Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 49(3); 2017 > Article
Meta-Analysis Impact of Resection Margin Distance on Survival of Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Kyung Su Kim, MD1, Jeanny Kwon, MD2, Kyubo Kim, MD3,, Eui Kyu Chie, MD4,5
Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2017;49(3):824-833.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2016.336
Published online: August 26, 2016

1Department of Radiation Oncology, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Busan, Korea

2Department of Radiation Oncology, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

3Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

4Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

5Institute of Radiation Medicine, Medical Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Kyubo Kim, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, 1071 Anyangcheon-ro, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul 07985, Korea
Tel: 82-2-2650-5334 Fax: 82-2-2654-0363 E-mail: kyubokim.ro@gmail.com
• Received: July 26, 2016   • Accepted: August 15, 2015

Copyright © 2017 by the Korean Cancer Association

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 12,391 Views
  • 388 Download
  • 66 Web of Science
  • 62 Crossref
  • 71 Scopus
prev next
  • Purpose
    While curative resection is the only chance of cure in pancreatic cancer, controversies exist about the impact of surgical margin status on survival. Non-standardized pathologic report and different criteria on the R1 status made it difficult to implicate adjuvant therapy after resection based on the margin status. We evaluated the influence of resection margins on survival by meta-analysis.
  • Materials and Methods
    We thoroughly searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We included studies reporting survival outcomes with different margin status: involved margin (R0 mm), margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm (R0-1 mm), and margin with > 1 mm (R>1 mm). Hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was extracted, and a random-effects model was used for pooled analysis.
  • Results
    A total of eight retrospective studies involving 1,932 patients were included. Pooled HR for overall survival showed that patients with R>1 mm had reduced risk of death than those with R0-1 mm (HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.88; p=0.001). In addition, patients with R0-1 mm had reduced risk of death than those with R0 mm (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91; p < 0.001). There was no heterogeneity between the included studies (I2 index, 42% and 0%; p=0.10 and p=0.82, respectively).
  • Conclusion
    Our results suggest that stratification of the patients based on margin status is warranted in the clinical trials assessing the role of adjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer.
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) causes fourth leading cancer death in the United States in year 2014 [1]. Although only 10% to 20% has chance of resection, it is the only treatment that promises curing the disease [2]. Regarding the margin status after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC, controversy exists about the impact of microscopic resection margin involvement (R1). Several studies have reported that it is an independent prognostic factor for poor long term survival [3-6], but not in other studies [7,8]. Main reason of this controversy partly originated from the issues of standardization of pathologic examination [9,10]. The standardization of pathological examination increased the rate of R1 resections after PD from 20% to 50% [11-13], and even to > 70% [14-17]. Moreover, there is ongoing debate concerning the definition of R1. According to the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) reporting guidelines, R1 is defined as the microscopic presence of tumor cells at definite resection margin [18,19]. However, the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) in the UK recommends that cases with microscopic evidence of tumor extension to within 1 mm from a circumferential margin or surface of the pancreatic resection specimen should be classified as R1 [20].
Accurate assessment of R1 is clinically important, not only because it provides prognostic information but stratification within the setting of randomized controlled trials of adjuvant therapy is based partly upon margin positivity. Appropriate identification of those patients who would most benefit is critical in the improvement of the management for PDAC.
Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of resection margin distance on the survival of the patients with PDAC. We intended to identify survival outcomes with different margin status: involved margin (R0 mm), margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm (R0-1 mm), and margin with > 1 mm (R>1 mm).
1. Data sources and search strategy
We performed a systematic literature review of published articles and unpublished abstracts, which reported overall survival of the patients with different surgical margin distance after resection of pancreatic cancer. Comprehensive searches were performed in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (last search update on 6 April 2015). The following key words with their corresponding MeSH terms were used: combined to maximize sensitivity: [(pancreatic cancer)[MESH] OR (pancrea* AND cancer) OR (pancrea* AND adenocarcinoma)][All Fields] AND [margin][TIAB]. Additionally, the references cited in retrieved articles were scrutinized by manual search.
2. Study selection
Two authors (K.S.K. and K.K.) independently reviewed search results. Inclusion criteria were observational studies that investigated survival outcomes according to different resection margin distance following PD for PDAC: involved margin (R0 mm), margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm (R0-1 mm), and margin with > 1 mm (R>1 mm). To limit heterogeneity across the studies and to get more clinically meaningful results, we used following exclusion criteria: (1) studies that included pancreatic malignancy other than adenocarcinoma, (2) review articles or case reports, (3) studies that did not report surgical margin status, and (4) studies that did not provide sufficient data to acquire hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of different margin status for overall survival (OS). Manual search for references of the eligible studies was performed to minimize potential missing data.
3. Data extraction
Data were extracted independently by two authors (K.S.K. and K.K.), and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The following details were extracted: name of first author, institution, country, study period, publication year, number of participants, surgery type, T stage, N stage, adjuvant treatment details, follow-up period, and pathologic examination protocol.
4. Risk of bias assessment
Risk of bias was assessed by Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), which was validated for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies [21]. It contains six domains: selection of participants, confounding variables, intervention measurement, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. Two authors (K.S.K. and K.K.) independently assessed and disagreements were resolved by consensus.
5. Statistical analysis
The OS outcome was measured in terms of the time-to-event HR of R0 mm compared with R0-1 mm and R0-1 mm with R>1 mm. HR as well as its 95% CI was directly extracted from the text or estimated using the published Kaplan-Meier curves using the methods of Tierney et al. [22]. Pooled HR was calculated using the random-effects model and presented with forest plots. Two-sided p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. A chi-square statistic was used to test for statistical heterogeneity, and I2 statistic was also calculated to evaluate the extent of variability attributable to statistical heterogeneity between trials. To assess the publication bias, we applied funnel plot method together with the Egger’s regression test. All statistical analysis was done using RevMan 5.3 analysis software (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).
1. Selecting studies and characteristics of included studies
Two thousand eight hundred ninety-four studies were obtained from the searches of electronic database using our searching strategy. A total of 106 articles were reviewed in detail. Eight studies were finally selected into this meta-analysis [16,17,23-28]. All of studies were retrospective observational cohort studies reporting survival outcome of resected pancreatic cancer at single center. Two studies were presented in abstract form only [25,28]. The details of study selection are shown in Fig. 1. Two studies were reported from Unites States, two studies from UK, two studies from Japan, one study from Germany, and one study from Australia. The patients with R0 mm or R0-1 mm constitute 27.4% to 78.5%. Regarding surgical treatments, most of the patients underwent PD. In three studies, patients treated with distal pancreatectomy were included with the proportion of 19%, 15.3%, and 20.2%, respectively [23,26,27]. Only two studies described the proportion of the T and N stage according to the resection margin status [26,27]. In four studies, the percentage of the patients treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy was described. Basic characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 1. Details of pathologic evaluation of margin status are listed in Table 2. Details of pathologic examination protocol were described in six studies [14,20,29]. A summary of the risk of bias assessment is provided in Table 3.
2. Impact of resection margin distance on survival
We calculated overall pooled HR for OS with a random effects model. Chang et al. [23] reported disease-specific survival (DSS) instead of OS. Under the assumption that the DSS outcome might not differ from the OS, we pooled these data with the OS outcomes of the other seven studies. When we compared R>1 mm and R0-1 mm, R>1 mm had reduced risk of death than R0-1 mm (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; p=0.001) (Fig. 2A). There was no heterogeneity between the included studies (I2 index=42%, p=0.10). When we compared R0 mm with R0-1 mm, R0-1 mm had reduced risk of death (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91; p < 0.001) (Fig. 2B). There was no heterogeneity among studies (I2 index=0%, p=0.82).
3. Publication bias
A funnel plot of the effect size for each subgroup category of the trial against the precision showed no asymmetry (Fig. 3). Egger’s regression test for potential publication bias yielded no potential unpublished studies. (Egger’s test, p=0.373 for between R>1 mm and R0-1 mm, p=0.852 for between R0-1 mm and R0 mm, respectively).
The reported R1 rates after PD for PDAC showed a high variation ranging from 17% to 85%. Previous studies which reported low R1 resection rates of less than 20% had local recurrence rate of 60%-80% [7,30,31]. These findings indicated a considerable underestimation of the true R1 status. Lack of a standardized pathological examination protocol and different definitions of resection margin are probably the main reasons for the high variation in reported R1 rates. In this meta-analysis, six studies explained details of standardized pathological examination. Eventually, when ‘1 mm rule’ was applied, R1 rates were greater than 35.6% except a study by Janot et al. [24] which had low number of patients.
Controversy exists over the anterior surface of PD specimens as to whether it should be regarded as part of the resection margin. Anterior surface as a resection margin was recommended in Japan [32,33] and in Europe [14]. Because the surgeon does not transect any tissues in this area, however, anterior surface was not regarded a true resection mar gin. Some authors proposed that assessment of this margin should be excluded from a standardized pathological examination protocol [15], or that the “0 mm” clearance rule should be used [9,34]. While most common involved margin in the pancreatic cancer is the medial or posterior resection margin [15], Jamieson et al. [35] reported that R1 at anterior surface made up 12.8% of the R1 cases and that these patients presented favorable outcome than those with R1 at medial or transection margin. In this meta-analysis, anterior surface was considered a resection margin in only two studies [17,24].
The ‘1 mm rule’ has been adopted from the association between the circumferential margin status and local recurrence of the rectal cancer. Verbeke et al. [36] reported that tumor growth in pancreatic head cancers is more dispersed than in rectal cancer, claiming that 1 mm definition needs to be considered. Single institutional studies including encompassed ones in this meta-analysis reported the association of the margin clearance with OS. Chang et al. [23] and Jamieson et al. [17] demonstrated that margin clearance by at least 1.5 mm identified a subgroup of patients which may potentially achieve long-term survival. Gebauer et al. [37] reported that margin clearance of 2 mm or greater as an independent prognostic factor for OS. However, because each study had limited number of patients, any conclusive result could not be drawn. Through the pooled HR of current meta-analysis including 1,932 patients, we could verify that R>1 mm had reduced risk of death than R0-1 mm, and R0-1 mm also had reduced risk of death than R0 mm.
While adjuvant chemotherapy is currently the standard treatment for patients following a potentially curative PD for PDAC in Europe, chemoradiotherapy as an adjuvant treatment is considered based on the margin status. Two recent meta-analyses have suggested that patients with R1 status appear to benefit from postoperative chemoradiotherapy [8,38]. Chang et al. [23] noted that patients with close resection margins (< 1.5 mm) may have a better response to adjuvant radiotherapy compared with involved margins (R0 mm) as a result of the probable low volume of residual local disease, and potentially constitute a subgroup that is most likely to have the greatest benefit. In conjunction with these results, our results could be used in identifying a subgroup that will benefit from radiotherapy after PD for PDAC.
Several studies examined the effect of neoadjuvant treatment on resection margin status [7,39-42]. Katz et al. [40] reported that patients who received chemoradiation had longer superior mesenteric artery margin distances than those who did not. In the study by Delpero et al. [42], neoadjuvant treatment was correlated with a reduced risk for a positive posterior margin. In contrary, Raut et al. [7] reported that neoadjuvant therapy was not a statistically significant predictor of margin status. In one study by Thomay et al. [25] included in this meta-analysis, neoadjuvant treatment was given to 34% of the patients. The patients with R0-1 mm had similar risk of death compared to R>1 mm, and 34% reduction of death compared to R0 mm in that study. One might argue that high proportion of neoadjuvant treatment than other studies might explain the result. However, the hypothesis that neoadjuvant treatment could decrease the adverse effect of R1 is not evidenced by randomized trials. Further studies to investigate the role of neoadjuvant treatment using a standardized pathological examination protocol are warranted.
Major limitation of our study is that included studies did not provide adequate information on the distribution of prognostic factors according to margin status. Given that most of the patients were of T3-4 and/or lymph node involvement, stratification according to resection margin status could not be assessed except two studies [26,27]. Moreover, except a study by Sugiura et al. [26] detailed proportion of the patients who received adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy among the different resection margin could not be evaluated. In addition, two studies in this meta-analysis were reported in abstract form only [25,28]. However, excluding these two studies did not alter the pooled result (for R>1 mm and R0-1 mm: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92; p=0.007; for R0-1 mm and R0 mm: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; p=0.010). Lastly, in three studies, the patients with distal pancreatectomy were included with the proportion of 15.3%-20.2% [23,26,27]. However, effect size was not significantly different by excluding these three studies (for R>1 mm and R0-1 mm: HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.88; p=0.001; for R0-1 mm and R0 mm: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95; p=0.007).
While existing controversy about R1 status in the resected pancreatic cancer, our meta-analysis suggests that patients with resection margin with 0-1 mm had reduced risk of death than those with involved margin status, and greater risk of death than those with > 1 mm margin. Based on these result, stratification of patients based on margin distance with standardized pathological examination should be implicated in the future clinical trial of adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer.

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Fig. 1.
Study selection process.
crt-2016-336f1.gif
Fig. 2.
Forest plot for HR of the R>1 mm and R0-1 mm margin (A) or R0-1 mm and R0 mm margin (B). R0 mm, involved margin; R0-1 mm, margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm; R>1 mm, margin with > 1 mm; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
crt-2016-336f2.gif
Fig. 3.
Funnel plot of the included studies regarding R>1 mm and R0-1 mm margin (A) or R0-1 mm and R0 mm margin (B).
crt-2016-336f3.gif
Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies
Study Institution Study period No. (%)
Surgical treatment T stage N+ (%) Adjuvant treatment
R0 mm R0-1 mm R>1 mm
Campbell et al. (2009) [16] Liverpool (UK) 1997-2007 71 (43.6) 57 (35.0) 35 (21.5) PPPD (90.2%), whipple (9.8%) T3/4 (85.3%) 78.5 NA
Chang et al. (2009) [23] Sydney (Australia) 1990-2007 132 (36.2) 56 (15.3) 177 (48.5) Whipple (80.8%), left side pancreatectomy (19.2%) > 2 cm (77.0%) 59.5 Adjuvant CTx (26.3%), RT (5.8%)
Janot et al. (2012) [24] Bochum (Germany) 2007-2009 5 (8.1) 12 (19.4) 45 (72.6) Whipple (11.3%), PPPD (69.3%), TP (19.4%) T3/4 (91.9%), > 2.5 cm (66.1%) 79.0 NA
Thomay et al. (2012) [25] Philadelphia (USA) 1991-2011 108 (36.4) 54 (18.2) 135 (45.5) PD (100%) NA NA Neoadjuvant CRT (34%)
Jamieson et al. (2013) [17] Glasgow (UK) 1996-2011 111 (51.2) 46 (21.2) 60 (27.6) PD (100%) T3/4 (90.3%), > 3 cm (50.7%) 80.2 Adjuvant therapy (47.0%), neoadjuvant CTx (0.9%)
Sugiura et al. (2013) [26] Sizuoka (Japan) 2002-2010 34 (16.3) 40 (19.2) 134 (64.4) PD (78.8%), DP (20.2%), TP (1.0%) > 3 cm (47.1%) 69.2 Adjuvant CTx (84.6%), RT (11.5%)
Konstantinidis et al. (2013) [27] MGH (USA) 1993-2001 157 (31.7) 169 (34.1) 170 (34.3) PD (83.1%), DP (15.3%), TP (1.4%) T3/4 (88.5%) 70.0 NA
Hashimoto et al. (2013) [28] Wakayama (Japan) 2002-2012 30 (24.2) 38 (30.6) 56 (45.2) PD (100%) NA NA NA

R0 mm, involved margin; R0-1 mm, margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm; R>1 mm, margin with > 1 mm; PPPD, pylorus preserving pancreaticocduodenectomy; NA, not applicable; CTx, chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; TP, total pancreatectomy; PD, pancreaticoduodenectomy; CRT, chemoradiation; DP, distal pancreatectomy.

Table 2.
Pathologic examination protocol
Study Protocol Evaluated margin
Campbell et al. (2009) [16] RCP [20] Pancreatic transection margin
Medial (or superior mesenteric vessel) margin
Posterior margin
Proximal duodenal (or gastric) margin
Distal duodenal margin
Common bile duct margin
Chang et al. (2009) [23] Institutional Pancreatic neck margin
Portal vein/superior mesenteric vein margin
Superior mesenteric artery/retroperitoneal (uncinate) margin
Bile duct margin
Proximal gastric/duodenal margin
Distal duodenal margin
Janot et al. (2012) [24] Modified LEEPP [14] Anterior margin
Posterior margin (uncinate process)
Superior mesenteric vein groove circumferential resection margin
Transection margin (pancreatic neck, bile duct, and duodenum margin)
Thomay et al. (2012) [25] NA NA
Jamieson et al. (2013) [17] RCP [20,31] Posterior margin
Anterior margin
Medial margin
Pancreatic transection margin
Sugiura et al. (2013) [26] Japan Pancreas Society [30] Pancreatic transection margin
Superior mesenteric artery margin
Posterior margin
Proximal bile duct margin
Konstantinidis et al. (2013) [27] Staley et al. [29] Common bile duct margin
Pancreatic transection (neck) margin
Posterior/retroperitoneal margin
Uncinate (superior mesenteric artery) margin
Hashimoto et al. (2013) [28] NA NA

RCP, Royal College of Pathologist; LEEPP, Leeds Pathology Protocol; NA, not applicable.

Table 3.
A summary of risk of bias assessment using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS)
Study Selection
Performance
Detection
Attrition
Reporting
Selection of participants Confounding variables Measurement of exposure Blinding of outcome assessments Incomplete outcome data Selective outcome reporting
Campbell et al. (2009) [16] Low Low Low Low Unclear Low
Chang et al. (2009) [23] Low Low Low Low Low Low
Janot et al. (2012) [24] Low Low Low Low Unclear Low
Thomay et al. (2012) [25] Low High Low Low Unclear Unclear
Jamieson et al. (2013) [17] Low Low Low Low Low Low
Sugiura et al. (2013) [26] Low Low Low Low Unclear Low
Konstantinidis et al. (2013) [27] Low High Low Low Unclear Low
Hashimoto et al. (2013) [28] Low High Low Low Unclear Unclear
  • 1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29. ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Ko CY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Talamonti MS. National failure to operate on early stage pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2007;246:173–80. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Dunn JA, Almond J, Beger HG, Pederzoli P, et al. Influence of resection margins on survival for patients with pancreatic cancer treated by adjuvant chemoradiation and/or chemotherapy in the ESPAC-1 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2001;234:758–68. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Menon KV, Gomez D, Smith AM, Anthoney A, Verbeke CS. Impact of margin status on survival following pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer: the Leeds Pathology Protocol (LEEPP). HPB (Oxford). 2009;11:18–24. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 5. Hartwig W, Hackert T, Hinz U, Gluth A, Bergmann F, Strobel O, et al. Pancreatic cancer surgery in the new millennium: better prediction of outcome. Ann Surg. 2011;254:311–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Gnerlich JL, Luka SR, Deshpande AD, Dubray BJ, Weir JS, Carpenter DH, et al. Microscopic margins and patterns of treatment failure in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Arch Surg. 2012;147:753–60. ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Raut CP, Tseng JF, Sun CC, Wang H, Wolff RA, Crane CH, et al. Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;246:52–60. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 8. Butturini G, Stocken DD, Wente MN, Jeekel H, Klinkenbijl JH, Bakkevold KE, et al. Influence of resection margins and treatment on survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Surg. 2008;143:75–83. ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Verbeke CS, Menon KV. Redefining resection margin status in pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11:282–9. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Schlitter AM, Esposito I. Definition of microscopic tumor clearance (r0) in pancreatic cancer resections. Cancers (Basel). 2010;2:2001–10. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Wagner M, Redaelli C, Lietz M, Seiler CA, Friess H, Buchler MW. Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2004;91:586–94. ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Kuhlmann K, de Castro S, van Heek T, Busch O, van Gulik T, Obertop H, et al. Microscopically incomplete resection offers acceptable palliation in pancreatic cancer. Surgery. 2006;139:188–96. ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Westgaard A, Tafjord S, Farstad IN, Cvancarova M, Eide TJ, Mathisen O, et al. Resectable adenocarcinomas in the pancreatic head: the retroperitoneal resection margin is an independent prognostic factor. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:5.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 14. Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV, McMahon MJ, Guillou PJ, Anthoney A. Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1232–7. ArticlePubMed
  • 15. 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;15:1651–60. ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Campbell F, Smith RA, Whelan P, Sutton R, Raraty M, Neoptolemos JP, et al. Classification of R1 resections for pancreatic cancer: the prognostic relevance of tumour involvement within 1 mm of a resection margin. Histopathology. 2009;55:277–83. ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Jamieson NB, Chan NI, Foulis AK, Dickson EJ, McKay CJ, Carter CR. The prognostic influence of resection margin clearance following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:511–21. ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. International Union Against Cancer. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
  • 19. College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas [Internet]. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; [cited 2015 Jun 1]. Available from: http://www.cap.org/web/home/resources/cancer-reporting-tools/cancer-protocol-templates
  • 20. The Royal College of Pathologists. Standards and minimum datasets for reporting cancers: dataset for the histopathological reporting of carcinomas of the pancreas, ampulla of Vater and common bile duct. London: The Royal College of Pathologists; 2010.
  • 21. Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, et al. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:408–14. ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 23. Chang DK, Johns AL, Merrett ND, Gill AJ, Colvin EK, Scarlett CJ, et al. Margin clearance and outcome in resected pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2855–62. ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Janot MS, Kersting S, Belyaev O, Matuschek A, Chromik AM, Suelberg D, et al. Can the new RCP R0/R1 classification predict the clinical outcome in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head? Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2012;397:917–25. ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Thomay AA, Hoffman JP, Chun YS. Defining resection margins in pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(Suppl 1):S1062–3. Article
  • 26. Sugiura T, Uesaka K, Mihara K, Sasaki K, Kanemoto H, Mizuno T, et al. Margin status, recurrence pattern, and prognosis after resection of pancreatic cancer. Surgery. 2013;154:1078–86. ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Konstantinidis IT, Warshaw AL, Allen JN, Blaszkowsky LS, Castillo CF, Deshpande V, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a "true" R0 resection? Ann Surg. 2013;257:731–6. ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Hashimoto Y, Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, Kondo N, Sueda T. Impact of margin clearance on survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: what is a “true” negative margin? Gastroenterology. 2013;144(Suppl 1):S1128.Article
  • 29. Staley CA, Cleary KR, Abbruzzese JL, Lee JE, Ames FC, Fenoglio CJ, et al. The need for standardized pathologic staging of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens. Pancreas. 1996;12:373–80. ArticlePubMed
  • 30. Van den Broeck A, Sergeant G, Ectors N, Van Steenbergen W, Aerts R, Topal B. Patterns of recurrence after curative resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:600–4. ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Kayahara M, Nagakawa T, Ueno K, Ohta T, Takeda T, Miyazaki I. An evaluation of radical resection for pancreatic cancer based on the mode of recurrence as determined by autopsy and diagnostic imaging. Cancer. 1993;72:2118–23. ArticlePubMed
  • 32. Nagakawa T, Nagamori M, Futakami F, Tsukioka Y, Kayahara M, Ohta T, et al. Results of extensive surgery for pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer. 1996;77:640–5. ArticlePubMed
  • 33. Japan Pancreas Society. General rules for the study of pancreatic cancer. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Kanehara; 2003.
  • 34. Verbeke CS. Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer: are we there yet? Histopathology. 2008;52:787–96. ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Jamieson NB, Foulis AK, Oien KA, Going JJ, Glen P, Dickson EJ, et al. Positive mobilization margins alone do not influence survival following pancreatico-duodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2010;251:1003–10. ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Verbeke CS, Knapp J, Gladhaug IP. Tumour growth is more dispersed in pancreatic head cancers than in rectal cancer: implications for resection margin assessment. Histopathology. 2011;59:1111–21. ArticlePubMed
  • 37. Gebauer F, Tachezy M, Vashist YK, Marx AH, Yekebas E, Izbicki JR, et al. Resection margin clearance in pancreatic cancer after implementation of the Leeds Pathology Protocol (LEEPP): clinically relevant or just academic? World J Surg. 2015;39:493–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 38. Stocken DD, Buchler MW, Dervenis C, Bassi C, Jeekel H, Klinkenbijl JH, et al. Meta-analysis of randomised adjuvant therapy trials for pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1372–81. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 39. Pingpank JF, Hoffman JP, Ross EA, Cooper HS, Meropol NJ, Freedman G, et al. Effect of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on surgical margin status of resected adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001;5:121–30. ArticlePubMed
  • 40. Katz MH, Wang H, Balachandran A, Bhosale P, Crane CH, Wang X, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgical technique on recurrence of localized pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:68–78. ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Barbier L, Turrini O, Gregoire E, Viret F, Le Treut YP, Delpero JR. Pancreatic head resectable adenocarcinoma: preoperative chemoradiation improves local control but does not affect survival. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13:64–9. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 42. Delpero JR, Bachellier P, Regenet N, Le Treut YP, Paye F, Carrere N, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a French multicentre prospective evaluation of resection margins in 150 evaluable specimens. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16:20–33. ArticlePubMedPMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Clinical outcomes in borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer with the addition of low-dose-rate brachytherapy to standard of care therapy
      Ross J. Taylor, Gregory J. Matthews, Robert H. Aseltine, Emma C. Fields
      Brachytherapy.2024; 23(3): 355.     CrossRef
    • Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas — technical considerations with analysis of surgical outcomes
      Maciej Borys, Michał Wysocki, Krystyna Gałązka, Maciej Stanek, Andrzej Budzyński
      Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer: Controversies and advances
      Douglas Dias e Silva, Vincent Chung
      Cancer Treatment and Research Communications.2024; 39: 100804.     CrossRef
    • Stapled Arterial Divestment in Surgery for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
      Krishna Kotecha, Juanita Chui, Kai Brown, Anubhav Mittal, Jaswinder Samra
      Journal of Surgical Oncology.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Evaluation of local recurrence after pancreaticoduodenectomy for borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Can the resection level change after chemotherapy?
      Kosuke Kobayashi, Yoshihiro Ono, Shoki Sato, Tomotaka Kato, Atsushi Oba, Takafumi Sato, Hiromichi Ito, Yosuke Inoue, Manabu Takamatsu, Akio Saiura, Yu Takahashi
      Surgery.2023; 173(5): 1220.     CrossRef
    • Rhabdoid carcinoma of the pancreas: A rare cause of unidentified carcinomas of the pancreas
      Ayoub Madani, Anass Derkaoui, Tarik Deflaoui, Hanane El Aggari, Nadir Miry, Benani Amal, Rachid Jabi, Mohamed Bouziane
      Surgery Open Digestive Advance.2023; 9: 100076.     CrossRef
    • Prognostic significance of margin clearance in pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in a Danish population-based nationwide study
      Trine Aaquist, Claus W. Fristrup, Jane P. Hasselby, Stephen Hamilton-Dutoit, Mikkel Eld, Per Pfeiffer, Michael B. Mortensen, Sönke Detlefsen
      HPB.2023; 25(7): 826.     CrossRef
    • Practice Patterns and Survival in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas (PDAC) — Results from the Multicentre Indian Pancreatic & Periampullary Adenocarcinoma Project (MIPPAP) Study
      Vikram Chaudhari, Anant Ramaswamy, Sujay Srinivas, Ajit Agarwal, Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri, Vineet Talwar, Prabhat Bhargava, Shaifali Goel, Smita Kayal, Pradeep Rebala, Bharat Prajapati, Devendra Parikh, Jagdish Kothari, Ramesh M. Ch, Jacob Mathew Kada
      Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer.2023; 54(4): 1338.     CrossRef
    • Preoperative prediction of disease-free survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients after R0 resection using contrast-enhanced CT and CA19-9
      Dengfeng Li, Qing Peng, Leyao Wang, Wei Cai, Meng Liang, Siyun Liu, Xiaohong Ma, Xinming Zhao
      European Radiology.2023; 34(1): 509.     CrossRef
    • Predicting resection margin status of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors on CT: performance of NCCN resectability criteria
      Dong Hwan Kim, Bohyun Kim, Dong Jin Chung, Kyung Ah Kim, Su Lim Lee, Moon Hyung Choi, Hokun Kim, Sung Eun Rha
      The British Journal of Radiology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Biliary Adverse Events during Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer
      Sam Z. Thalji, Deemantha Fernando, Kulwinder S. Dua, Srivats Madhavan, Phillip Chisholm, Zachary L. Smith, Mohammed Aldakkak, Kathleen K. Christians, Callisia N. Clarke, Ben George, Mandana Kamgar, Beth A. Erickson, William A. Hall, Douglas B. Evans, Susa
      Annals of Surgery.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Lymph Node Stations of Pancreas Which Are Identified in Real Color Sectioned Images of a Cadaver With Pancreatic Cancer
      Chung Yoh Kim, Yongwook Jung, Jin Seo Park
      Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • CivaSheet intraoperative radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer
      Ross J. Taylor, Dorin Todor, Brian J. Kaplan, Weston Stover, Emma C. Fields
      Brachytherapy.2022; 21(2): 255.     CrossRef
    • Four-Tier Pathologic Tumor Regression Grading System Predicts the Clinical Outcome in Patients Who Undergo Surgical Resection for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
      Soomin Ahn, Jong-chan Lee, Jaihwan Kim, Young Hoon Kim, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Ho-Seong Han, Haeryoung Kim, Jin-Hyeok Hwang
      Gut and Liver.2022; 16(1): 129.     CrossRef
    • Preoperative Serum Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 Levels Cannot Predict the Surgical Resectability of Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
      Márton Benke, Nelli Farkas, Péter Hegyi, Benedek Tinusz, Patrícia Sarlós, Bálint Erőss, Kata Szemes, Nóra Vörhendi, Zsolt Szakács, Ákos Szücs
      Pathology and Oncology Research.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A competing risk analysis
      Carlo Alberto Pacilio, Elisa Grassi, Andrea Gardini, Francesca Fappiano, Alessandro Passardi, Giovanni Luca Frassineti, Stefano Tamberi, Giorgio Ercolani
      Surgical Practice.2022; 26(3): 155.     CrossRef
    • Prediction of tumour grade and survival outcome using pre-treatment PET- and MRI-derived imaging features in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
      Vincent Dunet, Nermin Halkic, Christine Sempoux, Nicolas Demartines, Michael Montemurro, John O. Prior, Sabine Schmidt
      European Radiology.2021; 31(2): 992.     CrossRef
    • First report on the feasibility of a permanently implantable uni-directional planar low dose rate brachytherapy sheet for patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer
      Joshua B. Dault, Dorin Todor, Brian J. Kaplan, Jennifer L. Myers, Emma C. Fields
      Brachytherapy.2021; 20(1): 207.     CrossRef
    • Periarterial divestment in pancreatic cancer surgery
      Markus K. Diener, André L. Mihaljevic, Oliver Strobel, Martin Loos, Thomas Schmidt, Martin Schneider, Christoph Berchtold, Arianeb Mehrabi, Beat P. Müller-Stich, Kuirong Jiang, John P. Neoptolemos, Thilo Hackert, Yi Miao, Markus W. Büchler
      Surgery.2021; 169(5): 1019.     CrossRef
    • Advances and challenges of neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer
      Yang Yu, Peng Zheng, Yajing Chen, Bofang Wang, Maswikiti Ewetse Paul, Pengxian Tao, Dengfeng Wang, Haiyuan Li, Baohong Gu, Lei Gao, Dan Wang, Hao Chen
      Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology.2021; 17(6): 425.     CrossRef
    • R Status is a Relevant Prognostic Factor for Recurrence and Survival After Pancreatic Head Resection for Ductal Adenocarcinoma
      Stefano Crippa, Fabio Giannone, Marco Schiavo Lena, Giulio Belfiori, Stefano Partelli, Domenico Tamburrino, Roberto Delpini, Michele Pagnanelli, Nicolo Pecorelli, Gianpaolo Balzano, Claudio Doglioni, Massimo Falconi
      Annals of Surgical Oncology.2021; 28(8): 4602.     CrossRef
    • Impact of Margin Status on Survival in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
      Ryan K. Schmocker, Daniel Delitto, Michael J. Wright, Ding Ding, John L. Cameron, Kelly J. Lafaro, William R. Burns, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Richard A. Burkhart, Jin He
      Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2021; 232(4): 405.     CrossRef
    • A Novel DNA Replication-Related Signature Predicting Recurrence After R0 Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Prognostic Value and Clinical Implications
      Zengyu Feng, Kexian Li, Jianyao Lou, Mindi Ma, Yulian Wu, Chenghong Peng
      Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Impact of resection margin status on survival in advanced N stage pancreatic cancer – a multi-institutional analysis
      Christian Teske, Richard Stimpel, Marius Distler, Susanne Merkel, Robert Grützmann, Louisa Bolm, Ulrich Wellner, Tobias Keck, Daniela E. Aust, Jürgen Weitz, Thilo Welsch
      Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2021; 406(5): 1481.     CrossRef
    • Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) versus conventional distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: findings of a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score matching study
      Hyung Sun Kim, Tae Ho Hong, Young-Kyoung You, Joon Seong Park, Dong Sup Yoon
      Surgery Today.2021; 51(11): 1775.     CrossRef
    • What do surgeons need to know about the mesopancreas
      Eduardo de Souza M. Fernandes, Oliver Strobel, Camila Girão, Jose Maria A. Moraes-Junior, Orlando Jorge M. Torres
      Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2021; 406(8): 2621.     CrossRef
    • Room for improvement in the treatment of pancreatic cancer: Novel opportunities from gene targeted therapy
      Michail Galanopoulos, Aris Doukatas, Filippos Gkeros, Nikos Viazis, Christos Liatsos
      World Journal of Gastroenterology.2021; 27(24): 3568.     CrossRef
    • Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer in China (2021)
      Yinmo Yang, Xueli Bai, Dapeng Bian, Shouwang Cai, Rufu Chen, Feng Cao, Menghua Dai, Chihua Fang, Deliang Fu, Chunlin Ge, Xiaochao Guo, Chunyi Hao, Jihui Hao, Heguang Huang, Zhixiang Jian, Gang Jin, Fei Li, Haimin Li, Shengping Li, Weiqin Li, Yixiong Li, H
      Journal of Pancreatology.2021; 4(2): 49.     CrossRef
    • Paraaortic dissection in “total mesopancreas excision” and “mesopancreas-first resection” pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: Useless, optional, or necessary?A systematic review
      Nadia Peparini
      Surgical Oncology.2021; 38: 101639.     CrossRef
    • Impact of molecular surgical margin analysis on the prediction of pancreatic cancer recurrences after pancreaticoduodenectomy
      Yuki Sunagawa, Masamichi Hayashi, Suguru Yamada, Hiroshi Tanabe, Keisuke Kurimoto, Nobutake Tanaka, Fuminori Sonohara, Yoshikuni Inokawa, Hideki Takami, Mitsuro Kanda, Chie Tanaka, Goro Nakayama, Masahiko Koike, Yasuhiro Kodera
      Clinical Epigenetics.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Development and External Validation of Survival Prediction Model for Pancreatic Cancer Using Two Nationwide Databases: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) and Korea Tumor Registry System-Biliary Pancreas (KOTUS-BP)
      Jae Seung Kang, Lydia Mok, Jin Seok Heo, In Woong Han, Sang Hyun Shin, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Ho-Seong Han, Dae Wook Hwang, Jae Hoon Lee, Woo Jung Lee, Sang Jae Park, Joon Seong Park, Yonghoon Kim, Huisong Lee, Young-Dong Yu, Jae Do Yang, Seung Eun Lee, Il Young
      Gut and Liver.2021; 15(6): 912.     CrossRef
    • Arterial Divestment and Resection in Post-neoadjuvant Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
      Yugal Limbu, Sujan Regmee, Roshan Ghimire, Dhiresh Kumar Maharjan, Prabin Bikram Thapa
      Cureus.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Recurrence patterns of pancreatic cancer after pancreatoduodenectomy: systematic review and a single-centre retrospective study
      Marit Kalisvaart, Damian Broadhurst, Francesca Marcon, Rupaly Pande, Andrea Schlegel, Robert Sutcliffe, Ravi Marudanayagam, Darius Mirza, Nikolaos Chatzizacharias, Manuel Abradelo, Paolo Muiesan, John Isaac, Yuk T. Ma, Christopher McConville, Keith Robert
      HPB.2020; 22(9): 1240.     CrossRef
    • Positive neck margin at frozen section analysis is a significant predictor of tumour recurrence and poor survival after pancreatodudenectomy for pancreatic cancer
      Stefano Crippa, Giovanni Guarneri, Giulio Belfiori, Stefano Partelli, Michele Pagnanelli, Giulia Gasparini, Gianpaolo Balzano, Marco Schiavo Lena, Corrado Rubini, Claudio Doglioni, Giuseppe Zamboni, Massimo Falconi
      European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2020; 46(8): 1524.     CrossRef
    • Resection or repair of large peripancreatic arteries during robotic pancreatectomy
      Emanuele F. Kauffmann, Niccolò Napoli, Concetta Cacace, Francesca Menonna, Fabio Vistoli, Gabriella Amorese, Ugo Boggi
      Updates in Surgery.2020; 72(1): 145.     CrossRef
    • In the Era of the Leeds Protocol: A Systematic Review and A Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Resection Margins on Survival Among Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Patients
      B. Kurlinkus, R. Ahola, E. Zwart, A. Halimi, B. S. Yilmaz, G. O. Ceyhan, J. Laukkarinen
      Scandinavian Journal of Surgery.2020; 109(1): 11.     CrossRef
    • Systematic Analysis of Accuracy in Predicting Complete Oncological Resection in Pancreatic Cancer Patients—Proposal of a New Simplified Borderline Resectability Definition
      Louisa Bolm, Katharina Mueller, Katharina May, Stefan Sondermann, Ekaterina Petrova, Hryhoriy Lapshyn, Kim Christin Honselmann, Dirk Bausch, Sergii Zemskov, Peter Bronsert, Tobias Keck, Steffen Deichmann, Ulrich F. Wellner
      Cancers.2020; 12(4): 882.     CrossRef
    • Survival of pancreatic cancer patients is negatively correlated with age at diagnosis: a population-based retrospective study
      Hongcheng Wang, Jiazhe Liu, Guanggai Xia, Shizhou Lei, Xiuyan Huang, Xinyu Huang
      Scientific Reports.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Circumferential resection margin (CRM) in pancreatic cancer
      Lena Häberle, Irene Esposito
      Surgery in Practice and Science.2020; 1: 100006.     CrossRef
    • Clinical impacts of resection margin status and clinicopathologic parameters on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
      Tsengelmaa Jamiyan, Takayuki Shiraki, Yoshihiro Kurata, Masanori Ichinose, Keiichi Kubota, Yasuo Imai
      World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Prognostic Implications of 18-FDG Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer
      Cosimo Sperti, Alberto Friziero, Simone Serafini, Sergio Bissoli, Alberto Ponzoni, Andrea Grego, Emanuele Grego, Lucia Moletta
      Journal of Clinical Medicine.2020; 9(7): 2169.     CrossRef
    • Multidisciplinary standards of care and recent progress in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
      Aaron J. Grossberg, Linda C. Chu, Christopher R. Deig, Eliot K. Fishman, William L. Hwang, Anirban Maitra, Daniel L. Marks, Arnav Mehta, Nima Nabavizadeh, Diane M. Simeone, Colin D. Weekes, Charles R. Thomas
      CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.2020; 70(5): 375.     CrossRef
    • Survival benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for positive or close resection margin after curative resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma
      Byoung Hyuck Kim, Kyubo Kim, Jin-Young Jang, Wooil Kwon, Hongbeom Kim, Kyung-Hun Lee, Do-Youn Oh, Haeryoung Kim, Kyung Bun Lee, Eui Kyu Chie
      European Journal of Surgical Oncology.2020; 46(11): 2122.     CrossRef
    • Pre‐operative diabetes mellitus does not worsen survival and post‐operative outcomes in Chinese patients undergoing resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma
      Adrian H. K. Yu, Albert C. Y. Chan
      Surgical Practice.2020; 24(4): 132.     CrossRef
    • Multiagent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and tumor response are associated with improved survival in pancreatic cancer
      Nathan M. Bolton, Adam H. Maerz, Russell E. Brown, Mona Bansal, John S. Bolton, William C. Conway
      HPB.2019; 21(4): 413.     CrossRef
    • The learning curve for a surgeon in robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study in a high-volume pancreatic center
      Tao Zhang, Zhi-Ming Zhao, Yuan-Xing Gao, Wan Yee Lau, Rong Liu
      Surgical Endoscopy.2019; 33(9): 2927.     CrossRef
    • Selecting chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer: Far away or so close?
      Si Shi, Xianjun Yu
      Seminars in Oncology.2019; 46(1): 39.     CrossRef
    • Adjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation is associated with improved survival for resected stage I‐II pancreatic cancer
      Sung Jun Ma, Gregory M. Hermann, Kavitha M. Prezzano, Lucas M. Serra, Austin J. Iovoli, Anurag K. Singh
      Cancer Medicine.2019; 8(3): 939.     CrossRef
    • Duktales Adenokarzinom des Pankreas
      E. Gallmeier, T. M. Gress
      Der Gastroenterologe.2019; 14(2): 131.     CrossRef
    • Management of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: From where to where?
      Kemal Dolay, Fatma Umit Malya, Sami Akbulut
      World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2019; 11(3): 143.     CrossRef
    • Defining and Predicting Early Recurrence in 957 Patients With Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
      Vincent P. Groot, Georgios Gemenetzis, Alex B. Blair, Roberto J. Rivero-Soto, Jun Yu, Ammar A. Javed, Richard A. Burkhart, Inne H. M. Borel Rinkes, I. Quintus Molenaar, John L. Cameron, Matthew J. Weiss, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Jin He
      Annals of Surgery.2019; 269(6): 1154.     CrossRef
    • A Prospective Clinical Trial to Determine the Effect of Intraoperative Ultrasound on Surgical Strategy and Resection Outcome in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer
      Babs G. Sibinga Mulder, Shirin Feshtali, Arantza Fariña Sarasqueta, Alexander L. Vahrmeijer, Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg, Bert A. Bonsing, J. Sven D. Mieog
      Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.2019; 45(8): 2019.     CrossRef
    • Microvascular invasion is a major prognostic factor after pancreatico‐duodenectomy for adenocarcinoma
      Fabrizio Panaro, Tarek Kellil, Julie Vendrell, Valentina Sega, Regis Souche, Tullio Piardi, Piera Leon, Christophe Cassinotto, Eric Assenat, Edoardo Rosso, Francis Navarro
      Journal of Surgical Oncology.2019; 120(3): 483.     CrossRef
    • Role of surgical resection in the era of FOLFIRINOX for advanced pancreatic cancer
      Yoonhyeong Byun, Youngmin Han, Jae Seung Kang, Yoo Jin Choi, Hongbeom Kim, Wooil Kwon, Sun‐Whe Kim, Do‐Youn Oh, Sang Hyub Lee, Ji Kon Ryu, Yong‐Tae Kim, Jin‐Young Jang
      Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences.2019; 26(9): 416.     CrossRef
    • Keratin 17 identifies the most lethal molecular subtype of pancreatic cancer
      Lucia Roa-Peña, Cindy V. Leiton, Sruthi Babu, Chun-Hao Pan, Elizabeth A. Vanner, Ali Akalin, Jela Bandovic, Richard A. Moffitt, Kenneth R. Shroyer, Luisa F. Escobar-Hoyos
      Scientific Reports.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Comment on “The Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Survival and Recurrence Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma”
      Niccolo Petrucciani, Laura Antolino, Giovanni Moschetta, Giovanni Ramacciato
      Annals of Surgery.2019; 270(6): e129.     CrossRef
    • Determining Optimal Routes to Surgery for Borderline Resectable Venous Pancreatic Cancer—Where Is the Least Harm and Most Benefit?
      Rupaly Pandé, Keith J. Roberts
      Frontiers in Oncology.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Duktales Adenokarzinom des Pankreas
      E. Gallmeier, T. M. Gress
      Der Internist.2018; 59(8): 805.     CrossRef
    • Adjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Chemoradiation for Patients with Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
      Do Young Kim, Young Jin Choi, Young Mi Seol, Hyojeong Kim
      The Korean Journal of Pancreas and Biliary Tract.2018; 23(3): 108.     CrossRef
    • Pancreatic cancer: A review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes
      Andrew McGuigan, Paul Kelly, Richard C Turkington, Claire Jones, Helen G Coleman, R Stephen McCain
      World Journal of Gastroenterology.2018; 24(43): 4846.     CrossRef
    • Combined hepatic arterial resection in pancreatic resections for locally advanced pancreatic cancer
      Masaru Miyazaki, Hideyuki Yoshitomi, Shigetsugu Takano, Hiroaki Shimizu, Atsushi Kato, Hiroyuki Yoshidome, Katunori Furukawa, Tsukasa Takayashiki, Satoshi Kuboki, Daisuke Suzuki, Nozomu Sakai, Masayuki Ohtuka
      Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2017; 402(3): 447.     CrossRef
    • The TRIANGLE operation – radical surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer: a single arm observational study
      Thilo Hackert, Oliver Strobel, Christoph W. Michalski, André L. Mihaljevic, Arianeb Mehrabi, Beat Müller-Stich, Christoph Berchtold, Alexis Ulrich, Markus W. Büchler
      HPB.2017; 19(11): 1001.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Impact of Resection Margin Distance on Survival of Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
      Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49(3):824-833.   Published online August 26, 2016
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Impact of Resection Margin Distance on Survival of Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Image Image Image
    Fig. 1. Study selection process.
    Fig. 2. Forest plot for HR of the R>1 mm and R0-1 mm margin (A) or R0-1 mm and R0 mm margin (B). R0 mm, involved margin; R0-1 mm, margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm; R>1 mm, margin with > 1 mm; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
    Fig. 3. Funnel plot of the included studies regarding R>1 mm and R0-1 mm margin (A) or R0-1 mm and R0 mm margin (B).
    Impact of Resection Margin Distance on Survival of Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Study Institution Study period No. (%)
    Surgical treatment T stage N+ (%) Adjuvant treatment
    R0 mm R0-1 mm R>1 mm
    Campbell et al. (2009) [16] Liverpool (UK) 1997-2007 71 (43.6) 57 (35.0) 35 (21.5) PPPD (90.2%), whipple (9.8%) T3/4 (85.3%) 78.5 NA
    Chang et al. (2009) [23] Sydney (Australia) 1990-2007 132 (36.2) 56 (15.3) 177 (48.5) Whipple (80.8%), left side pancreatectomy (19.2%) > 2 cm (77.0%) 59.5 Adjuvant CTx (26.3%), RT (5.8%)
    Janot et al. (2012) [24] Bochum (Germany) 2007-2009 5 (8.1) 12 (19.4) 45 (72.6) Whipple (11.3%), PPPD (69.3%), TP (19.4%) T3/4 (91.9%), > 2.5 cm (66.1%) 79.0 NA
    Thomay et al. (2012) [25] Philadelphia (USA) 1991-2011 108 (36.4) 54 (18.2) 135 (45.5) PD (100%) NA NA Neoadjuvant CRT (34%)
    Jamieson et al. (2013) [17] Glasgow (UK) 1996-2011 111 (51.2) 46 (21.2) 60 (27.6) PD (100%) T3/4 (90.3%), > 3 cm (50.7%) 80.2 Adjuvant therapy (47.0%), neoadjuvant CTx (0.9%)
    Sugiura et al. (2013) [26] Sizuoka (Japan) 2002-2010 34 (16.3) 40 (19.2) 134 (64.4) PD (78.8%), DP (20.2%), TP (1.0%) > 3 cm (47.1%) 69.2 Adjuvant CTx (84.6%), RT (11.5%)
    Konstantinidis et al. (2013) [27] MGH (USA) 1993-2001 157 (31.7) 169 (34.1) 170 (34.3) PD (83.1%), DP (15.3%), TP (1.4%) T3/4 (88.5%) 70.0 NA
    Hashimoto et al. (2013) [28] Wakayama (Japan) 2002-2012 30 (24.2) 38 (30.6) 56 (45.2) PD (100%) NA NA NA
    Study Protocol Evaluated margin
    Campbell et al. (2009) [16] RCP [20] Pancreatic transection margin
    Medial (or superior mesenteric vessel) margin
    Posterior margin
    Proximal duodenal (or gastric) margin
    Distal duodenal margin
    Common bile duct margin
    Chang et al. (2009) [23] Institutional Pancreatic neck margin
    Portal vein/superior mesenteric vein margin
    Superior mesenteric artery/retroperitoneal (uncinate) margin
    Bile duct margin
    Proximal gastric/duodenal margin
    Distal duodenal margin
    Janot et al. (2012) [24] Modified LEEPP [14] Anterior margin
    Posterior margin (uncinate process)
    Superior mesenteric vein groove circumferential resection margin
    Transection margin (pancreatic neck, bile duct, and duodenum margin)
    Thomay et al. (2012) [25] NA NA
    Jamieson et al. (2013) [17] RCP [20,31] Posterior margin
    Anterior margin
    Medial margin
    Pancreatic transection margin
    Sugiura et al. (2013) [26] Japan Pancreas Society [30] Pancreatic transection margin
    Superior mesenteric artery margin
    Posterior margin
    Proximal bile duct margin
    Konstantinidis et al. (2013) [27] Staley et al. [29] Common bile duct margin
    Pancreatic transection (neck) margin
    Posterior/retroperitoneal margin
    Uncinate (superior mesenteric artery) margin
    Hashimoto et al. (2013) [28] NA NA
    Study Selection
    Performance
    Detection
    Attrition
    Reporting
    Selection of participants Confounding variables Measurement of exposure Blinding of outcome assessments Incomplete outcome data Selective outcome reporting
    Campbell et al. (2009) [16] Low Low Low Low Unclear Low
    Chang et al. (2009) [23] Low Low Low Low Low Low
    Janot et al. (2012) [24] Low Low Low Low Unclear Low
    Thomay et al. (2012) [25] Low High Low Low Unclear Unclear
    Jamieson et al. (2013) [17] Low Low Low Low Low Low
    Sugiura et al. (2013) [26] Low Low Low Low Unclear Low
    Konstantinidis et al. (2013) [27] Low High Low Low Unclear Low
    Hashimoto et al. (2013) [28] Low High Low Low Unclear Unclear
    Table 1. Characteristics of included studies

    R0 mm, involved margin; R0-1 mm, margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm; R>1 mm, margin with > 1 mm; PPPD, pylorus preserving pancreaticocduodenectomy; NA, not applicable; CTx, chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; TP, total pancreatectomy; PD, pancreaticoduodenectomy; CRT, chemoradiation; DP, distal pancreatectomy.

    Table 2. Pathologic examination protocol

    RCP, Royal College of Pathologist; LEEPP, Leeds Pathology Protocol; NA, not applicable.

    Table 3. A summary of risk of bias assessment using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS)


    Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment
    Close layer
    TOP