Literature DB >> 26832882

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.

Burcu Saka1,2, Serdar Balci1,3, Olca Basturk4,5, Pelin Bagci6, Lauren M Postlewait7, Shishir Maithel7, Jessica Knight8, Bassel El-Rayes9, David Kooby10, Juan Sarmiento10, Takashi Muraki1, Irma Oliva1, Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay4, Gizem Akkas1, Michael Goodman8, Michelle D Reid1, Alyssa Krasinskas1, Rhonda Everett1, Volkan Adsay11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most studies have failed to identify any prognostic value of the current T-stage protocol for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union for International Cancer Control unless some grouping was performed.
METHODS: To document the parameters included in this T-stage protocol, 223 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomy specimens with PDAC were processed by a uniform grossing protocol.
RESULTS: Peripancreatic soft tissue (PST) involvement, the main pT3 parameter, was found to be inapplicable and irreproducible due to lack of a true capsule in the pancreas and variability in the amount and distribution of adipose tissue. Furthermore, 91 % of the cases showed carcinoma in the adipose tissue, presumably representing the PST, and thus were classified as pT3. An additional 4.5 % were qualified as pT3 due to extension into adjacent sites. The T-stage defined as such was not found to have any correlation with survival (p = 0.4). A revised T-stage protocol was devised that defined pT1 as 2 cm or smaller, pT2 as >2-4 cm, and pT3 as larger than 4 cm. This revised protocol was tested in 757 consecutive PDACs. The median and 3-year survival rates of this size-based protocol were 26, 18, 13 months, and 40 %, 26 %, 20 %, respectively (p < 0.0001). The association between higher T-stage and shorter survival persisted in N0 cases and in multivariate modeling. Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database also confirmed the survival differences (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that resected PDACs are already spread to various surfaces of the pancreas, leaving only about 4 % of PDACs to truly qualify as pT1/T2, and that the current T-stage protocol does not have any prognostic correlation. In contrast, as shown previously in many studies, size is an important prognosticator, and a size-based T-stage protocol is more applicable and has prognostic value in PDAC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26832882      PMCID: PMC5389382          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5093-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  50 in total

1.  1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience.

Authors:  Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

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

Review 3.  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

4.  Redefining resection margin status in pancreatic cancer.

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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Conditional survival in pancreatic cancer: better than expected.

Authors:  Tara S Kent; Teviah E Sachs; Norberto Sanchez; Charles M Vollmer; Mark P Callery
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 3.647

8.  Long-term results of partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head: 25-year experience.

Authors:  Axel Richter; Marco Niedergethmann; Jörg W Sturm; Dietmar Lorenz; Stefan Post; Michael Trede
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2003-02-27       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Tumor size significantly correlates with postoperative liver metastases and COX-2 expression in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Gaku Matsumoto; Mariko Muta; Koji Tsuruta; Shinichiro Horiguchi; Katsuyuki Karasawa; Atsutake Okamoto
Journal:  Pancreatology       Date:  2007-06-21       Impact factor: 3.996

10.  Prognostic factors after resection of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Michio Ueda; Itaru Endo; Masayuki Nakashima; Yuta Minami; Kazuhisa Takeda; Kenichi Matsuo; Yasuhiko Nagano; Kuniya Tanaka; Yasushi Ichikawa; Shinji Togo; Chikara Kunisaki; Hiroshi Shimada
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  27 in total

1.  Multi-institutional Validation Study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th Edition) Changes for T and N Staging in Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Peter J Allen; Deborah Kuk; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Olca Basturk; Christopher L Wolfgang; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Cristina R Ferrone; Vicente Morales-Oyarvide; Jin He; Matthew J Weiss; Ralph H Hruban; Mithat Gönen; David S Klimstra; Mari Mino-Kenudson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Decreased expression of USP9X is associated with poor prognosis in Chinese pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Yanmiao Huo; Jianyu Yang; Xueliang Fu; Minwei Yang; Lingye Tao; Dejun Liu; Junfeng Zhang; Rong Hua; Yongwei Sun
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  Intrapancreatic distal common bile duct carcinoma: Analysis, staging considerations, and comparison with pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Raul S Gonzalez; Pelin Bagci; Olca Basturk; Michelle D Reid; Serdar Balci; Jessica H Knight; So Yeon Kong; Bahar Memis; Kee-Taek Jang; Nobuyuki Ohike; Takuma Tajiri; Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Grace E Kim; Jeanette D Cheng; N Volkan Adsay
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 4.  Eighth Edition of the UICC Classification of Malignant Tumours: an overview of the changes in the pathological TNM classification criteria-What has changed and why?

Authors:  Luca Bertero; Federica Massa; Jasna Metovic; Roberto Zanetti; Isabella Castellano; Umberto Ricardi; Mauro Papotti; Paola Cassoni
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Modification of the 8th AJCC staging system of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Teddy Sutardji Nagaria; Huamin Wang
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 7.293

6.  Implications of inaccurate clinical nodal staging in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Douglas S Swords; Matthew A Firpo; Kirsten M Johnson; Kenneth M Boucher; Courtney L Scaife; Sean J Mulvihill
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  International Validation of the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Staging System in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Cancer.

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

8.  Proposal for a new T-stage classification system for distal cholangiocarcinoma: a 10-institution study from the U.S. Extrahepatic Biliary Malignancy Consortium.

Authors:  Lauren M Postlewait; Cecilia G Ethun; Nina Le; Timothy M Pawlik; Stefan Buettner; George Poultsides; Thuy Tran; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Bradley Krasnick; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Robert C G Martin; Charles Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Gerardo Vitiello; Kenneth Cardona; Shishir K Maithel
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.647

9.  Is the New T1 Category as Defined in the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Pancreatic Cancer Staging System an Improvement?

Authors:  Wooil Kwon; Taesung Park; Jin He; Ryota Higuchi; Donghee Son; Seung Yeoun Lee; Jaeri Kim; Yoonhyeong Byun; Hongbeom Kim; Sun-Whe Kim; Christopher L Wolfgang; Masakazu Yamamoto; Jin-Young Jang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer based on the 8th edition of AJCC guidelines.

Authors:  Yan Deng; Bing Ming; Jia-Long Wu; Ting Zhou; Shi-Yong Zhang; Yong Chen; Chuan Lan; Xiao-Ming Zhang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2020-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.