Literature DB >> 27778242

Surgical margins for duodenopancreatectomy.

R Coppola1, M Cartillone2, D Borzomati2, G Nappo2, S Valeri2, T Petitti3, G Perrone4.   

Abstract

Microscopic residual tumor (R1) affects prognosis of resected pancreatic head cancer patients. Surgeon's ability, caseload and accuracy of pathological staging affect the rate of R1 resections. The goal of this study was to verify if a standardized histopathological workup of the specimen affects the rate of microscopic residual tumor after PD for cancer. Two groups of specimens were managed with (Group 1, Standardized Group, SG) or without (Group 2, Non Standardized Group, NSG) a standardized histopathological workup reported by the Royal College of Pathologists. Group 1 included 50 cases of PD for periampullary cancer treated between October 2010 and July 2012. Group 2 included 50 cases of PD for periampullary cancer treated between September 2005 and September 2010. The primary endpoint of the study was to verify the differences in terms of R1 rate in the two groups. Correlation between presence/absence of microscopic residual tumor status and local recurrence was also evaluated. The cohort of 100 patients consisted of 66 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (SG: 35; NSG: 31), 15 distal common bile duct cancer (SG: 9; NSG: 6) and 19 cancer of the ampulla of Vater (SG: 6; NSG: 13). The rate of R1 resections resulted higher in the SG (66% vs 10%, p < 0.05). The rate of local recurrence did not differ in the two groups (NSG 23.4%, SG 27.6%). No relationships were found between R1 status and development of local recurrence in both groups. Local recurrence occurred in 20% of R1-NSG and in 34.3% of R1-SG. Our study showed that the standardized method determines a significant increase of R1 resection if compared with other non-standardized methods. This difference is due to the different definition of minimum clearance (0-mm- vs 1-mm rule). Even if not significantly, the standardized method seems to better discriminate the patients in terms of local recurrence risk after R1 vs R0 in SG (34 vs 11%) in comparison with R1 vs R0 in NSG (20 vs 27%).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Periampullary cancer; Resection margin; Standardized pathological examination

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27778242     DOI: 10.1007/s13304-016-0404-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Updates Surg        ISSN: 2038-131X


  42 in total

1.  R0 in pancreatic cancer surgery: surgery, pathology, biology, or definition matters?

Authors:  Markus W Büchler; Jens Werner; Jürgen Weitz
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Meta-analysis of radical resection rates and margin assessment in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  M D Chandrasegaram; D Goldstein; J Simes; V Gebski; J G Kench; A J Gill; J S Samra; N D Merrett; A J Richardson; A P Barbour
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  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 4.  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

5.  A margin-negative R0 resection accomplished with minimal postoperative complications is the surgeon's contribution to long-term survival in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Thomas J Howard; Joseph E Krug; Jian Yu; Nick J Zyromski; C Max Schmidt; Lewis E Jacobson; James A Madura; Eric A Wiebke; Keith D Lillemoe
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Redefining resection margin status in pancreatic cancer.

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

7.  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

8.  Carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas: the histology report.

Authors:  Carlo Capella; Luca Albarello; Paola Capelli; Fausta Sessa; Giuseppe Zamboni
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.088

9.  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

10.  Different approaches to assessment of lymph nodes and surgical margin status in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Łukasz Liszka; Jacek Pajak; Ewa Zielińska-Pajak; Dariusz Gołka; Sławomir Mrowiec; Paweł Lampe
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.306

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.