Abstract
The incidence of pancreatic cancer is on the rise [1, 2]. Surgery has traditionally been considered the cornerstone in the management of resectable pancreatic cancer [3, 4]. However, we now know that improved outcomes can be achieved by combining surgery with chemotherapy under the broad umbrella of multimodality therapy [5, 6]. This multimodality approach is best suited to only 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer who present when the disease is still amenable to surgical resection. The vast majority of patients, though, present with advanced disease where the aim of therapy is disease control through efforts directed at retarding its progression [7–9].
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
16.1 Introduction
The incidence of pancreatic cancer is on the rise [1, 2]. Surgery has traditionally been considered the cornerstone in the management of resectable pancreatic cancer [3, 4]. However, we now know that improved outcomes can be achieved by combining surgery with chemotherapy under the broad umbrella of multimodality therapy [5, 6]. This multimodality approach is best suited to only 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer who present when the disease is still amenable to surgical resection. The vast majority of patients, though, present with advanced disease where the aim of therapy is disease control through efforts directed at retarding its progression [7,8,9].
While surgical resection rates, as well as adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy rates, have increased in the last couple of decades, there has not been a corresponding improvement in overall survival [10]. The more concerning statistic is the steadily rising mortality associated with this cancer which is unlike any other organ subsite [1, 11,12,13,14].
All this points to the fact that there yet remains much to be learnt about the biology of pancreatic cancer [15]. However, instead of the oft-adopted nihilistic view towards this cancer, we need to focus on the strategies that have provided us some success in combating the illness. This chapter provides a concise, evidence-based perspective on pancreatic cancer with an aim to highlight what is known about it and how we, as clinicians, can positively impact the outcome of these patients. Potential areas for further research are highlighted.
16.2 Epidemiology
Pancreatic cancer accounted for 338,000 new cases in the year 2012, making it the 12th most common cancer worldwide (2.4% of all cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) [16]. Keeping up to its deadly reputation, it ranks amongst the top four causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide [12, 14, 17].
The age-standardized incidence rates are varied across the world ranging from as low as 0.6/100,000 persons per year in parts of Asia to as high as 12.6/100,000 in the West [18]. However, even within regions, ethnic/racial variations do exist. In the United States, African Americans have a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer followed by Hispanics compared to other races (Caucasians and Asians). Patients of African American descent tend to present with a more advanced disease [19] and a worse overall survival [20]—a trend that has not significantly changed over the last three decades [21, 22]. There is some evidence to suggest an increased risk of pancreatic cancer amongst the Jews of North America [23].
In New Zealand, the Maoris have a higher incidence of the disease (7.3/100,000 persons per year) when compared to other ethnic groups. Interestingly, unlike the demographic profile of a male predominance that so characteristically represents pancreatic cancer [24], Maori women have an unusually high rate of the cancer (7.2/100,000) [25].
Pancreatic cancer generally presents at an older age (sixth to seventh decade of life) [24, 26]. Pancreatic cancer may occur rather uncommonly in younger patients. These individuals tend to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage, although the overall impact on survival remains unclear with one study from Japan [27] indicating a poorer survival while another European study demonstrated comparable survival to older counterparts [28]. However, there is no evidence to support a role for a genetic or hereditary causative component in these patients [27, 28].
16.2.1 Factors Implicated in the Pathogenesis of Pancreatic Cancer
16.2.1.1 Hereditary Pancreatic Cancer
At the outset it is important to appreciate the specific terminologies used in hereditary pancreatic cancer. The term hereditary pancreatic cancer encompasses two major subsets of patients with a significant family history of pancreatic cancer (≥2 relatives with pancreatic cancer if at least 1 is a first-degree relative or ≥3 total relatives with pancreatic cancer [29]). Patients with identified (known) genetic mutations are generally included under specific syndromes, while the term ‘familial pancreatic cancer’ is reserved for those families with ≥2 individuals who are first-degree relatives of one another with pancreatic cancer, in the absence of an identifiable genetic mutation [29].
Familial or genetic causes account for 10% of the overall cases of pancreatic cancer with a reliably high sensitivity of self-reporting [30]. Patients with hereditary pancreatic cancer tend to present 5 years earlier than the average median age at diagnosis (66 vs 71 years) based on the findings of the Pancreatic Cancer Genetic Epidemiology Consortium [31].
Table 16.1 provides an overview of the various hereditary pancreatic cancer predisposition syndromes [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].
Patients with APC gene mutations (familial adenomatous polyposis) have an increased risk of ampullary and duodenal cancers.
Other mutations associated with hereditary pancreatic cancer but in whom the risk of disease development has not yet been clearly elucidated include PALB2 (additional risk of breast cancer) [42], monoallelic ATM (ataxia telangiectasia—individuals also at risk for developing breast and colon cancer) [43] and TP53 (Li-Fraumeni syndrome—individuals also at risk for developing breast, brain, sarcoma, adrenocortical and colon cancer) [44].
Patients with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer, hereditary pancreatitis or a known hereditary cancer syndrome must be advised germline genetic testing [29].
16.2.1.2 Sporadic Pancreatic Cancer
Several environmental factors have been implicated in the causation of pancreatic cancer. These factors are believed to play a significant role in the 90% of patients who do not possess a hereditary predisposition [45]. Table 16.2 provides an overview of these factors [28, 46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65].
Other risk factors include bacterial infections (Helicobacter pylori and a pathogen for periodontal disease, Porphyromonas gingivalis) [66], pancreatic cystic neoplasia (intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) and mucinous cystic neoplasia (MCN); see Chap. 12) [67] and pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) [68].
There is evidence to suggest that vitamin D levels are a risk factor in the development of pancreatic cancer. However, to date, the epidemiological data is inconclusive [69].
16.3 Pathology
Infiltrating ductal adenocarcinoma is the most common type of pancreatic cancer on histopathology. The less common variants include adenosquamous carcinoma, colloid carcinoma, hepatoid carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma and undifferentiated carcinoma (with or without osteoclast-like giant cells) [70]. Light microscopic features consistent with invasive cancer on haematoxylin and eosin staining include haphazard glandular growth pattern with glands adjacent to vessels or touching fat, incomplete glands, perineural and intravascular invasion, nuclear variation more than 4:1 and intraluminal necrosis [71]. Useful immunohistochemical markers for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma include cytokeratin 7 (CK 7), CK 19, mesothelin, placental S100 (S100P), E-cadherin, insulin-like growth factor II messenger RNA-binding protein-3 (IMP3) and mammary serine protease inhibitor (MASPIN) [72]. Loss of DPC4/SMAD4 may be encountered in up to 55% of patients [70].
Recently an integrated genomic expression analysis of 456 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas convincingly demonstrated that pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma represents four distinct subtypes: squamous, pancreatic progenitor, aberrantly differentiated endocrine exocrine (ADEX) and immunogenic types [73].
Periampullary cancers, on the other hand, can broadly be divided into intestinal or pancreatobiliary based on the type of differentiation [74]. The intestinal subtype is characterized by tubular or cribriform glands and resembles colorectal adenocarcinomas with an attendant relatively better prognosis. The pancreatobiliary subtype, on the other hand, is characterized by glands associated with abundant desmoplastic stroma resembling tumours of the pancreas or extrahepatic bile ducts with an attendant worse prognosis [74,75,76]. Further delineation of the microscopic subtypes can be achieved by the use of immunohistochemical markers. The ‘intestinal subtype’ is either (1) stain positive for CK20 or CDX2 or MUC2 and negative for MUC1 or (2) stain positive for CK20, CDX2 and MUC2, irrespective of the MUC1 result, while the ‘pancreatobiliary subtype’ is stain positive for MUC1 and negative for CDX2 and MUC2, irrespective of CK20 results [77].
16.3.1 Precursor Lesions
16.3.1.1 Pancreatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia (PanIN)
These premalignant microscopic (usually <5 mm) flat or papillary lesions are lined by columnar or cuboidal with varying amounts of mucin and arise in the smaller intralobular ducts of the head of pancreas more frequently than in the tail region [78,79,80]. They have been classified into three grades [68, 80, 81] ranging from less invasive to invasive nature. The low-grade PanIN-1A (flat) and 1B (papillary) are lined by columnar epithelial cells and possess minimal cytological or architectural atypia. Intermediate-grade PanIN-2 lesions have loss of nuclear polarity, nuclear crowding, variation in nuclear size (pleomorphism), nuclear hyperchromasia and nuclear pseudostratification with frequent papillae, while the high-grade PanIN-3, also referred to as carcinoma in situ, demonstrate high-grade dysplastic changes in cytology (enlarged, pleomorphic and poorly oriented nuclei with prominent nucleoli and abnormal mitoses) and architecture (characterized by the formation of papillae and cribriform structures sometimes having clusters of cells bud off of the epithelium into the ductal lumen) [68, 82].
These premalignant lesions have been found to possess KRAS and TP53 mutations similar to pancreatic cancer [83]. The immunohistochemical marker MUC1 is almost exclusively expressed in PanINs 2 and 3 [82].
Three characteristics of PanINs include their association with lobulocentric atrophy as well as acinar to ductal metaplasia and the tendency for being multifocal, more commonly in individuals with a strong family history [68, 84, 85].
16.3.1.2 PanINs, Carcinogenesis and Signalling Pathways
Maitra and colleagues [86] suggested that there exists a well-defined pathway in pancreatic carcinogenesis (PanINgram) leading from the precursor lesions (PanINs) to invasive adenocarcinoma as a result of the accumulation of molecular alterations seen with increasing grades of dysplasia. Yachida and colleagues [87] further elucidated the four main driver genes in pancreatic carcinogenesis, namely, KRAS, CDKN2A inactivation, TP53 and SMAD4 inactivation, the latter being associated with an increased risk for tumour dissemination and likely early failure following surgery [88]. Jones and colleagues [89], in addition to confirming that the above 4 genes were mutated at the highest frequency, identified 12 core signalling pathways in pancreatic carcinogenesis based on a global genomic analysis. These included KRAS, TGF β, Wnt/Notch, hedgehog, integrin, JNK and small GTPase signalling pathways in addition to the pathways involved in apoptosis, DNA damage control, invasion, homophilic cell adhesion and control of G1/S phase transition.
16.3.2 Pathological Assessment of the Resected Pancreatic Cancer Specimen
While not precisely defined in surgical practice, tumours of the pancreas have been anatomically subdivided, based on location, into tumours of the head of pancreas (arising to the right of the left border of the superior mesenteric vein and including the uncinate process), tumours of the body of pancreas (arising between the left border of the superior mesenteric vein and the left border of the aorta) and tumours of the tail of pancreas (arising between the left border of the aorta and the splenic hilum) [90].
A margin-negative (R0) resection is regarded as the surgeon’s best contribution to pancreatic cancer patients [91]. In 2008, Esposito and colleagues [92] demonstrated that the adoption of a standardized pathology reporting of resected specimens was able to pick up previously underappreciated margin positivity. This led to a concerted effort towards the reporting of pathological specimens. Central to pathological reporting is the recognition that resected pancreatic cancer, more specifically the pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) specimen, has four relevant margins [93, 94]:
-
(a)
The luminal margins (proximal gastric or duodenal and distal jejunal)
-
(b)
Bile duct margin (BDM)—common bile duct or common hepatic duct margin
-
(c)
Pancreatic transection margin (PTM)
-
(d)
Pancreatic circumferential or radial margin (CRM)—which further includes:
-
1.
Pancreatic anterior margin (PAM)—anterior surface
-
2.
Pancreatic posterior margin (PPM)—posterior surface
-
3.
Pancreatic medial margin (PMM)—surface facing the superior mesenteric vessels
-
1.
There exists variability in the terminology used for the CRM with European pathologists favouring the terms PPM and PMM, while the American pathologists use the terms ‘deep retroperitoneal posterior surface’ and ‘uncinate process’ margins [93]. Some of the standardized protocols currently followed are the Leeds Pathology Protocol (LEEPP) [95] and the protocols provided by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) [96], the Royal College of Pathologists [97] and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) [90].
In general, the entire pancreatic head specimens are serially sliced in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the duodenum thereby avoiding opening the biliary or pancreatic duct [95]. The advantage of this technique is that it permits an extensive study of the lesion and its relationship with anatomical structures and surgical margins [93]. All the above-named margins must preferentially be inked.
The final controversy in pathological specimen reporting relates to what is considered a microscopically positive margin (R1). Majority of American pathologists regard a margin to be positive only when the tumour is directly in contact with the inked margin (0 mm clearance) [98], while European pathologists, borrowing on experience from rectal cancer assessment, label a tumour as R1 when the distance between the tumour and the resection margin is ≤1 mm [97]. The Royal College of Pathologists puts this into perspective by appreciating that for the PAM, a 0 mm clearance would be regarded as adequate clearance since it is an anatomical surface rather than a true margin, while for the other margins, the tumour is deemed incompletely excised if the margin is ≤1 mm [97].
16.4 Staging
Table 16.3 provides the seventh edition of the TNM Classification of Pancreatic Cancer as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging [90], while Table 16.4 details the changes proposed in the eight edition of the TNM Classification [99].
16.4.1 Signs and Symptoms of Pancreatic Cancer [100, 101]
The early symptoms of pancreatic head cancer are rather non-specific leading to patients presenting late with painless progressive jaundice, back pain (from retroperitoneal invasion), weight loss and asthenia and anorexia and vomiting (owing to gastroduodenal invasion). In the author’s own experience of patients amenable to Whipple’s resection, the most common presenting symptoms were obstructive jaundice (60%) and abdominal pain (50%).
Tumours of the body and tail are even more notorious for a delayed presentation. The reason for this is that the bile duct is away and thus by the time the patient develops symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction or back pain or a palpable lump, the tumour has already disseminated [102]. Important symptoms to be aware of in these patients are new onset diabetes mellitus, especially after the age of 60 years, and epigastric pain radiating to the back akin to an episode of acute pancreatitis [102].
Cancers of the lower bile duct and ampulla of Vater generally present early as painless jaundice (>80%; author’s own data of patients with resectable tumours) with or without cholangitis as these lesions obstruct the biliary passages early in the course of the disease. The sine qua non of ‘waxing and waning’ of obstructive jaundice is encountered in only one-third patients [103]. Patients with duodenal tumours (included under the definition of periampullary tumours) may present with abdominal pain and/or vomiting.
As noted above, chronic pancreatitis is a risk factor for cancer. Thus in patients with chronic pancreatitis for more than 10 years, the development of ‘new symptoms’ such as sudden and severe weight loss in a controlled diabetic or the development of jaundice or change in the nature of pain should alert the clinician to evaluate the patient for an underlying neoplastic process [63].
Fever may sometimes be the first symptom that brings the patient to the clinician owing to underlying cholangitis especially in periampullary tumours.
Important clinical signs in patients with cancers of the pancreas and periampullary region include icterus and other signs of obstructive jaundice such as high-coloured urine and pale stools in the absence of choledocholithiasis and scratch marks on the trunk and extremities owing to the pruritus from the cuticular deposition of bile salts. A palpable gallbladder is a sign of an underlying pancreatic head cancer (Courvoisier’s law), while a palpable lump in the epigastrium or left hypochondrium may be the first sign of a tumour of the body and tail.
Clinical features in keeping with advanced cancer are the enlarged supraclavicular (Virchow) lymph node, Blumer’s shelf on digital rectal examination and ascites.
16.4.2 Investigations
An abdominal ultrasound is generally the first investigation advised when a patient presents with complaints of an abdominal lump or signs and symptoms of jaundice. Findings suspicious of a pancreatic or periampullary malignancy include a dilated common bile duct (>6 mm pre-cholecystectomy or >10 mm post-cholecystectomy [104, 105]) devoid of gallstones, mass in the pancreas with or without liver metastases or ascites. In patients with a poor functional status with pancreatic mass and liver metastases and/or ascites, a fine needle aspiration or ascitic fluid cytology to confirm malignancy may be all that is required taking into consideration the wishes of the patient. However, in patients with findings suspicious of a pancreatic cancer and a good functional status, a complete work-up would include the following.
16.4.2.1 Serology
These investigations are not diagnostic of pancreatic cancer but are of value when planning therapy.
-
(a)
Complete blood counts—anaemia, as a result of occult bleeding, may be encountered in patients with periampullary tumours as these tumours are probe to slough off. In patients with cholangitis, the white cell count is elevated and supports the decision for biliary drainage as the first intervention.
-
(b)
Liver function tests—elevations in serum bilirubin and liver enzymes are encountered in patients with surgical obstructive jaundice. A low serum albumin level in the preoperative setting has been found to correlate with a worse disease-free and overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer [106].
-
(c)
Renal function tests—patients with chronic renal impairment are at increased risk of perioperative complications especially if their creatinine levels are >2 mg/dL [107].
-
(d)
Prothrombin time and international normalized ratio (INR)—patients with surgical obstructive jaundice must be assessed for coagulopathy as this not only is important from a surgical perspective but also for the preoperative placement of the epidural catheter [108].
-
(e)
Blood sugar levels—new onset diabetes mellitus (within the preceding 2 years) may be encountered in up to 68% of patients with pancreatic cancer [108].
16.4.2.2 Tumour Markers
-
(a)
Serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9)
Serum CA 19-9 has a median sensitivity of 79 (70–90%) and a median specificity of 82 (68–91%) for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer [109]. Although elevated levels of CA 19-9 are generally associated with decreased stage-specific survival (>37 U/mL) [110] and locoregional failure-free survival (>200 U/mL) [111], this is of most significance in anatomically resectable, early-stage pancreatic cancer [110]. This finding has prompted some clinicians to suggest the role for neoadjuvant therapy in this specific subgroup of patients [110]. In patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced disease, normalization of CA 19-9 levels after commencing neoadjuvant therapy may help in guiding the further course of therapy, early surgery over further therapy [112, 113]. Normalization of CA 19-9 levels post surgical resection is predictive of better disease-free survival [114] and may help in the further surveillance for disease recurrence in this patient subset.
Thus, routine analysis of serum CA 19-9 levels is advisable at diagnosis of the cancer since there is some data to support its role as a diagnostic biomarker, although its utility is more as a marker to predict tumour stage, resectability, overall survival and response to therapy [115].
Caution is advised when interpreting elevated CA 19-9 levels in patients with cholestasis [116] where false-positive elevations have been noted and those patients who are Lewis blood group antigen negative and thus unable to secrete CA 19-9 [117].
Various other markers have been tested in pancreatic cancer including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA 242, CA 125 and CA 72-4. However, they are of limited utility owing to their sensitivities being lower than CA 19-9 [118].
16.4.2.3 Radiological Investigations
-
(a)
Pancreas protocol multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis with multiplanar reconstruction (Figs. 16.1, 16.2 and 16.3)—This is currently the best available modality for assessing the primary tumour, its locoregional and distant intra-abdominal spread as well as the vascular anatomy (an essential component of pre-surgical planning [119]). The pancreas protocol CT scan comprises a pre-contrast scan and three post-contrast phases with axial section thickness ≤5 mm [120] and water or mannitol as the negative contrast to distend the stomach and duodenum and permit delineation from the pancreas:
-
1.
Pre-contrast scan—enables the detection evaluation of pancreatic calcifications and permits determination of the precise levels for imaging on the post-contrast phases.
-
2.
Arterial phase—the first of the post-contrast phases obtained at 20–30 s (depending on the injection rate 5–3 mL/s [121]) permits an accurate evaluation of the pancreatic vascular anatomy without interference from venous opacification [120].
-
3.
Pancreatic parenchymal phase—previously termed late arterial phase, is obtained at 40–50 s (depending on the injection rate 5–3 mL/s [121]). Owing to marked difference in enhancement between the maximally enhanced pancreatic parenchyma and the generally hypoenhancing pancreatic cancer, this phase allows an assessment of the tumour and its relation to the surrounding structures including vessels.
-
4.
Portal venous phase—also termed hepatic phase, these images are obtained at 60–70 s (depending on the injection rate 5–3 mL/s [121]). This phase helps in assessing venous involvement and also hypovascular liver metastases.
-
1.
-
(b)
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP)—may be an alternative to MDCT in case facilities for performing, or the expertise needed to report a CT scan, are not available.
MDCT scans are better suited as compared to MRI for the detection of pancreatic cancers as well as the assessment of nodal and distant spread and vascular involvement [122]. The only small subset of patients in whom an MRI may outperform CT scans is in the assessment of isoattenuating cancers [123]. However, it must be clearly stated that the accuracy of either investigation still falls well short of perfection especially in terms of detecting lesions <2 cm [122] as well as in the accurate characterization of venous involvement [124] and diagnosis of peritoneal and small surface liver metastases. Whether dual-energy CT scans [125] will overcome some of these shortcomings remains to be confirmed. Until then, the reliance on complementary investigative modalities such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT), venography and even staging laparoscopy is imperative.
-
(c)
Chest X-ray—to rule out lung metastases.
16.4.2.4 Endoscopy
-
(a)
Side-viewing endoscopy (Fig. 16.4)—is useful to obtain biopsies of ampullary and duodenal carcinomas. Novel technologies such as narrow band imaging (NBI) help to differentiate between ampullary adenomas and adenocarcinomas with an accuracy approaching 80% [126, 127]. Such information is vital when deciding on local endoscopic excisions versus directly offering surgery to these patients.
-
(b)
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/ERCP—to obtain biliary cytology for diagnosis. Given the declining diagnostic role for ERCP, the main indication is the relief of biliary obstruction and placement of stents (Fig. 16.5) in patients with cholangitis. Such a strategy is valuable preoperatively in patients with cholangitis with or without renal impairment or in those unfit for surgery in whom optimization prior to surgery is essential or as a definitive procedure for biliary obstruction in patients with an unresectable lesion [128,129,130]. Endobiliary drainage results in biliary colonization with rates reported to be around 64% [131]. Thus, it should be preferably performed only in the above situations and not in every patient who presents with surgical obstructive jaundice since it is associated with an increased risk of surgical site infections [132], increased hospital stay and increased costs [133]. While there is no standard time frame for performing surgery following endobiliary drainage, the period of 4–6 weeks to permit the attendant inflammation to settle is generally accepted [128].
In terms of the choice of stent, short-length self-expandable metal biliary stents (SEMS) are preferred to plastic stents if extended delays (>6 weeks) are anticipated between the stenting and PD [134, 135]. In terms of long-term palliation of biliary obstruction, too, SEMS are preferred [136] as the durability of the stent offsets the initially perceived increased costs [137].
-
(c)
Endoscopic ultrasonography/EUS (Figs. 16.6 and 16.7)—EUS has steadily emerged as one of the most useful complementary tools to standard imaging. It is not only of value in delineating lesions <2 cm [138]; EUS is the best available modality for the accurate T-staging of pancreatic cancer with sensitivities approaching 72% for T1-2 lesions and 90% for T3-4 lesions [139]. It is useful in obtaining cytology (EUS—fine needle aspiration) for histopathological as well as molecular analysis to aid in confirming the diagnosis of malignancy which is of prime importance to patients who have unresectable/borderline resectable or metastatic disease and also to assess suspected vascular involvement in CT or MRI. EUS has a superior sensitivity as compared to CT scan (69% versus 48%) for the detection of vascular involvement by the tumour [140].
16.4.2.5 Complementary Investigations
-
(a)
Positron emission tomography in combination with CT (PET-CT) or MRI (PET-MRI)—was initially regarded as a useful adjunct to MDCT or MRI in patients with locally advanced or borderline resectable tumours to detect or rule out metastases outside the abdominal cavity [141]. However, there is steadily emerging evidence that PET imaging parameters such as standardized uptake values (SUV max) on CT [142] or the minimal apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) [143] correlate with survival in patients with resectable and metastatic disease [144]. PET-CT is also useful in conjunction with MDCT to detect tumour recurrences on follow-up [145]. PET-CT is now recommended for routine staging of resectable pancreatic cancer.
-
(b)
Staging laparoscopy (SL) and laparoscopic ultrasonography—the best indication for staging laparoscopy in pancreatic cancer is in the assessment of patients with non-metastatic, unresectable or borderline resectable disease on conventional imaging. In this subset of patients, SL will help detect occult liver and/or peritoneal metastases (sensitivities of 88% and 93%, respectively) [146] or confirm their non-metastatic nature and hence help direct patients towards neoadjuvant treatment protocols [147]. When used in all patients with pancreatic cancer, SL with ultrasound correctly predicted resectability in 79% compared to 55% by standard imaging, thereby avoiding non-curative laparotomies in 33% of patients [148].
-
(c)
Venography [149]—this modality consists of images obtained either by CT scan, superior mesenteric arteriography or intraoperative portal venography following cannulation of a superior mesenteric venous tributary. Venous involvement has been classified as type A (no narrowing), B (unilateral narrowing), C (bilateral narrowing) and D (stenosis or obstruction with collaterals). The correlation with histology was noted in 100% of patients with type A (no invasion), while invasion was present in 51%, 74% and 93% of patients with types B, C and D, respectively.
16.4.3 Surgical Management
Surgery offers the only chance of cure in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. However, it should only be attempted in patients in whom a complete (R0) resection is deemed feasible. The available evidence does not support the role for gross margin-positive (R2) resections. Endoscopic ampullary excisions may be considered only in benign lesions. For lesions harbouring a malignancy, a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) must be performed as nearly 30% of patients with T1 lesions harbour lymph node metastasis [150].
From a surgical perspective, pancreatic cancers can be classified as resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced and metastatic depending on the tumour extent and contact with or involvement of adjacent blood vessels (superior mesenteric artery or vein/SMV or SMA, hepatic artery/HA, celiac axis, portal vein/PV). The term ‘resectable’ pancreatic cancer has been loosely used to include all tumours amenable to a resection irrespective of whether this resection would entail a synchronous vascular resection. The advent of the anatomical term borderline resectable pancreatic tumour or cancer (BRT) to include tumours with limited involvement of the mesenteric vessels (abut SMA, abut or encase common HA over a short segment or occlude SMV-PV confluence), in which a resection with venous reconstruction is technically possible but which carry a high risk of margin-positive resection unless neoadjuvant therapy is employed before surgery [151, 152], has certainly been useful. It has enabled a clearer delineation of locally advanced but non-metastatic (unresectable) cancers from those tumours in whom a resection can be contemplated with hope of providing a survival benefit.
The surgery for pancreatic head and neck cancers is a PD, while a distal or subtotal pancreatectomy (with splenectomy) is performed for cancers of the distal neck, body and tail.
Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis must be considered in all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy owing to the risk of bactibilia (12–18%) [131, 153] even in those who have not undergone prior biliary intervention.
16.4.3.1 Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD)
16.4.3.1.1 The Resection
PD (Fig. 16.8) involves removal of the stomach and duodenum, the pancreatic head, uncinate process and neck along with the distal common bile duct (and gallbladder) and the first few inches of the jejunum. Based on the location of the proximal margin of transection (stomach or pyloro-duodenum), there are two named procedures, viz. the classical Whipple’s procedure (proximal transection at the junction of distal body and antrum of the stomach) and the pylorus-preserving PD (PPPD). Distally, up to 15 cm of the jejunum (from the duodeno-jejunal flexure) may be resected. It is important for every surgeon to identify the portal vascular anatomy to avoid inadvertent injury to aberrant vessels [119]. It is preferred that the mesopancreatic tissue in the region of the uncinate process be divided between ligatures/LIGACLIPS®. In a broad uncinate process, surgeons have successfully employed the use of endovascular staplers after ensuring adequate clearance from the cancer without compromising the radicality of the procedure [154]. In such a scenario, the author would advise that the operating surgeon thoroughly inspect the staple line prior to commencing the pancreaticoenteric anastomosis as there is a tendency for small vessels to bleed. These can be secured with 4-0 polypropylene sutures. Alternatively, the Ligasure® or harmonic scalpel may be used to divide the mesopancreatic tissue.
16.4.3.1.2 The Reconstruction
At the end of the resection, the surgeon is faced with a transected pancreas, transected bile or hepatic duct and remnant stomach. The reconstruction following PD progresses in an anti-clockwise manner commencing with the pancreaticoenteric anastomosis followed by the hepatico-enteric and finally the gastro-enterostomy. While the common hepatic duct and stomach are anastomosed to the jejunum (hepaticojejunostomy/HJ and gastrojejunostomy/GJ), the choice of anastomosis of the pancreatic remnant is between the stomach (pancreaticogastrostomy/PG) and the loop of jejunum (pancreaticojejunostomy/PJ). The PG/PJ and HJ are always behind (retrocolic) the transverse colon, while the GJ may be performed antecolic (in front of) or retrocolic.
The existing literature, including the most updated Cochrane review, indicates that there is no difference in terms of oncological benefit, overall morbidity and mortality when PPPD was compared to a classical Whipple’s procedure [155]. However, on closer inspection of the data, while the review indicated that delayed gastric emptying (DGE) was higher in PPPD, pylorus preservation was associated with shorter operating times, lower intraoperative blood loss and hence a reduced need for blood transfusion [155]. The studies included in this analysis were heterogenous with no uniform information provided regarding intention-to-treat, use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, etc. Thus, this remains an area that warrants future well-designed trials [156]. Despite this, it must be borne in mind that in specific situations such as duodenal cancers or large pancreatic head tumours invading the gastric antrum and/or the first part of the duodenum, a classical PD should be performed.
The most recent meta-analysis has concluded that there exists no difference in the rate of overall and clinically significant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), morbidity, mortality, reoperation and intra-abdominal sepsis between PG and PJ [157]. Similarly, while the duct-to-mucosa PJ has been shown to reduce duration of hospital stay, it did not significantly reduce rates of pancreatic fistula and other adverse events as compared to invagination PJ [158]. Thus, the focus of a pancreaticoenteric anastomosis must be on the performance of a standardized, meticulous anastomosis [159] based on sound surgical principles.
Performance of an antecolic gastro- or duodeno-jejunostomy after PD is associated with a reduction in the rate of DGE as well as post-operative days to start a diet and length of hospital stay as compared to a retrocolic reconstruction [160].
Lymphadenectomy is central to the oncological completeness (staging and survival) of PD for pancreatic cancer as in the case of other solid organ cancers. A standard lymphadenectomy involves removal of stations 5, 6 and 8a along with lymph nodes of the right side of the hepatoduodenal ligament (12b1, 12b2, 12c), posterior pancreaticoduodenal nodes (13a, 13b), nodes to the right side of the superior mesenteric artery from the origin of the superior mesenteric artery at the aorta to the inferior pancreaticoduodenal artery (14a, 14b) and anterior pancreaticoduodenal nodes (17a, 17b) [161]. The existing literature suggests that a standard lymphadenectomy is not only associated with a lower morbidity (increased risk of intractable diarrhoea in the early post-operative phase seen with extended lymphadenectomy) but also comparable survival compared to an extended lymphadenectomy [162].
16.4.3.2 Distal/Subtotal Pancreatectomy
While surgeries such as spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy as well as middle or central pancreatectomy may be considered in benign or borderline malignant lesions of the neck, body and tail of the pancreas, depending on the location of the tumour, the standard procedure for a pancreatic cancer involving the distal neck, body and/or tail is a distal/subtotal pancreatectomy with splenectomy [163, 164].
Cancers of the body and tail of pancreas are notorious for presenting at an advanced stage. If not yet metastatic at presentation, in up to one-third of patients, the tumours at surgery have evidence of involvement of surrounding organs either as a result of direct tumour infiltration or inflammatory adhesions [165]. In such patients, an en bloc resection (including multivisceral resections) in these patients should be attempted so long as a complete (R0) resection can be achieved. There is evidence to suggest that in patients undergoing an R0 resection, the long-term survival rates are similar to patients undergoing standard resection for resectable tumours [166,167,168] and markedly improved as compared to patients with unresectable locally advanced disease [167]. Given the high morbidity and risk of mortality associated with these resections, they should preferably be undertaken in high-volume centres [169].
Owing to the high frequency of POPF following distal pancreatic resections, there has been a focus on whether the method of transection (staplers or suture, use of ultrasonic dissection devices) or the re-enforcement of the pancreatic stump with mesh or glue improves outcomes. The results of Cochrane systematic review, largely influenced by a single multicentre randomized controlled trial (DISPACT) [170], concluded that the outcomes following hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant after stapled or scalpel resection are comparable in terms of POPF, overall mortality and surgical time [171]. While the available evidence does support practices such as the use of ultrasonic dissection devices or re-enforcement of the pancreatic remnant with glue or mesh [172], it must be appreciated that the data is sparse and fraught with heterogeneity that precludes the generation of firm conclusions. Irrespective of the technique used to transect/close the pancreatic stump, meticulous attention needs to be paid to transfixing the pancreatic duct.
Removal of lymph node stations 10, 11 and 18 is considered part of a standard lymphadenectomy for lesions in the pancreatic body and tail [161].
16.4.3.3 Borderline Resectable Tumours (BRT)
Maurer and colleagues [173] were the first to appreciate that some cancers of the pancreas may not be completely resectable at the outset but may be so after neoadjuvant therapy. This entity was christened BRT by the group from the MD Anderson Cancer Center [151]. The definition of BRT has evolved over the years (Table 16.5) [151, 174,175,176,177]. The outstanding issues with managing BRT are whether to offer upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy; if neoadjuvant therapy is to be used, then should it include chemotherapy only or chemotherapy with radiotherapy; what is the ideal regimen of chemotherapy to be used; and finally what is the true benefit of embarking on such resections in terms of survival improvement. The rationale behind recommending neoadjuvant therapy in BRT was to increase the rate of R0 resections [152]. However, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy protocols such as FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin + irinotecan + leucovorin) are quite toxic, and the preliminary results from the ongoing ALLIANCE trial [178] suggest that the improvement in resection rates may not be significantly increased. The issues regarding vascular resections are discussed below. Besides, restaging of BRT post-neoadjuvant therapy is fraught with difficulties in interpretation owing to desmoplastic/inflammatory changes in and around the tumour and pancreas which could either be from the tumour or therapy induced [179]. Thus, the consensus regarding the optimum management strategy for BRT remains ‘a work in progress’. However, if a patient presents with features clearly indicative of BRT as per radiological features, then such patients must be considered for a staging laparoscopy followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (if non-metastatic) followed by a trial of resection (if the disease remains non-progressive) with the need for synchronous venous resection and reconstruction. The role of studying genetic markers such as SMAD4 (to help in decision-making) needs to be addressed in this subset of patients [88, 180].
16.4.3.3.1 Vascular Resections
Arterial and venous resections have been performed as part of pancreatic resections for a few decades [181] with the rationale that they are beneficial so long as an R0 resection could be achieved [182]. In the case of distal pancreatic resections, there have been reports of 28 highly selected patients undergoing synchronous celiac artery resections with (bypass from the aorta to the common hepatic artery) or without relying on the presence of collateral arterial circulation via an intact pancreaticoduodenal arcade and the gastroduodenal artery to maintain prograde hepatic arterial perfusion reconstruction (modified Appleby procedure) [183].
However, recent analyses made surgeons rethink the true benefit of such resections. Synchronous arterial resections are associated with higher R2 margin rates [184], an increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality [185] and survival rates comparable to non-resected patients with locally advanced and non-metastatic disease [184, 186]. The most recent meta-analysis has demonstrated the same results with synchronous venous resections [187]. The reasons for the findings of this meta-analysis as compared to previous studies suggesting a role for venous resections [188] are likely due to the fact that venous resections do not alter outcomes so long as the vein is truly involved, especially the tunica media and intima [189], and if the length of involvement is more than 3 cm [182].
The role of synchronous vascular resections thus needs to be more carefully studied, and such resections performed in highly selected individuals preferably within the confines of clinical trials [185] should be limited to high-volume centres with experienced surgical and multidisciplinary teams [188].
A useful technique in determining whether the vessels are involved early in the course of the surgery is the superior mesenteric ‘artery first’ approach [190].
16.4.4 Surgery for Metastatic (M1) Disease
There is evidence in literature that pancreatic resections along with, or followed by, removal of oligometastatic disease (interaortocaval lymph nodes, liver and peritoneal metastasis) are feasible [191, 192]. However, the number of patients in the individual reported series is small. Thus, the true impact of such resections in terms of prolonging overall survival remains unclear [193]. More recently, Paiella and colleagues analysed the data on para-aortic lymph node metastases and found that involvement of this group of lymph nodes is associated with a poor prognosis and significantly reduced survival [194]. De Jong and colleagues when analysing their data of 40 patients who underwent resections and/or radiofrequency ablation of periampullary liver metastases inferred that there may be a modest benefit in the intestinal subtype but none in the pancreatobiliary subtype [195].
Thus, such resections must not be performed unless further evidence from well-conducted trials emerges to support such practices.
16.4.5 Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery for Pancreatic and Periampullary Carcinoma
Minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopy and robotic surgery) has been demonstrated to be feasible in pancreatic surgery. Based on a national observational study, Sulpice and colleagues of the French Pancreatectomy Study Group [196] deduced that distal pancreatectomy has acceptable short- and long-term outcomes although it has not been widely accepted. This has been better elucidated in a well-conducted study of accelerated recovery after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy that indicated a high readmission rate [197]. Even for PD, the combined experience of the world is barely a thousand cases, and these are performed only in well-selected cases [198]. To date, there exists no level 1 evidence to suggest that minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is equal to, or superior to, open surgery in terms of overall survival for pancreatic and periampullary cancer [199]. Possible reasons for the slow adoption of minimally invasive surgery into pancreatic surgery could be the costs associated, the time taken for individual procedures and the realization that the morbidity associated with pancreatic surgery (POPF, DGE, post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage/PPH) is unrelated to the length of the abdominal incision but rather to the anastomoses [200].
16.4.5.1 Complications of Pancreatic Surgery
The three most important complications specific to pancreatic surgery are POPF [201], DGE [202] and PPH [203]. Complications following pancreatic surgery are a significant contributor not only to costs but also overall survival [204]. Many of the factors contributing to the occurrence of complications such as a soft pancreas, small duct diameter and comorbidities are beyond the control of the surgeon. Thus, central to reducing complications from a surgeon’s perspective is the improvement in the quality of surgery and perioperative care [204]. This would include standardization of technique [159], attention to detail and focus on training [205], regionalization of pancreatic surgeries [206, 207] and implementation of clinical pathways [208, 209]. The role of intraoperatively placed drains in the development of complications has been addressed [210]. While drains certainly do not prevent complications, they aid in the early detection of complications, especially POPF and PPH [211].
16.4.6 Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
The technique of IRE involves the delivery of high voltage (maximum 3000 V) at small microsecond pulse lengths (70–90 μs) to the tissue. This results in permanent cell death through cell membrane perforation and a further protracted cell death by apoptosis as a result of cellular electrolyte instability [212]. This technique is still in the phase of evolution, and while it has been found to be safe and feasible, the complete benefit is yet to be appreciated. At the present time, the two indications for which IRE has been selectively employed include locally advanced pancreatic cancer (Stage III) of the head or body/neck after induction chemotherapy (with or without chemoradiotherapy) either by itself or as an intraoperative adjunct to pancreatic resectional surgery [213] and in resections for borderline resectable cancers [214] where it may offer the benefit of margin accentuation. This benefit though is yet to be completely appreciated. It has been shown to offer a superior advantage in terms of survival in locally advanced pancreatic cancer when the data was compared to published data of patients treated with only chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy [213].
16.4.7 Fast-Track Protocols/Enhanced Recovery
Spurred on by the success of evidence-based clinical pathways in other surgical specialties such as colorectal and vascular surgery in enhancing perioperative patient experience and outcomes, ERAS® has found its way into pancreatic surgery, too. The initial experience suggests that it has contributed to significantly reduced morbidity, in general, as well as no increase in readmission rates [208]. In the author’s experience [209], clinical pathways help to significantly reduce the duration of hospital stay. However, uniform application of clinical pathways may not be feasible with the need to tailor them to specific groups of patients such as obese patients and those with respiratory comorbidities [209]. The aspect of ERAS® will be covered in detail in the chapter on perioperative patient care.
16.4.8 Palliation in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
Palliation as defined by O’Neill and Fallon [215] and later reaffirmed by Miner and colleagues [216] includes treatments in advanced cancer that help relieve symptoms and improve quality of life. In pancreatic and periampullary cancers, the symptoms that would need to be palliated include obstructive jaundice, uncontrolled vomiting from gastroduodenal obstruction and pain. Traditionally, the surgery performed in the case of a patient undergoing a laparotomy and found to have an inoperable tumour is the triple bypass surgery that includes a side-to-side or end-to-side choledochojejunostomy with a retrocolic, side-to-side gastrojejunostomy and a side-to-side jejuno-jejunostomy.
A recent multicentre study demonstrated that palliative surgeries are associated not only with increased morbidity but no difference in survival compared to aborted laparotomies [217]. The concern in this subset of patients is that mortality rates in actual practice may be as high as 2.4-fold compared to reported literature [218]. Further, complications following palliative surgeries have been shown to significantly impact long-term survival [219].
The alternatives to surgery are SEMS for biliary and gastroduodenal obstruction. SEMS have been shown to have a low morbidity and mortality (procedure-related as well as 30 days) as compared to surgery [220]. Lyons and colleagues [221] have demonstrated that neither were bypass surgeries associated with fewer invasive procedures or reduced number of inpatient hospital days prior to death when compared to SEMS.
Optimization of cancer staging by effective use of staging laparoscopy especially in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced cancers, as well as reducing the time interval between imaging and the planned surgery (shown to be associated with an increased ability to pick up metastases) thereby avoiding non-beneficial laparotomies in pancreatic cancer [222], should be the aim of clinicians dealing with likely unresectable pancreatic and periampullary cancers.
In patients with metastatic disease, non-surgical modalities for palliation should preferentially be resorted to. In patients with locally advanced cancers with a good performance status (European Co-operative Oncology Group score of 0–2) in whom non-surgical methods of palliation have been attempted and have been unsuccessful, and/or in those who have received neoadjuvant therapy and on surgical exploration (with an aim for trial of resection) were found to harbour non-metastatic, but unresectable, disease, the available evidence supports the creation of a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy in the setting of an inoperable pancreatic or periampullary cancer irrespective of the presence of features of gastric outlet obstruction [223, 224]. The author would also advise the creation of a feeding jejunostomy in patients who undergo a triple bypass and who had features of gastroduodenal obstruction preoperatively. Such patients tend to have a persistence of these symptoms in the early post-operative course, and a feeding jejunostomy helps maintain an enteral portal of nutrition.
Deep boring pain radiating to the back is a sign of advanced pancreatic cancer and may be encountered in up to 70% of patients. The cause of pain is multifactorial and has been hypothesized to be due to pancreatic ductal obstruction and resultant hypertension, neural (celiac plexus) invasion and the invasion of surrounding structures [225]. While treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids (working up the World Health Organization ladder) is useful in the initial management of pain, celiac plexus block performed either through image guidance, through endoscopic ultrasonography or at the time of palliative surgical exploration affords the best relief of pain. Although these patients may experience local pain, diarrhoea and hypotension on account of the celiac plexus block, these symptoms are transient. On the flipside, these patients required significantly less narcotic analgesics with a consequent reduction in the attendant side effects (constipation) [226].
16.4.9 Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy for Pancreatic Cancer
16.4.9.1 Adjuvant Therapy
There have been eight randomized controlled trials that have examined the role of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer [227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236]. Table 16.6 provides an overview of these trials. The evidence clearly supports a survival advantage with adjuvant therapy. While three trials demonstrated a benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine) in terms of overall survival [227, 229, 230], two trials indicated a benefit of chemoradiotherapy [228, 233]. The ESPAC-1 trial, however, determined that only adjuvant chemotherapy and not chemoradiotherapy is associated with a significant survival benefit [230]. While single-agent gemcitabine has been the preferred drug in the adjuvant setting [237], the most recent trial from Japan [235] has demonstrated a significant survival advantage for S-1 (tegafur) over gemcitabine. These results need to be validated outside of Japan. The results from the 30.5 month median follow up of the PRODIGE24 trial (238) were recently presented. For patients aged 18–79 years, 21–84 days after R0 or R1 resection, WHO Performance status ≤1, adequate hematologic and renal function, and no cardiac ischaemia, mFOLFIRINOX has not only been shown to be safe, but associated with a significantly better disease-free and overall survival compared to Gemcitabine.
16.4.9.2 Neoadjuvant Therapy
Neoadjuvant therapy, chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy, is being considered in pancreatic cancer in two specific scenarios, namely, locally advanced or borderline resectable cancers with the aim of tumour downstaging [238] and tumour downsizing so as to increase the proportion of margin-negative resections [152], and in resectable cancers on the premise that pancreatic cancer is a systemic disease at the time of diagnosis [239, 240] and thus neoadjuvant therapy will help the tumour to declare its biology enabling surgical resections to be reserved for patients who would truly benefit from them [180, 241].
While radiotherapy has been suggested to improve resection rates in locally advanced pancreatic cancer when combined with chemotherapy, the most encouraging results have been obtained with FOLFIRINOX-based therapy [238]. A recent study has reported a 60% resectability rate with FOLFIRINOX that was better than gemcitabine in combination with radiation therapy (46%) [242]. Downstaging with radiotherapy occurs in less than one-third of patients [243]. Radiation (hypofractionated or conventional) has been shown to actually improve local control without impacting survival [244]. Neoadjuvant therapy does not appear to alter tumour biology [178]. Moreover, radiological restaging of tumours post-neoadjuvant therapy is still a challenge [179]. Whether neoadjuvant therapy actually increases margin-negative resections remains yet to be determined [245]. The PREOPANC trial [246] comparing preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable tumours will certainly provide a clearer insight into whether neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy alters survival, R0 resection rates, disease-free survival, etc.
In retrospective cohort series, survival rates following neoadjuvant therapy are best in patients who undergo a complete (R0) resection [247], who complete the therapy [152] and in those who have an increased histopathologic response [248]. Additionally, neoadjuvant therapy does not appear to influence post-surgical outcomes (morbidity and mortality) [249] and thus presents itself as a promising strategy in pancreatic cancer.
16.4.10 Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
For decades, metastatic pancreatic cancer was regarded as chemotherapy-resistant. The first trial that heralded the role of gemcitabine as a single-agent monotherapy for palliation was conducted by Burris and colleagues [250]. Table 16.7 provides an overview of the sentinel randomized (phase III) trials in metastatic pancreatic cancer [8, 9, 250,251,252]. The PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 trial [8] was not only the first trial to demonstrate an advantage of FOLFIRINOX over gemcitabine; the regimen was also found to be more cost-effective [253]. Ultimately, the choice of chemotherapy in this subset of patients would be between FOLFIRINOX (with its attendant better survival profile) and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (with its better toxicity profile).
16.5 Future Research
There is a need for randomized trials to truly determine if M1 resections confer a survival benefit in pancreatic or periampullary cancers. Within the current realms of evidence, such studies must be undertaken preferably in high-volume centres and with all patients receiving chemotherapy first followed by randomization to either surgery and further therapy or chemotherapy alone.
There is a need for high-quality level 1 evidence to ascertain whether patients with borderline resectable cancers should undergo upfront surgery or surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. The impact of either therapy on overall survival needs to be determined within the context of a trial strictly adhering to the current definition of borderline resectable disease.
The benefit of procedures such as IRE in accentuating surgical resection margins in borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer needs to be tested within the confines of a clinical trial.
Whether genetic markers such as SMAD4 inactivation (predictive of early metastases [88]) will help in further selecting patients for such resections needs to be determined.
16.6 Summary
The overbearing nihilism in our perception of pancreatic cancer is preventing us from appreciating the small, but certain, advances in the management of this cancer. Periampullary cancer, on the other hand, remains a less investigated entity possibly due to its early presentation and hence relatively better outcomes as compared to pancreatic cancer. Scientifically tempered surgical aggression aimed at complete surgical resection coupled with the use of adjuvant chemo- or chemoradiotherapy (when indicated) offers the best possible outcome in patients with resectable or locally advanced but resectable disease. Data on the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable is encouraging, and this deserves further attention. Palliative surgery may yet possess a valuable role in pancreatic cancer in terms of improving quality of life coupled with gemcitabine-based mono- or combination therapies.
References
Yeo TP, Lowenfels AB. Demographics and epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. Cancer J. 2012;18(6):477–84.
Dhir V, Mohandas KM. Epidemiology of digestive tract cancers in India IV. Gall bladder and pancreas. Indian J Gastroenterol. 1999;18(1):24–8.
Janes RH Jr, Niederhuber JE, Chmiel JS, Winchester DP, Ocwieja KC, Karnell JH, et al. National patterns of care for pancreatic cancer. Results of a survey by the Commission on Cancer. Ann Surg. 1996;223(3):261–72.
Sener SF, Fremgen A, Menck HR, Winchester DP. Pancreatic cancer: a report of treatment and survival trends for 100,313 patients diagnosed from 1985-1995, using the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189(1):1–7.
Labori KJ, Katz MH, Tzeng CW, Bjornbeth BA, Cvancarova M, Edwin B, et al. Impact of early disease progression and surgical complications on adjuvant chemotherapy completion rates and survival in patients undergoing the surgery first approach for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma – a population-based cohort study. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(3):265–77.
Valle JW, Palmer D, Jackson R, Cox T, Neoptolemos JP, Ghaneh P, et al. Optimal duration and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after definitive surgery for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: ongoing lessons from the ESPAC-3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(6):504–12.
Huguet F, Girard N, Guerche CS, Hennequin C, Mornex F, Azria D. Chemoradiotherapy in the management of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma: a qualitative systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(13):2269–77.
Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouche O, Guimbaud R, Becouarn Y, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1817–25.
Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, Chiorean EG, Infante J, Moore M, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1691–703.
Nienhuijs SW, van den Akker SA, de Vries E, de Hingh IH, Visser O, Lemmens VE. Nationwide improvement of only short-term survival after resection for pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands. Pancreas. 2012;41(7):1063–6.
Bosetti C, Bertuccio P, Malvezzi M, Levi F, Chatenoud L, Negri E, et al. Cancer mortality in Europe, 2005-2009, and an overview of trends since 1980. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(10):2657–71.
A snapshot of pancreatic cancer – National Cancer Institute 2016. http://www.cancer.gov/research/progress/snapshots/pancreatic.
Lucas AL, Malvezzi M, Carioli G, Negri E, La Vecchia C, Boffetta P, et al. Global trends in pancreatic cancer mortality from 1980 through 2013 and predictions for 2017. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(10):1452–1462.e4.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30.
Barreto SG, Windsor JA. Justifying vein resection with pancreatoduodenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(3):e118–24.
Worldwide cancer statistics 2016 [July 5, 2016]. http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/worldwide-data.
Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–403.
Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Somashekar BA, Suradkar K, Shetty GS, Talole S, et al. Evolution of pancreatoduodenectomy in a tertiary cancer center in India: improved results from service reconfiguration. Pancreatology. 2013;13(1):63–71.
Chang KJ, Parasher G, Christie C, Largent J, Anton-Culver H. Risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: disparity between African Americans and other race/ethnic groups. Cancer. 2005;103(2):349–57.
Wray CJ, Castro-Echeverry E, Silberfein EJ, Ko TC, Kao LS. A multi-institutional study of pancreatic cancer in Harris County, Texas: race predicts treatment and survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(9):2776–81.
Pulte D, Redaniel MT, Brenner H, Jeffreys M. Changes in survival by ethnicity of patients with cancer between 1992–1996 and 2002–2006: is the discrepancy decreasing? Ann Oncol. 2012;23(9):2428–34.
Zeng C, Wen W, Morgans AK, Pao W, Shu XO, Zheng W. Disparities by race, age, and sex in the improvement of survival for major cancers: results from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program in the United States, 1990 to 2010. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(1):88–96.
Eldridge RC, Gapstur SM, Newton CC, Goodman M, Patel AV, Jacobs EJ. Jewish ethnicity and pancreatic cancer mortality in a large U.S. cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2011;20(4):691–8.
Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. The epidemiology of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(6):1252–61.
Phillips AR, Lawes CM, Cooper GJ, Windsor JA. Ethnic disparity of pancreatic cancer in New Zealand. Int J Gastrointest Cancer. 2002;31(1–3):137–45.
Yadav S, Sharma P, Zakalik D. Comparison of demographics, tumor characteristics, and survival between pancreatic adenocarcinomas and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a population-based study. Am J Clin Oncol 2016.
Eguchi H, Yamaue H, Unno M, Mizuma M, Hamada S, Igarashi H, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of young patients with pancreatic cancer: an analysis of data from pancreatic cancer registry of Japan pancreas society. Pancreas. 2016;45(10):1411–7.
Piciucchi M, Capurso G, Valente R, Larghi A, Archibugi L, Signoretti M, et al. Early onset pancreatic cancer: risk factors, presentation and outcome. Pancreatology. 2015;15(2):151–5.
Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Giardiello FM, Hampel HL, Burt RW. ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(2):223–62.
Fiederling J, Shams AZ, Haug U. Validity of self-reported family history of cancer: a systematic literature review on selected cancers. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(7):1449–60.
Petersen GM, de Andrade M, Goggins M, Hruban RH, Bondy M, Korczak JF, et al. Pancreatic cancer genetic epidemiology consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(4):704–10.
Grant RC, Selander I, Connor AA, Selvarajah S, Borgida A, Briollais L, et al. Prevalence of germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes in patients with pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(3):556–64.
Schneider R, Slater EP, Sina M, Habbe N, Fendrich V, Matthai E, et al. German national case collection for familial pancreatic cancer (FaPaCa): ten years experience. Fam Cancer. 2011;10(2):323–30.
Howes N, Lerch MM, Greenhalf W, Stocken DD, Ellis I, Simon P, et al. Clinical and genetic characteristics of hereditary pancreatitis in Europe. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(3):252–61.
Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, DiMagno EP, Elitsur Y, Gates LK Jr, Perrault J, et al. Hereditary pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. International Hereditary Pancreatitis Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(6):442–6.
Underhill ML, Germansky KA, Yurgelun MB. Advances in hereditary colorectal and pancreatic cancers. Clin Ther. 2016;38(7):1600–21.
Slater EP, Langer P, Niemczyk E, Strauch K, Butler J, Habbe N, et al. PALB2 mutations in European familial pancreatic cancer families. Clin Genet. 2010;78(5):490–4.
Zhen DB, Rabe KG, Gallinger S, Syngal S, Schwartz AG, Goggins MG, et al. BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and CDKN2A mutations in familial pancreatic cancer: a PACGENE study. Genet Med. 2015;17(7):569–77.
Kastrinos F, Mukherjee B, Tayob N, Wang F, Sparr J, Raymond VM, et al. Risk of pancreatic cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2009;302(16):1790–5.
Goldgar DE. Analysis of familial breast cancer in genetic analysis workshop 9: summary of findings. Genet Epidemiol. 1995;12(6):833–6.
Thompson D, Szabo CI, Mangion J, Oldenburg RA, Odefrey F, Seal S, et al. Evaluation of linkage of breast cancer to the putative BRCA3 locus on chromosome 13q21 in 128 multiple case families from the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(2):827–31.
Hofstatter EW, Domchek SM, Miron A, Garber J, Wang M, Componeschi K, et al. PALB2 mutations in familial breast and pancreatic cancer. Fam Cancer. 2011;10(2):225–31.
Roberts NJ, Jiao Y, Yu J, Kopelovich L, Petersen GM, Bondy ML, et al. ATM mutations in patients with hereditary pancreatic cancer. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(1):41–6.
Humphris JL, Biankin AV. Diagnosis and management of hereditary pancreatic cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2016;205:61–83.
Segura PP, Ponce CG, Ramon YCT, Blanch RS, Aranda E. Hereditary pancreatic cancer: molecular bases and their application in diagnosis and clinical management: a guideline of the TTD group. Clin Transl Oncol. 2012;14(8):553–63.
Iodice S, Gandini S, Maisonneuve P, et al. Tobacco and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a review and metaanalysis. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2008;393:535–45.
Duell EJ. Epidemiology and potential mechanisms of tobacco smoking and heavy alcohol consumption in pancreatic cancer. Mol Carcinog. 2012;51:40–52.
McWilliams RR, Maisonneuve P, Bamlet WR, Petersen GM, Li D, Risch HA, et al. Risk factors for early-onset and very-early-onset pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a pancreatic cancer case-control consortium (PanC4) analysis. Pancreas. 2016;45(2):311–6.
Anderson MA, Zolotarevsky E, Cooper KL, Sherman S, Shats O, Whitcomb DC, et al. Alcohol and tobacco lower the age of presentation in sporadic pancreatic cancer in a dose-dependent manner: a multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(11):1730–9.
Lucenteforte E, La Vecchia C, Silverman D, Petersen GM, Bracci PM, Ji BT, et al. Alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Ann Oncol. 2012;23(2):374–82.
Ben Q, Xu M, Ning X, Liu J, Hong S, Huang W, et al. Diabetes mellitus and risk of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(13):1928–37.
Kasuga M, Ueki K, Tajima N, Noda M, Ohashi K, Noto H, et al. Report of the Japan diabetes society/Japanese cancer association joint committee on diabetes and cancer. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(7):965–76.
Shen H, Zhan M, Wang W, Yang D, Wang J. Impact of diabetes mellitus on the survival of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:1679–88.
Johnson JA, Bowker SL, Richardson K, Marra CA. Time-varying incidence of cancer after the onset of type 2 diabetes: evidence of potential detection bias. Diabetologia. 2011;54(9):2263–71.
Li D, Tang H, Hassan MM, Holly EA, Bracci PM, Silverman DT. Diabetes and risk of pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis of three large case-control studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22(2):189–97.
Jiao L, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Hartge P, Pfeiffer RM, Park Y, Freedman DM, et al. Body mass index, effect modifiers, and risk of pancreatic cancer: a pooled study of seven prospective cohorts. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21(8):1305–14.
Arslan AA, Helzlsouer KJ, Kooperberg C, Shu XO, Steplowski E, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, et al. Anthropometric measures, body mass index, and pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium (PanScan). Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(9):791–802.
Zavoral M, Minarikova P, Zavada F, Salek C, Minarik M. Molecular biology of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(24):2897–908.
Hirota M, Shimosegawa T, Masamune A, Kikuta K, Kume K, Hamada S, et al. The seventh nationwide epidemiological survey for chronic pancreatitis in Japan: clinical significance of smoking habit in Japanese patients. Pancreatology. 2014;14(6):490–6.
Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Cavallini G, Ammann RW, Lankisch PG, Andersen JR, et al. Pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. International Pancreatitis Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(20):1433–7.
Chari S, Mohan V, Pitchumoni C, et al. Risk of pancreatic carcinoma in tropical calcific pancreatitis. Pancreas. 1993;9:62–6.
Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Whitcomb DC, Lerch MM, DiMagno EP. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for pancreatic cancer in patients with hereditary pancreatitis. JAMA. 2001;286(2):169–70.
Shrikhande S, Barreto G, Koliopanos A. Pancreatic carcinogenesis: the impact of chronic pancreatitis and its clinical relevance. Indian J Cancer. 2009;46:288–96.
Ananthakrishnan AN, Cagan A, Gainer VS, Cheng SC, Cai T, Szolovits P, et al. Mortality and extraintestinal cancers in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8(9):956–63.
Boonstra K, Weersma RK, van Erpecum KJ, Rauws EA, Spanier BW, Poen AC, et al. Population-based epidemiology, malignancy risk, and outcome of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology. 2013;58(6):2045–55.
Michaud DS. Role of bacterial infections in pancreatic cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34(10):2193–7.
Tanaka M, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Adsay V, Chari S, Falconi M, Jang JY, et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012;12(3):183–97.
Hruban RH, Maitra A, Goggins M. Update on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2008;1(4):306–16.
Barreto SG, Neale RE. Vitamin D and pancreatic cancer. Cancer Lett. 2015;368(1):1–6.
Hruban RH, Fukushima N. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: update on the surgical pathology of carcinomas of ductal origin and PanINs. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(Suppl 1):S61–70.
Hruban R, Klimstra D, Pitman M, editors. Tumors of the pancreas. Atlas of Tumor Pathology. Washington, DC;2006.
Lin F, Chen ZE, Wang HL. Utility of immunohistochemistry in the pancreatobiliary tract. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(1):24–38.
Bailey P, Chang DK, Nones K, Johns AL, Patch AM, Gingras MC, et al. Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2016;531(7592):47–52.
Kimura W, Futakawa N, Yamagata S, Wada Y, Kuroda A, Muto T, et al. Different clinicopathologic findings in two histologic types of carcinoma of papilla of Vater. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1994;85(2):161–6.
Kim WS, Choi DW, Choi SH, Heo JS, You DD, Lee HG. Clinical significance of pathologic subtype in curatively resected ampulla of vater cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105(3):266–72.
Kimura W, Futakawa N, Zhao B. Neoplastic diseases of the papilla of Vater. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg. 2004;11(4):223–31.
Ang DC, Shia J, Tang LH, Katabi N, Klimstra DS. The utility of immunohistochemistry in subtyping adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of vater. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(10):1371–9.
Cubilla AL, Fitzgerald PJ. Morphological lesions associated with human primary invasive nonendocrine pancreas cancer. Cancer Res. 1976;36(7 PT 2):2690–8.
Kozuka S, Sassa R, Taki T, Masamoto K, Nagasawa S, Saga S, et al. Relation of pancreatic duct hyperplasia to carcinoma. Cancer. 1979;43(4):1418–28.
Hruban RH, Adsay NV, Albores-Saavedra J, Compton C, Garrett ES, Goodman SN, et al. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a new nomenclature and classification system for pancreatic duct lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(5):579–86.
Hruban R, Pitman M, Klimstra D, editors. Tumors of the pancreas Atlas of tumor pathology, 4th series. Washington, DC: American Registry of Pathology and Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 2007.
Distler M, Aust D, Weitz J, Pilarsky C, Grutzmann R. Precursor lesions for sporadic pancreatic cancer: PanIN, IPMN, and MCN. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:474905.
Murphy SJ, Hart SN, Lima JF, Kipp BR, Klebig M, Winters JL, et al. Genetic alterations associated with progression from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia to invasive pancreatic tumor. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(5):1098–109 e1.
Brune K, Abe T, Canto M, O'Malley L, Klein AP, Maitra A, et al. Multifocal neoplastic precursor lesions associated with lobular atrophy of the pancreas in patients having a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(9):1067–76.
Detlefsen S, Sipos B, Feyerabend B, Kloppel G. Pancreatic fibrosis associated with age and ductal papillary hyperplasia. Virchows Arch. 2005;447(5):800–5.
Maitra A, Adsay NV, Argani P, Iacobuzio-Donahue C, De Marzo A, Cameron JL, et al. Multicomponent analysis of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma progression model using a pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia tissue microarray. Mod Pathol. 2003;16(9):902–12.
Yachida S, White C, Naito Y, Zhong Y, Brosnan J. Clinical significance of the genetic landscape of pancreatic cancer and implications for identification of potential long-term survivors. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(22):6339–47.
Hruban RH, Adsay NV. Molecular classification of neoplasms of the pancreas. Hum Pathol. 2009;40(5):612–23.
Jones S, Zhang X, Parsons DW, Lin JC, Leary RJ, Angenendt P, et al. Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science. 2008;321(5897):1801–6.
AJCC. In: Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al., editors. Cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2009.
Howard TJ, Krug JE, Yu J, Zyromski NJ, Schmidt CM, Jacobson LE, et al. A margin-negative R0 resection accomplished with minimal postoperative complications is the surgeon’s contribution to long-term survival in pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10(10):1338–45. discussion 45-6.
Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F, Reiser C, Herpel E, Friess H, et al. Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(6):1651–60.
Gomez-Mateo Mdel C, Sabater-Orti L, Ferrandez-Izquierdo A. Pathology handling of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens: approaches and controversies. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;6(9):351–9.
Verbeke CS. Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer – are we there yet? Histopathology. 2008;52(7):787–96.
Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV, McMahon MJ, Guillou PJ, Anthoney A. Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93(10):1232–7.
Washington K, Berlin J, Branton P, Burgart L, Carter D, Compton C, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas: College of American Pathologists; 2013 [updated October 2013 July 7, 2016]. http://www.cap.org/ShowProperty?nodePath=/UCMCon/Contribution%20Folders/WebContent/pdf/pancreasexo-13protocol-3201.pdf.
Campbell F, Foulis A, Verbeke C. Dataset for histopathological reporting of carcinomas of the pancreas, ampulla of Vater and common bile duct London: The Royal College of Pathologists; 2010 [July 7, 2016]. www.rcpath.org.
Khalifa MA, Maksymov V, Rowsell C. Retroperitoneal margin of the pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen: anatomic mapping for the surgical pathologist. Virchows Arch. 2009;454(2):125–31.
Kakar S, Pawlik T, Allen P. Exocrine pancreas. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In: Amin M, editor. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2016.
Shrikhande S, Barreto S. Surgery for pancreatic carcinoma: state of the art. Indian J Surg. 2012;74:79–86.
Barreto G, Shukla PJ, Ramadwar M, Arya S, Shrikhande SV. Cystic tumours of the pancreas. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(4):259–66.
Barreto S, Shukla P, Shrikhande S. Tumors of the pancreatic body and tail. World J Oncol. 2010;1(2):52–65.
Barreto S, Shukla P, Shrikhande S. Periampullary carcinoma. In: Shrikhande S, Friess H, Buchler M, editors. Surgery of pancreatic tumors. New Delhi: BI Publications; 2007. p. 206–15.
Feng B, Song Q. Does the common bile duct dilate after cholecystectomy? Sonographic evaluation in 234 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165(4):859–61.
Corazziari ES, Cotton PB. Gallbladder and sphincter of Oddi disorders. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(4):764–9.
Hendifar A, Osipov A, Khanuja J, Nissen N, Naziri J, Yang W, et al. Influence of body mass index and albumin on perioperative morbidity and clinical outcomes in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152172.
Feyko J, Hazard H, Cardinal J, Thomay A, Cho S. Pancreatectomy in patients with impaired renal function: how risky is it? Am Surg. 2016;82(1):16–21.
Myatra S, Divatia JV, Jibhkate B, Barreto GS, Shrikhande SV. Preoperative assessment and optimization in periampullary and pancreatic cancer. Indian J Cancer. 2011;48(1):86–93.
Goonetilleke KS, Siriwardena AK. Systematic review of carbohydrate antigen (CA 19-9) as a biochemical marker in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(3):266–70.
Bergquist JR, Puig CA, Shubert CR, Groeschl RT, Habermann EB, Kendrick ML, et al. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 elevation in anatomically resectable, early stage pancreatic cancer is independently associated with decreased overall survival and an indication for neoadjuvant therapy: a National Cancer Database Study. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(1):52–65.
Kim HJ, Lee WJ, Kang CM, Hwang HK, Bang SM, Song SY, et al. Risk factors associated with loco-regional failure after surgical resection in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157196.
Williams JL, Kadera BE, Nguyen AH, Muthusamy VR, Wainberg ZA, Hines OJ, et al. CA19-9 normalization during pre-operative treatment predicts longer survival for patients with locally progressed pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(7):1331–42.
Boone BA, Steve J, Zenati MS, Hogg ME, Singhi AD, Bartlett DL, et al. Serum CA 19-9 response to neoadjuvant therapy is associated with outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(13):4351–8.
Montgomery RC, Hoffman JP, Riley LB, Rogatko A, Ridge JA, Eisenberg BL. Prediction of recurrence and survival by post-resection CA 19-9 values in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4(7):551–6.
Poruk KE, Gay DZ, Brown K, Mulvihill JD, Boucher KM, Scaife CL, et al. The clinical utility of CA 19-9 in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: diagnostic and prognostic updates. Curr Mol Med. 2013;13(3):340–51.
Mery CM, Duarte-Rojo A, Paz-Pineda F, Gomez E, Robles-Diaz G. Does cholestasis change the clinical usefulness of CA 19-9 in pacreatobiliary cancer? Rev Investig Clin. 2001;53(6):511–7.
Berger AC, Garcia M Jr, Hoffman JP, Regine WF, Abrams RA, Safran H, et al. Postresection CA 19-9 predicts overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with adjuvant chemoradiation: a prospective validation by RTOG 9704. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(36):5918–22.
Zhang Y, Yang J, Li H, Wu Y, Zhang H, Chen W. Tumor markers CA19-9, CA242 and CEA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(7):11683–91.
Shukla PJ, Barreto SG, Kulkarni A, Nagarajan G, Fingerhut A. Vascular anomalies encountered during pancreatoduodenectomy: do they influence outcomes? Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(1):186–93.
Winston C, Teitcher J. Computed tomography of the liver, biliary tract, and pancreas. In: Blumgart L, Jarnagin W, Belghiti J, Buchler M, Chapman W, D’Angelica M, et al., editors. Blumgart’s surgery of the liver, biliary tract, and pancreas. 1. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012. p. 272–312.
Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA, Fidler JL, Burgart LJ, Koyama T, et al. Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2003;229(1):81–90.
Shrikhande S, Barreto S, Goel M, Arya S. Multimodality imaging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review of the literature. HPB (Oxford). 2012;14(10):658–68.
Kim JH, Park SH, ES Y, Kim MH, Kim J, Byun JH, et al. Visually isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma at dynamic-enhanced CT: frequency, clinical and pathologic characteristics, and diagnosis at imaging examinations. Radiology. 2010;257(1):87–96.
Zhang Y, Huang J, Chen M, Jiao LR. Preoperative vascular evaluation with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 2012;12(3):227–33.
Macari M, Spieler B, Kim D, Graser A, Megibow AJ, Babb J, et al. Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):W27–32.
Pittayanon R, Imraporn B, Rerknimitr R, Kullavanijaya P. Advances in diagnostic endoscopy for duodenal, including ampullary, adenoma. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(Suppl 2):10–5.
Shahid MW, Buchner A, Gomez V, Krishna M, Woodward TA, Raimondo M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow band imaging in detection of dysplasia in duodenal polyps. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46(5):382–9.
Jagannath P, Dhir V, Shrikhande S, Shah RC, Mullerpatan P, Mohandas KM. Effect of preoperative biliary stenting on immediate outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2005;92(3):356–61.
Sewnath ME, Birjmohun RS, Rauws EA, Huibregtse K, Obertop H, Gouma DJ. The effect of preoperative biliary drainage on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192(6):726–34.
Coates JM, Beal SH, Russo JE, Vanderveen KA, Chen SL, Bold RJ, et al. Negligible effect of selective preoperative biliary drainage on perioperative resuscitation, morbidity, and mortality in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg. 2009;144(9):841–7.
Barreto S, Singh A, Perwaiz A, Singh T, Singh M, Sharma S, et al. Perioperative antimicrobial therapy in preventing infectious complications following pancreatoduodenectomy. Indian J Med Res. 2017;146(4):514–19.
Barreto SG, Singh MK, Sharma S, Chaudhary A. Determinants of surgical site infections following pancreatoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2015;39(10):2557–63.
Barreto SG, Singh A, Perwaiz A, Singh T, Adlakha R, Singh MK, et al. The cost of pancreatoduodenectomy – an analysis of clinical determinants. Pancreatology. 2016;16(4):652–7.
Mullen JT, Lee JH, Gomez HF, Ross WA, Fukami N, Wolff RA, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy after placement of endobiliary metal stents. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9(8):1094–104. discussion 104-5.
Wasan SM, Ross WA, Staerkel GA, Lee JH. Use of expandable metallic biliary stents in resectable pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(9):2056–61.
Kozarek R. Role of preoperative palliation of jaundice in pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013;20(6):567–72.
Walter D, van Boeckel PG, Groenen MJ, Weusten BL, Witteman BJ, Tan G, et al. Cost efficacy of metal stents for palliation of extrahepatic bile duct obstruction in a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(1):130–8.
Dewitt J, Devereaux BM, Lehman GA, Sherman S, Imperiale TF. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4(6):717–25.
Li JH, He R, Li YM, Cao G, Ma QY, Yang WB. Endoscopic ultrasonography for tumor node staging and vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Dig Surg. 2014;31(4–5):297–305.
Yang R, Lu M, Qian X, Chen J, Li L, Wang J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of EUS and CT of vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140(12):2077–86.
Farma JM, Santillan AA, Melis M, Walters J, Belinc D, Chen DT, et al. PET/CT fusion scan enhances CT staging in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(9):2465–71.
Im HJ, Oo S, Jung W, Jang JY, Kim SW, Cheon GJ, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic and volumetric parameters of preoperative FDG-PET/CT in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(19):e3686.
Chen BB, Tien YW, Chang MC, Cheng MF, Chang YT, CH W, et al. PET/MRI in pancreatic and periampullary cancer: correlating diffusion-weighted imaging, MR spectroscopy and glucose metabolic activity with clinical stage and prognosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(10):1753–64.
Choi Y, Oh DY, Park H, Kim TY, Lee KH, Han SW, et al. More accurate prediction of metastatic pancreatic cancer patients’ survival with prognostic model using both host immunity and tumor metabolic activity. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0145692.
Jung W, Jang JY, Kang MJ, Chang YR, Shin YC, Chang J, et al. The clinical usefulness of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) in follow-up of curatively resected pancreatic cancer patients. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(1):57–64.
Hariharan D, Constantinides VA, Froeling FE, Tekkis PP, Kocher HM. The role of laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound in the preoperative staging of pancreatico-biliary cancers – a meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(10):941–8.
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Guidelines for diagnostic laparoscopy [July 8th, 2016]. http://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/guidelines-for-diagnostic-laparoscopy/.
Levy J, Tahiri M, Vanounou T, Maimon G, Bergman S. Diagnostic laparoscopy with ultrasound still has a role in the staging of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review of the literature. HPB Surg. 2016;2016:8092109.
Nakao A, Kanzaki A, Fujii T, Kodera Y, Yamada S, Sugimoto H, et al. Correlation between radiographic classification and pathological grade of portal vein wall invasion in pancreatic head cancer. Ann Surg. 2012;255(1):103–8.
Winter JM, Cameron JL, Olino K, Herman JM, de Jong MC, Hruban RH, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of ampullary neoplasms in 450 patients: implications for surgical strategy and long-term prognosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(2):379–87.
Varadhachary GR, Tamm EP, Abbruzzese JL, Xiong HQ, Crane CH, Wang H, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: definitions, management, and role of preoperative therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(8):1035–46.
Katz MH, Pisters PW, Evans DB, Sun CC, Lee JE, Fleming JB, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: the importance of this emerging stage of disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(5):833–46. discussion 46-8.
Sourrouille I, Gaujoux S, Lacave G, Bert F, Dokmak S, Belghiti J, et al. Five days of postoperative antimicrobial therapy decreases infectious complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients at risk for bile contamination. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15(6):473–80.
D'Souza MA, Singh K, Hawaldar RV, Shukla PJ, Shrikhande SV. The vascular stapler in uncinate process division during pancreaticoduodenectomy: technical considerations and results. Dig Surg. 2010;27(3):175–81.
Huttner FJ, Fitzmaurice C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Buchler MW, et al. Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD006053.
Barreto S. Classical or Pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy in pancreatic and periampullary cancer ‘the jury is still out!’. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016;37(4):209–10.
Crippa S, Cirocchi R, Randolph J, Partelli S, Belfiori G, Piccioli A, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy is comparable to pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2016;401(4):427–37.
Sun X, Zhang Q, Zhang J, Lou Y, Fu Q, Zhang X, et al. Meta-analysis of invagination and duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an update. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt A):240–7.
Shrikhande SV, Barreto G, Shukla PJ. Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the impact of a standardized technique of pancreaticojejunostomy. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2008;393(1):87–91.
Imamura M, Kimura Y, Ito T, Kyuno T, Nobuoka T, Mizuguchi T, et al. Effects of antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction for gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2016;200(1):147–57.
Tol J, Gouma D, Bassi C. Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156:591–600.
Dasari BV, Pasquali S, Vohra RS, Smith AM, Taylor MA, Sutcliffe RP, et al. Extended versus standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatic head cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(9):1725–32.
Brennan MF, Moccia RD, Klimstra D. Management of adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 1996;223(5):506–11. discussion 11-2.
Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K, Leung DH, Klimstra D, Conlon KC. The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg. 2002;137(2):164–8.
Christein JD, Kendrick ML, Iqbal CW, Nagorney DM, Farnell MB. Distal pancreatectomy for resectable adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9(7):922–7.
Sasson AR, Hoffman JP, Ross EA, Kagan SA, Pingpank JF, Eisenberg BL. En bloc resection for locally advanced cancer of the pancreas: is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg. 2002;6(2):147–57. discussion 57-8.
Shoup M, Conlon KC, Klimstra D, Brennan MF. Is extended resection for adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas justified? J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7(8):946–52. discussion 52.
Hartwig W, Hackert T, Hinz U, Hassenpflug M, Strobel O, Buchler MW, et al. Multivisceral resection for pancreatic malignancies: risk-analysis and long-term outcome. Ann Surg. 2009;250(1):81–7.
Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG. Extended pancreatic resections and lymphadenectomy: an appraisal of the current evidence. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;2(2):39–46.
Diener MK, Seiler CM, Rossion I, Kleeff J, Glanemann M, Butturini G, et al. Efficacy of stapler versus hand-sewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9776):1514–22.
Probst P, Huttner FJ, Klaiber U, Knebel P, Ulrich A, Buchler MW, et al. Stapler versus scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;11:CD008688.
Cecka F, Jon B, Subrt Z, Ferko A. Surgical technique in distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of randomized trials. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:482906.
Maurer CA, Zgraggen K, Buchler MW. Pancreatic carcinoma. Optimizing therapy by adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy? Zentralbl Chir. 1999;124(5):401–7.
Callery MP, Chang KJ, Fishman EK, Talamonti MS, William Traverso L, Linehan DC. Pretreatment assessment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(7):1727–33.
Tempero M, Arnoletti J, Behrman S, Ben-Josef E, Benson AB, Casper E. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2012;10:703–13.
Katz MH, Marsh R, Herman JM, Shi Q, Collison E, Venook AP, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: need for standardization and methods for optimal clinical trial design. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(8):2787–95.
Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, Fishman EK, Hough DM, Lu DS, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the society of abdominal radiology and the american pancreatic association. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(1):291–304 e1.
Varadhachary G, Fleming J, Crane C, Fogelman D, Shroff R, Lee J, et al. Phase II study of preoperation mFOLFIRINOX and chemoradiation for high-risk resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl 3):362.
Katz MH, Fleming JB, Bhosale P, Varadhachary G, Lee JE, Wolff R, et al. Response of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer to neoadjuvant therapy is not reflected by radiographic indicators. Cancer. 2012;118(23):5749–56.
Barreto SG, Windsor JA. Justifying vein resection with pancreatoduodenectomy – author’s reply. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(5):e178.
Fortner J. Regional resection of cancer of the pancreas: a new surgical approach. Surgery. 1973;73:307.
Kaneoka Y, Yamaguchi A, Isogai M. Portal or superior mesenteric vein resection for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: prognostic value of the length of venous resection. Surgery. 2009;145(4):417–25.
Latona JA, Lamb KM, Pucci MJ, Maley WR, Yeo CJ. Modified Appleby procedure with arterial reconstruction for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a literature review and report of three unusual cases. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(2):300–6.
Kato H, Usui M, Isaji S, Nagakawa T, Wada K, Unno M, et al. Clinical features and treatment outcome of borderline resectable pancreatic head/body cancer: a multi-institutional survey by the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013;20(6):601–10.
Mollberg N, Rahbari NN, Koch M, Hartwig W, Hoeger Y, Buchler MW, et al. Arterial resection during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):882–93.
Ravikumar R, Holroyd D, Fusai G. Is there a role for arterial reconstruction in surgery for pancreatic cancer? World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;5(3):27–9.
Giovinazzo F, Turri G, Katz MH, Heaton N, Ahmed I. Meta-analysis of benefits of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2016;103(3):179–91.
Bockhorn M, Uzunoglu F, Adham M, Imrie C. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;155(6):977–88.
Fukuda S, Oussoultzoglou E, Bachellier P, Rosso E, Nakano H, Audet M, et al. Significance of the depth of portal vein wall invasion after curative resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Arch Surg. 2007;142(2):172–9. discussion 80.
Sanjay P, Takaori K, Govil S, Shrikhande S, Windsor J. ‘Artery-first’ approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(8):1027–35.
Shrikhande SV, Kleeff J, Reiser C, Weitz J, Hinz U, Esposito I, et al. Pancreatic resection for M1 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(1):118–27.
Michalski CW, Erkan M, Huser N, Muller MW, Hartel M, Friess H, et al. Resection of primary pancreatic cancer and liver metastasis: a systematic review. Dig Surg. 2008;25(6):473–80.
Gleisner AL, Assumpcao L, Cameron JL, Wolfgang CL, Choti MA, Herman JM, et al. Is resection of periampullary or pancreatic adenocarcinoma with synchronous hepatic metastasis justified? Cancer. 2007;110(11):2484–92.
Paiella S, Sandini M, Gianotti L, Butturini G, Salvia R, Bassi C. The prognostic impact of para-aortic lymph node metastasis in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(5):616–24.
de Jong MC, Tsai S, Cameron JL, Wolfgang CL, Hirose K, van Vledder MG, et al. Safety and efficacy of curative intent surgery for peri-ampullary liver metastasis. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(3):256–63.
Sulpice L, Farges O, Goutte N, Bendersky N, Dokmak S, Sauvanet A, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: time for a randomized controlled trial? Results of an all-inclusive National Observational Study. Ann Surg. 2015;262(5):868–73. discussion 73-4.
Baker MS, Bentrem DJ, Ujiki MB, Stocker S, Talamonti MS. Adding days spent in readmission to the initial postoperative length of stay limits the perceived benefit of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy when compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Am J Surg. 2011;201(3):295–9. discussion 9-300.
Liao CH, Wu YT, Liu YY, Wang SY, Kang SC, Yeh CN, et al. Systemic review of the feasibility and advantage of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2016;40(5):1218–25.
Kendrick ML. Laparoscopic and robotic resection for pancreatic cancer. Cancer J. 2012;18(6):571–6.
Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Shukla PJ. Laparoscopy in pancreatic tumors. J Minim Access Surg. 2007;3(2):47–51.
Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138(1):8–13.
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142(5):761–8.
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142(1):20–5.
Barreto S. Quality improvement – the key to reducing costs in pancreatoduodenectomy. JOP. 2016;17:154–9.
Shirai Y, Shiba H, Horiuchi T, Saito N, Furukawa K, Sakamoto T, et al. Assessment of outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy by Junior Surgeons. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(7):3505–10.
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1128–37.
Shukla PJ, Barreto SG, Bedi M, Bheerappa N, Chaudhary A, Gandhi M, et al. Peri-operative outcomes for pancreatoduodenectomy in India: a multi-centric study. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11(8):638–44.
Coolsen MM, van Dam RM, van der Wilt AA, Slim K, Lassen K, Dejong CH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery with particular emphasis on pancreaticoduodenectomies. World J Surg. 2013;37(8):1909–18.
Chaudhary A, Barreto S, Talole S, Singh A, Perwaiz A, Singh T. Early discharge after pancreatoduodenectomy – what helps and what prevents? Pancreas. 2015;44:273–8.
Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Shetty G, Suradkar K, Bodhankar YD, Shah SB, et al. Post-operative abdominal drainage following major upper gastrointestinal surgery: single drain versus two drains. J Cancer Res Ther. 2013;9(2):267–71.
McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, Allegrini V, Casetti L, Drebin JA, et al. Multicenter, prospective trial of selective drain management for pancreatoduodenectomy using risk stratification. Ann Surg. 2016;265(6):1209–18.
Martin R. Use of irreversible electroporation in unresectable pancreatic cancer. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2015;4(3):211–5.
Martin R, Kwon D, Chalikonda S, Sellers M, Kotz E, Scoggins C, et al. Treatment of 200 locally advanced (Stage III) pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with irreversible electroporation: safety and efficacy. Ann Surg. 2015;262(3):486–94.
Kwon D, McFarland K, Velanovich V, Martin R. Borderline and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma margin accentuation with intraoperative irreversible electroporation. Surgery. 2014;156(4):910–20.
O'Neill B, Fallon M. ABC of palliative care. Principles of palliative care and pain control. BMJ. 1997;315(7111):801–4.
Miner TJ, Jaques DP, Shriver CD. A prospective evaluation of patients undergoing surgery for the palliation of an advanced malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(7):696–703.
Buettner S, Wilson A, Margonis GA, Gani F, Ethun CG, Poultsides GA, et al. Assessing trends in palliative surgery for extrahepatic biliary malignancies: a 15-year multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(8):1444–52.
Syin D, Woreta T, Chang DC, Cameron JL, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. Publication bias in surgery: implications for informed consent. J Surg Res. 2007;143(1):88–93.
Ausania F, Vallance AE, Manas DM, Prentis JM, Snowden CP, White SA, et al. Double bypass for inoperable pancreatic malignancy at laparotomy: postoperative complications and long-term outcome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012;94(8):563–8.
Lima SA, Bustamante F, Moura EH, Bernardo W, Artifon E, Chaves D, et al. Endoscopic palliative treatment versus surgical bypass in malignant low bile duct obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis. 2015;5:35–46.
Lyons JM, Karkar A, Correa-Gallego CC, D’Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, et al. Operative procedures for unresectable pancreatic cancer: does operative bypass decrease requirements for postoperative procedures and in-hospital days? HPB (Oxford). 2012;14(7):469–75.
Glant J, Waters J, House M, Zyromski N, Nakeeb A, Pitt H, et al. Does the interval from imaging to operation affect the rate of unanticipated metastasis encountered during operation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma? Surgery. 2011;150(4):607–16.
Gurusamy K, Kumar S, Davidson B. Prophylactic gastrojejunostomy for unresectable periampullary carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD008533.
Huser N, Michalski C, Schuster T, Friess H, Kleeff J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic gastroenterstomy for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(7):711–9.
Barreto SG, Saccone GT. Pancreatic nociception – revisiting the physiology and pathophysiology. Pancreatology. 2012;12(2):104–12.
Arcidiacono PG, Calori G, Carrara S, McNicol ED, Testoni PA. Celiac plexus block for pancreatic cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3:CD007519.
Ueno H, Kosuge T, Matsuyama Y, Yamamoto J, Nakao A, Egawa S, et al. A randomised phase III trial comparing gemcitabine with surgery-only in patients with resected pancreatic cancer: Japanese Study Group of Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(6):908–15.
Regine WF, Winter KA, Abrams RA, Safran H, Hoffman JP, Konski A, et al. Fluorouracil vs gemcitabine chemotherapy before and after fluorouracil-based chemoradiation following resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299(9):1019–26.
Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, Gellert K, Langrehr J, Ridwelski K, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297(3):267–77.
Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Friess H, Bassi C, Dunn JA, Hickey H, et al. A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(12):1200–10.
Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Bassi C, Ghaneh P, Cunningham D, Goldstein D, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;304(10):1073–81.
Klinkenbijl JH, Jeekel J, Sahmoud T, van Pel R, Couvreur ML, Veenhof CH, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy and 5-fluorouracil after curative resection of cancer of the pancreas and periampullary region: phase III trial of the EORTC gastrointestinal tract cancer cooperative group. Ann Surg. 1999;230(6):776–82. discussion 82-4.
Kalser MH, Ellenberg SS. Pancreatic cancer. Adjuvant combined radiation and chemotherapy following curative resection. Arch Surg. 1985;120(8):899–903.
Oettle H, Neuhaus P, Hochhaus A, Hartmann JT, Gellert K, Ridwelski K, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and long-term outcomes among patients with resected pancreatic cancer: the CONKO-001 randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310(14):1473–81.
Uesaka K, Boku N, Fukutomi A, Okamura Y, Konishi M, Matsumoto I, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy of S-1 versus gemcitabine for resected pancreatic cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (JASPAC 01). Lancet. 2016;388(10041):248–57.
Shrikhande S, Barreto S. Surgical management of pancreatic cancer. In: Shrikhande S, Sirohi B, editors. Modern gastrointestinal oncology. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2015. p. 201–20.
Antoniou G, Kountourakis P, Papadimitriou K, Vassiliou V, Papamichael D. Adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: review of the current treatment approaches and future directions. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;40(1):78–85.
Petrelli F, Coinu A, Borgonovo K, Cabiddu M, Ghilardi M, Lonati V, et al. FOLFIRINOX-based neoadjuvant therapy in borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analytical review of published studies. Pancreas. 2015;44(4):515–21.
Haeno H, Gonen M, Davis MB, Herman JM, Iacobuzio-Donahue CA, Michor F. Computational modeling of pancreatic cancer reveals kinetics of metastasis suggesting optimum treatment strategies. Cell. 2012;148(1–2):362–75.
Rhim AD, Mirek ET, Aiello NM, Maitra A, Bailey JM, McAllister F, et al. EMT and dissemination precede pancreatic tumor formation. Cell. 2012;148(1–2):349–61.
Crippa S, Reni M, Balzano G, Doglioni C, Falconi M. Justifying vein resection with pancreatoduodenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(5):e177.
Hackert T, Sachsenmaier M, Hinz U, Schneider L, Michalski CW, Springfeld C, et al. Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: neoadjuvant therapy with folfirinox results in resectability in 60% of the patients. Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):457–63.
Festa V, Andriulli A, Valvano MR, Uomo G, Perri F, Andriulli N, et al. Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analytical evaluation of prospective studies. JOP. 2013;14(6):618–25.
Cloyd JM, Crane CH, Koay EJ, Das P, Krishnan S, Prakash L, et al. Impact of hypofractionated and standard fractionated chemoradiation before pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2016;122(17):2671–9.
Tang K, Lu W, Qin W, Wu Y. Neoadjuvant therapy for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages. Pancreatology. 2016;16(1):28–37.
Versteijne E, van Eijck CH, Punt CJ, Suker M, Zwinderman AH, Dohmen MA, et al. Preoperative radiochemotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):127.
Strobel O, Berens V, Hinz U, Hartwig W, Hackert T, Bergmann F, et al. Resection after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced, “unresectable” pancreatic cancer. Surgery. 2012;152(3 Suppl 1):S33–42.
Chuong MD, Frakes JM, Figura N, Hoffe SE, Shridhar R, Mellon EA, et al. Histopathologic tumor response after induction chemotherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7(2):221–7.
Verma V, Li J, Lin C. Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: systematic review of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and complications. Am J Clin Oncol. 2016;39(3):302–13.
Burris HA, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(6):2403–13.
Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, Figer A, Hecht JR, Gallinger S, et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(15):1960–6.
Gourgou-Bourgade S, Bascoul-Mollevi C, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouche O, Guimbaud R, et al. Impact of FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: results from the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(1):23–9.
Attard CL, Brown S, Alloul K, Moore MJ. Cost-effectiveness of folfirinox for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(1):e41–51.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Amit Bhasin (Consultant Medical Gastroenterologist—Medanta Institute of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Sciences) and Dr. Arvind Pandey (Consultant Radiologist—Medanta, The Medicity) for the illustrations in this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barreto, S.G. (2018). Pancreatic Cancer. In: Barreto, S., Windsor, J. (eds) Surgical Diseases of the Pancreas and Biliary Tree. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8755-4_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8755-4_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8754-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8755-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)