis was performed on the removal of each LN station. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective studies (2514 patients), five prospective NRCTs (545 patients), and five prospective RCTs (586 patients) described different lymphadenectomies, which obtained similar long-term results. Five meta-analyses showed they did not influence long-term survival. However, N status is an important component of tumor staging. The recommended minimum TNLE is 15. The percent incidence of metastasis to each LN station was calculated considering at least 385 and up to 3725 patients. Preoperative imaging and intraoperative exploration frequently fail to identify metastatic nodes. A pros and cons analysis suggests that lymph node status is better established removing the following LN stations: 6, 8a-p, 12a-b-c, 13a-b, 14a-b-c-d, 16b1, 17a-b. Metastasis to 16b1 LNs significantly worsens prognosis. Their removal and frozen section examination, before proceeding with resection, may contraindicate resection. CONCLUSION: A standard lymphadenectomy demands an adequate TNLE and removal of the LN stations metastasizing more frequently, without increasing the surgical risk.
Authors: Toshiro Masuda; Amanda M Dann; Irmina A Elliott; Hideo Baba; Stephen Kim; Alireza Sedarat; V Raman Muthusamy; Mark D Girgis; O Joe Hines; Howard A Reber; Timothy R Donahue Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Carlo M Contreras; Chee Paul Lin; Robert A Oster; Sushanth Reddy; Thomas Wang; Selwyn Vickers; Martin Heslin Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Dorine S J Tseng; Bobby K Pranger; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Jan Pieter Pennings; Lodewijk A Brosens; Nadja Haj Mohammad; Vincent E de Meijer; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Joris I Erdmann; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2021-03-19
Authors: Patrick Téoule; Katharina Tombers; Mohammad Rahbari; Flavius Sandra-Petrescu; Michael Keese; Nuh N Rahbari; Christoph Reißfelder; Felix Rückert Journal: Chirurg Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.955