J W Gilbert1,2,3, B Wolpin3,4, T Clancy3,5, J Wang3,5,6, H Mamon3,7, A B Shinagare1,2,3, J Jagannathan1,2,3, M Rosenthal1,2,3. 1. Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 2. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital. 3. Harvard Medical School. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 5. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital. 6. Gastrointestinal Surgical Center, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging plays a critical role in the initial diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Over the past decade, the concept of 'borderline resectable' pancreatic cancer has emerged to describe a distinct subset of patients existing along the spectrum from resectable to locally advanced disease for whom a microscopically margin-positive (R1) resection is considered relatively more likely, primarily due to the relationship of the primary tumor with surrounding vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review traces the conceptual evolution of borderline resectability from a radiological perspective, including the debates over the key imaging criteria that define the thresholds between resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced or metastatic disease. This review also addresses the data supporting neoadjuvant therapy in this population and discusses current imaging practices before and during treatment. RESULTS: A growing body of evidence suggests that the borderline resectable group of patients may particularly benefit from neoadjuvant therapy to increase the likelihood of an ultimately margin-negative (R0) resection. Unfortunately, anatomic and imaging criteria to define borderline resectability are not yet universally agreed upon, with several classification systems proposed in the literature and considerable variance in institution-by-institution practice. As a result of this lack of consensus, as well as overall small patient numbers and lack of established clinical trials dedicated to borderline resectable patients, accurate evidence-based diagnostic categorization and treatment selection for this subset of patients remains a significant challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and radiologists alike should be cognizant of evolving imaging criteria for borderline resectability given their profound implications for treatment strategy, follow-up recommendations, and prognosis.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging plays a critical role in the initial diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Over the past decade, the concept of 'borderline resectable' pancreatic cancer has emerged to describe a distinct subset of patients existing along the spectrum from resectable to locally advanced disease for whom a microscopically margin-positive (R1) resection is considered relatively more likely, primarily due to the relationship of the primary tumor with surrounding vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review traces the conceptual evolution of borderline resectability from a radiological perspective, including the debates over the key imaging criteria that define the thresholds between resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced or metastatic disease. This review also addresses the data supporting neoadjuvant therapy in this population and discusses current imaging practices before and during treatment. RESULTS: A growing body of evidence suggests that the borderline resectable group of patients may particularly benefit from neoadjuvant therapy to increase the likelihood of an ultimately margin-negative (R0) resection. Unfortunately, anatomic and imaging criteria to define borderline resectability are not yet universally agreed upon, with several classification systems proposed in the literature and considerable variance in institution-by-institution practice. As a result of this lack of consensus, as well as overall small patient numbers and lack of established clinical trials dedicated to borderline resectable patients, accurate evidence-based diagnostic categorization and treatment selection for this subset of patients remains a significant challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and radiologists alike should be cognizant of evolving imaging criteria for borderline resectability given their profound implications for treatment strategy, follow-up recommendations, and prognosis.
Authors: Ross A Abrams; Andrew M Lowy; Eileen M O'Reilly; Robert A Wolff; Vincent J Picozzi; Peter W T Pisters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Matthew H G Katz; Robert Marsh; Joseph M Herman; Qian Shi; Eric Collison; Alan P Venook; Hedy L Kindler; Steven R Alberts; Philip Philip; Andrew M Lowy; Peter W T Pisters; Mitchell C Posner; Jordan D Berlin; Syed A Ahmad Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jerome Landry; Paul J Catalano; Charles Staley; Wayne Harris; John Hoffman; Mark Talamonti; Natalie Xu; Harry Cooper; Al B Benson Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Maurits J Wiersema; Michael A Farrell; Jeff L Fidler; Lawrence J Burgart; Takashi Koyama; C Daniel Johnson; David H Stephens; Ellen M Ward; W Scott Harmsen Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kimberly M Brown; Veeriah Siripurapu; Marson Davidson; Steven J Cohen; Andre Konski; James C Watson; Tiaynu Li; Vince Ciocca; Harry Cooper; John P Hoffman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: J W Gilbert; B Wolpin; T Clancy; J Wang; H Mamon; A B Shinagare; J Jagannathan; M Rosenthal Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Elizabeth George; Jeremy R Wortman; Urvi P Fulwadhva; Jennifer W Uyeda; Aaron D Sodickson Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Elizabeth Anne C Hevert; Collin G Howser; Michael L Gould; Daniel B Brown Journal: Semin Intervent Radiol Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Georgios Gemenetzis; Alex B Blair; Minako Nagai; William R Burns; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He; Vincent P Groot; Ding Ding; Ammar A Javed; Richard A Burkhart; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban; Matthew J Weiss; John L Cameron; Amol Narang; Daniel Laheru; Kelly Lafaro; Joseph M Herman; Lei Zheng Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lotte C Franken; Robert J S Coelen; Joris I Erdmann; Joanne Verheij; Marnix P Kop; Thomas M van Gulik; Saffire S Phoa Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-11
Authors: Stephanie Young; R Luke Rettig; Ian V Hutchinson; Michael G Sutcliffe; Roman M Sydorak Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 2.003