M D Chandrasegaram1,2,3, D Goldstein4, J Simes1, V Gebski1, J G Kench5,6, A J Gill7, J S Samra8,6, N D Merrett9,3, A J Richardson10,6, A P Barbour11. 1. National Health and Medical Research Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 3. Department of Surgery, Prince Charles Hospital, Queensland, Australia. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Cancer Diagnosis and Pathology Research Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Department of Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, New South Wales, Australia. 9. Discipline of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 10. Department of Surgery, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia. 11. University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: R0 resection rates (complete tumour removal with negative resection margins) in pancreatic cancer are 70-80 per cent when a 0-mm margin is used, declining to 15-24 per cent with a 1-mm margin. This review evaluated the R0 resection rates according to different margin definitions and techniques. METHODS: Three databases (MEDLINE from 1946, PubMed from 1946 and Embase from 1949) were searched to mid-October 2014. The search terms included 'pancreatectomy OR pancreaticoduodenectomy' and 'margin'. A meta-analysis was performed with studies in three groups: group 1, axial slicing technique (minimum 1-mm margin); group 2, other slicing techniques (minimum 1-mm margin); and group 3, studies with minimum 0-mm margin. RESULTS: The R0 rates were 29 (95 per cent c.i. 26 to 32) per cent in group 1 (8 studies; 882 patients) and 49 (47 to 52) per cent in group 2 (6 studies; 1568 patients). The combined R0 rate (groups 1 and 2) was 41 (40 to 43) per cent. The R0 rate in group 3 (7 studies; 1926 patients) with a 0-mm margin was 72 (70 to 74) per cent The survival hazard ratios (R1 resection/R0 resection) revealed a reduction in the risk of death of at least 22 per cent in group 1, 12 per cent in group 2 and 23 per cent in group 3 with an R0 compared with an R1 resection. Local recurrence occurred more frequently with an R1 resection in most studies. CONCLUSION: Margin clearance definitions affect R0 resection rates in pancreatic cancer surgery. This review collates individual studies providing an estimate of achievable R0 rates, creating a benchmark for future trials.
BACKGROUND: R0 resection rates (complete tumour removal with negative resection margins) in pancreatic cancer are 70-80 per cent when a 0-mm margin is used, declining to 15-24 per cent with a 1-mm margin. This review evaluated the R0 resection rates according to different margin definitions and techniques. METHODS: Three databases (MEDLINE from 1946, PubMed from 1946 and Embase from 1949) were searched to mid-October 2014. The search terms included 'pancreatectomy OR pancreaticoduodenectomy' and 'margin'. A meta-analysis was performed with studies in three groups: group 1, axial slicing technique (minimum 1-mm margin); group 2, other slicing techniques (minimum 1-mm margin); and group 3, studies with minimum 0-mm margin. RESULTS: The R0 rates were 29 (95 per cent c.i. 26 to 32) per cent in group 1 (8 studies; 882 patients) and 49 (47 to 52) per cent in group 2 (6 studies; 1568 patients). The combined R0 rate (groups 1 and 2) was 41 (40 to 43) per cent. The R0 rate in group 3 (7 studies; 1926 patients) with a 0-mm margin was 72 (70 to 74) per cent The survival hazard ratios (R1 resection/R0 resection) revealed a reduction in the risk of death of at least 22 per cent in group 1, 12 per cent in group 2 and 23 per cent in group 3 with an R0 compared with an R1 resection. Local recurrence occurred more frequently with an R1 resection in most studies. CONCLUSION: Margin clearance definitions affect R0 resection rates in pancreatic cancer surgery. This review collates individual studies providing an estimate of achievable R0 rates, creating a benchmark for future trials.
Authors: Jae P Jung; Mazen S Zenati; Ahmad Hamad; Melissa E Hogg; Richard L Simmons; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Brian A Boone Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Mustafa Suker; Berend R Beumer; Eran Sadot; Lysiane Marthey; Jason E Faris; Eric A Mellon; Bassel F El-Rayes; Andrea Wang-Gillam; Jill Lacy; Peter J Hosein; Sing Yu Moorcraft; Thierry Conroy; Florian Hohla; Peter Allen; Julien Taieb; Theodore S Hong; Ravi Shridhar; Ian Chau; Casper H van Eijck; Bas Groot Koerkamp Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M J Passeri; E H Baker; I A Siddiqui; M A Templin; J B Martinie; D Vrochides; D A Iannitti Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Stijn van Roessel; Gyulnara G Kasumova; Joanne Verheij; Robert M Najarian; Laura Maggino; Matteo de Pastena; Giuseppe Malleo; Giovanni Marchegiani; Roberto Salvia; Sing Chau Ng; Susanna W de Geus; Sanne Lof; Francesco Giovinazzo; Jacob L van Dam; Tara S Kent; Olivier R Busch; Casper H van Eijck; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Mohammed Abu Hilal; Claudio Bassi; Jennifer F Tseng; Marc G Besselink Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Mary A Waterhouse; Elizabeth A Burmeister; Dianne L O'Connell; Emma L Ballard; Susan J Jordan; Neil D Merrett; David Goldstein; David Wyld; Monika Janda; Vanessa L Beesley; Madeleine E Payne; Helen M Gooden; Rachel E Neale Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.452