Review Open Access
Copyright ©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2012; 18(24): 3058-3069
Published online Jun 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3058
Ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head: A focus on current diagnostic and surgical concepts
Mehdi Ouaïssi, Guillaume Louis, Igor Sielezneff, Bernard Sastre, Centre for Research in Oncology and Oncopharmacologie, Aix Marseille University, 13005 Marseille, France
Mehdi Ouaïssi, Igor Sielezneff, Bernard Sastre, Department of Oncologic and Digestive Surgery, Timone Hospital, 13385 Marseille, France
Urs Giger, Department of Surgery, Marienhospital Herne, Ruhr University Bochum, 44625 Herne, Germany
Guillaume Louis, Department of Radiology, Timone Hospital, 13385 Marseille, France
Olivier Farges, Department of Hepato-Biliary Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, 92110 Clichy, France
Author contributions: Ouaïssi M and Giger U contributed equally to this paper; Ouaïssi M and Giger U designed and conceived the study and participated in analysis and interpretation; they drafted the manuscript, participated in administrative, technical and material support; Ouaïssi M and Louis G acquired data; Sielezneff I, Sastre B and Farges O contributed to supervision and critical review of the manuscript.
Correspondence to: Mehdi Ouaïssi, MD, PhD, Department of Oncologic and Digestive Surgery, Timone Hospital, 264 rue Saint-Pierre,13385 Marseille, France. mehdi.ouaissi@mail;ap-hm.fr
Telephone: +33-491-385852 Fax: +33-491-385552
Received: July 7, 2011
Revised: December 13, 2011
Accepted: April 28, 2012
Published online: June 28, 2012

Abstract

Complete surgical resection still remains the only possibility of curing pancreatic cancer, however, only 10% of patients undergo curative surgery. Pancreatic resection currently remains the only method of curing patients, and has a 5-year overall survival rate between 7%-34% compared to a median survival of 3-11 mo for unresected cancer. Pancreatic surgery is a technically demanding procedure requiring highly standardized surgical techniques. Nevertheless, even in experienced hands, perioperative morbidity rates (delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula etc.) are as high as 50%. Different strategies to reduce postoperative morbidity, such as different techniques of gastroenteric reconstruction (pancreatico-jejunostomy vs pancreatico-gastrostomy), intraoperative placement of a pancreatic main duct stent or temporary sealing of the main pancreatic duct with fibrin glue have not led to a significant improvement in clinical outcome. The perioperative application of somatostatin or its analogues may decrease the incidence of pancreatic fistulas in cases with soft pancreatic tissue and a small main pancreatic duct (< 3 mm). The positive effects of external pancreatic main duct drainage and antecolic gastrointestinal reconstruction have been observed to decrease the rate of pancreatic fistulas and delayed gastric emptying, respectively. Currently, the concept of extended radical lymphadenectomy has been found to be associated with higher perioperative morbidity, but without any positive impact on overall survival. However, there is growing evidence that portal vein resections can be performed with acceptable low perioperative morbidity and mortality but does not achieve a cure.

Key Words: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Pancreatic fistula, Pancreatic surgery, Venous resection



INTRODUCTION

Since many aspects of the pathogenesis and optimal management of ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma (DPAC) remain unclear, this tumor entity continues to be the fourth leading cause of cancer related death in the Western world[1]. Even with the widespread use and refinements of diagnostic tools (e.g., contrast-enhanced transabdominal ultrasound (US), thin-sliced contrast-enhanced helical computer tomography (CT), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET-CT), transduodenal ultrasound and fine-needle biopsy (FNB), early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer remains rare, since most patients (about 80% to 90%) at the time of diagnosis are found to have locally or even systemically advanced disease. Therefore, only 10% of patients with DPAC can undergo curative resection, which remains the only possibility of achieving long-term survival. Unfortunately, only 20% of resected patients remain free of any tumor recurrence five years postoperatively[2]. A national survey in France showed a relevant decrease in postoperative mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for DPAC from 11% to 3.3% between 1991 and 2010[3,4]. During the same period of observation, the overall survival of resected patients increased from 11% five years postoperatively to 25% after resection[3-5]. To date, there is insufficient solid data available regarding the exact role of neoadjuvant therapies, however, in the case of locally advanced disease, neoadjuvant chemo/radio-therapy has been reported to increase the number of patients who undergo curative surgery[6]. This review focuses on the clinical value of preoperative diagnostic and interventional techniques, results of different types of pancreatic head resection, the role of extended radical lymphadenectomy, vascular resections and perioperative medical and surgical approaches to decrease perioperative morbidity.

DIAGNOSIS AND PREOPERATIVE STAGING
Transabdominal US and contrast-enhanced US

The clinical finding of painless jaundice in an appropriately aged patient (fifth to sixth decade of life), must be considered pancreatic cancer until proven otherwise. Transabdominal US is rapid, non-invasive and inexpensive and is usually the first step in radiological evaluation. The sensitivity of US in diagnosing pancreatic cancer has a wide reported range. As a direct radiological sign, a hypoechogenic lesion can be visualized in about 55%-90% of patients[7-9]. Major limitations of US are the detection of small tumors (< 2 cm of diameter), lesions that are mainly located in the left side of the pancreatic gland, multifocal pancreatic lesions and obesity as the latter is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer[10]. Indirect radiological signs of pancreatic cancer such as dilatation of the main pancreatic duct (> 2 mm in combination with upstream areas of atrophied pancreatic gland), biliary tree, pseudocystic lesions, peripancreatic lymphadenopathy, ascites, pleural effusion and metastatic tumor deposits to the liver should strongly suggest pancreatic cancer. The great operator dependability of US with its above-mentioned diagnostic limitations has recently led to the introduction of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). In a very recently published multicenter study, CEUS was reported to diagnose DPAC with an accuracy of 87% in patients with an already visualized pancreatic mass by conventional US[11]. Such findings were also confirmed by other groups[12,13]. Although some experts in the field of CEUS propose its use as an additional work-up examination for pancreatic pathologies, CEUS is currently not considered a diagnostic standard.

Thin-sliced, intravenous contrast-enhanced CT

Thin-sliced, intravenous contrast-enhanced computer tomography (CECT) has become the imaging modality of choice to evaluate patients with pancreatic cancer. The overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT has been reported to be around 90% in experienced centers[14-18]. CECT with timed sequences to capture arterial and venous phases is able to demonstrate a hypodense pancreatic tumoral lesion in 80% to 95% of cases[14-16,19] (Figure 1). Dilatation of the biliary tree or the main pancreatic duct can be found in 86% and 88% of cases, respectively (Figure 1). Tumoral obstruction of the main pancreatic duct with upstream atrophy of the pancreatic parenchyma or pseudocystic lesions are present in 82% and 10% of patients[14,20] (Figure 1). The finding of a tumor that surrounds the entire circumference of a vessel is generally recognized as unresectable tumor encasement[14,21]. CECT criteria have been developed to indicate the probability of vascular involvement based on the relationship of tumor to adjacent vessels. A prospective case series by Lu et al[22] introduced a new classification based on tumor involvement of the portal and superior mesenteric veins and the celiac, hepatic and superior mesenteric arteries which was graded on a scale 0-4 scale based on circumferential contiguity of tumor to vessel by CECT (Grade 0, no contiguity of tumor to vessel; Grade 1, tumor contiguous to less than one quarter circumference; Grade 2, between one-quarter and one-half circumference; Grade 3, between one-half and three-quarters circumference; and Grade 4, greater than three-quarters circumferential involvement or any vessel constriction). A cut-off between Grade 2 and Grade 3 showed the lowest number of false-negatives and an acceptable number of false-positives for unresectability. Furthermore, such a cut-off level was reported to have a sensitivity of 84%, a specificity of 98%, a positive predictive value of 95%, and a negative predictive value of 93% for unresectability of the vessels[22]. In general, typical reports in the literature regarding the accuracy of CECT using the classification by Lu for predicting vascular invasion range from 62% to 92% with a somewhat higher sensitivity for arterial infiltration[17,23] (Figure 2). Positive overall predictive values for local surgical unresectability have been reported to be excellent (89% and 100%)[14,15,19,21]. CECT has a reported sensitivity of 75%-87% in diagnosing liver metastases[24,25]. In many cases, hepatic metastatic lesions missed by CECT are small, but originate from an already larger pancreatic tumor (> 3 cm)[26-28] and are therefore retrospectively not unexpected. The identification of lymphatic nodal involvement and peritoneal disease is difficult with all currently available imaging modalities. On cross-sectional imaging, size (> 1 cm) is the criterion for identifying nodal metastases, and therefore the accuracy of CECT remains limited at 54%[17].

Figure 1
Figure 1 Ductal dilation, computer tomography 3-phase contrast-enhanced thin-slice helical scan. A: Heterogenous tumor of the pancreatic head with consecutive extra- and intrahepatic bile duct dilatation (arrow); B: “Double duct sign” due to a tumor of the papilla of vater (arrow); C: Tumor of the pancreatic neck with an upstream dilatation of the pancreatic duct and parenchymal atrophy of the pancreatic gland. Presence of a cavernoma due to tumor thrombosis of the portal vein (arrow); D: Classic radiological presentation of a pancreatic neck tumor with a less pronounced enhancement compared to the normal pancreatic parenchyma (arrow).
Figure 2
Figure 2 Vascular tumor extension, computer tomography 3-phase contrast-enhanced thin-slice helical scan, sagittal section and 3D reconstruction. A, B: Sheathing and thrombosis of the celiac trunk (asterisk) and superior mesenteric artery (arrow) with collateral blood flow via the inferior mesenteric vessels; C: Tumor of the pancreas (arrow) in contact with the superior mesenteric artery and infiltration of the portal vein; D: Tumor sheathing or the origin of the superior mesenteric artery (arrow) with irregularities as a sign of arterial invasion.
MRI, MRI-cholangiopancreaticography

To diagnose and stage pancreatic cancer, the systematic use of MRI is still questioned by many clinicians. However, MRI has been found to offer several benefits in imaging the pancreatic gland. It inherently offers better soft-tissue contrast than CECT before the administration of an i.v. contrast agent, and images can be obtained in multiple planes. MRI can be performed in patients with a history of allergy to iodinated contrast agents and in those with renal insufficiency. Today, MRI has been shown to have high diagnostic value in cases where a clear diagnosis remains unclear even after CECT has been performed. Such a situation is mostly found in cases with a suspected tumor of the pancreatic head which is isodense on CECT and/or small lesions (< 2 cm). In such situations, MRI is superior to CECT at detecting or excluding a pancreatic tumor. The greatest advantage of MRI is found in patients in whom CECT demonstrates enlargement of the pancreatic head without clear definition of a pancreatic tumor. The overall sensitivity and specificity of MRI in diagnosing pancreatic cancer has currently been reported to be around 90% and 80%, respectively[29]. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a special type of MRI exam that produces detailed images of the hepatobiliary and pancreatic systems, including the liver, gallbladder, bile ducts, pancreas and pancreatic duct. Additionally, MRCP has a clear advantage over ERCP in detecting pancreatic carcinoma since MRCP prevents inappropriate explorations of the pancreatic and common bile duct[30]. MRCP is a reliable and reproducible method of evaluating intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), particularly in patients being followed non-operatively or in those who require surveillance of the pancreatic remnant after PD[31]. In a study comparing MRI with CECT, MRI had an accuracy of 93.5% for the detection of liver metastases compared with 87% for CECT[25]. However, a recently published meta-analysis showed equal overall capabilities of MRI and CECT to diagnose and stage pancreatic cancer[32-34]. Even the evaluation of vascular tumor infiltration can be evaluated by CECT or MRI with equal results[35]. MRI has lower diagnostic power to detect peritoneal carcinomatosis and/or local lymphadenopathy compared to CECT. MRI also has the potential to assess fat content which may be helpful in assessing the risk of pancreatic fistula (PF) following resection[36] (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Figure 3 Magnetic resonance imaging appearance. A: T1 sequence showing an adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with a hypo-intense signal (arrow), whereas normal pancreatic tissue appears hyper-intense; B: T1 sequence with fat saturation injection: after injection of gadolinium, the pancreatic adenocarcinoma is hypo-enhanced (arrow) compared to the healthy parenchyma; C: A sequence of diffusion: hyper-intensity (arrow) signal due to the hyper-cellularity of the tumor; D: Sequence 3D-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: stenosis of the main pancreatic duct (arrow) with upstream dilatation due to a tumor of the pancreatic isthmus.
Endoscopic US

When endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was introduced, initial reports indicated a sensitivity higher than 90% for the identification of pancreatic tumors[9]. The superiority of EUS over classical CT was most evident for pancreatic lesions smaller than 3 cm in diameter. Therefore, EUS was considered the gold standard for diagnosing and staging pancreatic cancer. However, with the introduction of thin-sliced, intravenous CECT, the sensitivity and specificity of CECT for lesions smaller than 2 cm in diameter were reported to be as high as 77% and 100%, respectively[37]. Currently, EUS and CECT are considered to be equal in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. However, EUS is still reported to be superior in assessing local tumor extension in the case of periampullary cancer compared to CECT and MRI (EUS: 78%, CECT: 24%, MRI: 46%)[38], however, due to the limited penetration depth of EUS, it is clearly inferior in detecting liver metastasis. In the case of suspected vascular infiltration (loss of interface between the tumor and the vessel wall; a tumor within the vessel lumen; collateral circulation; irregular vessel wall), sensitivity (85%-100%) and accuracy (55%-90%)[39] for EUS are reported to be equivocal compared to CECT/MRI. However, since these signs for vascular involvement are mainly indirect signs, these findings need careful interpretation, especially in pancreatitis, IPMN or after biliary drainage (BD), not to exclude potentially resectable patients from curative surgery. Nowadays, EUS is used more selectively, mainly in cases of small pancreatic head tumors (< 2 cm), in which CECT and MRI findings remain equivocal. Furthermore, patients with locally unresectable or already distant metastatic disease, EUS guided transduodenal FNB is mandatory for diagnostic purposes before the initiation of neoadjuvant or palliative treatment.

18-F FDG PET-CT

18-F FDG PET-CT is mainly used in cases of preoperatively suspected distant metastatic disease or to investigate the response to neoadjuvant treatment. Currently, PET-CT is not considered a preoperative diagnostic standard and its routine use is only reported by some centers. Moreover, some studies found a comparable reliability rate of CECT and PET-CT in detecting distant metastasis[40-42]. Nevertheless, the preoperative routine use of PET-CT was found to change the management in 16% of patients who were deemed resectable based on standard staging examinations and was reported to be cost saving[43]. More recently, contrast-enhanced PET-CT has been shown to be a highly accurate staging tool as a 1-stop-shop procedure[43]. It is very likely that the use of this strategy will increase in the near future.

Preoperative FNB

Preoperative FNB is only required in cases of locally unresectable or already distant metastatic disease before non-surgical treatment (e.g., radio- and/or chemotherapy) is planned. Furthermore, FNB is required if there is any doubt about the underlying disease. If a FNB is planned, this should, whenever possible, be performed by the endoscopic route (transgastric/transduodenal) under endosonographic guidance with multiple biopsies taken to improve the diagnostic sensitivity (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of preoperative evaluation of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Painless jaundice in an appropriately aged patient is highly suspicious for pancreatic cancer
Contrast-enhanced computer tomography is the diagnostic standard
High overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity
Highly accurate in determining local respectability
Less adequate in identifying small hepatic metastases, extent of local lymphadenopathy and peritoneal tumor deposits
Magnetic resonance imaging gives additional information on small isodense or atypical pancreatic lesions
More accurate than contrast-enhanced computer tomography in detecting smaller hepatic metastases
Enhanced ultrasonography/fine-needle biopsy are reserved for the work-up of small lesions (< 2 cm), or in cases where a fine-needle biopsy is required before palliative or neoadjuvant therapy is initiated
PERIOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
Preoperative biliary drainage

In a recently published meta-analysis by the Cochrane Library, a statistically significant increased number of perioperative infectious complications, increased length of hospital stay, and higher overall hospital costs were reported in patients who had undergone preoperative BD[44]. These findings were confirmed in a prospective, randomized multicenter study. In addition, a significant increased risk of sustaining severe perioperative infectious complications (39% vs 74%) and a greater number of patients requiring hospital readmission (12% vs 33%) were also observed in drained patients[45]. As a relative indication for BD, in selected cases, patients suffering from severe malnutrition might benefit from BD and delayed surgery. Infection of the biliary tree is constantly (sub- or clinically) present after any drainage procedure of the biliary tree[46-48], and a peri-interventional antibiotic treatment is justified in all cases. Treatment with amoxicillin and clavulanic acid has been shown to be more efficient in decreasing septic complications than the use of second generation cephalosporins[4] (Table 2).

Table 2 Indications for preoperative biliary drainage.
Total bilirubin > 250 mmol/L
Acute cholangitis
Severe malnutrition and delayed surgery scheduled (relative indication)
Patients who require neo-adjuvant chemotherapy
Perioperative antibiotic treatment with penicillin in cases with evident infection of the biliary tree and in all patients undergoing biliary drainage
Perioperative supportive medical care «fast-track surgery» was not only applied for colorectal surgery

The concept of fast-track surgery is nowadays widely accepted by clinicians and has been shown to significantly enhance recovery leading to decreased hospital stay with a reduction in medical morbidity, but unaltered surgery-specific morbidity in a variety of procedures[49]. However, most data on fast-track surgery were generated by analyzing patients who underwent colorectal surgery - fewer data are available on pancreatic surgery. Nevertheless, fast-track surgery in patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery has been shown to be feasible and safe with a low readmission rate (3.5%-6.2%), in-hospital postoperative mortality (2%) and morbidity rates (35%), associated with improvements in delayed gastric emptying, earlier hospital discharge (10 d), but without compromising patient outcome[50,51]. Therefore, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery should not be excluded from the general principles of enhanced perioperative recovery programs.

INTRAOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
Prevention of PF

The most frequent complication after pancreatic surgery is PF. The incidence of this complication varies widely between 5% and 30% depending on the different reported series[52]. However, this wide reported range is mainly based on the fact that there was, until recently, no uniform definition available for this complication. More recently, a uniform definition on the presence and severity of postoperative PF has been proposed by the International Study Group on PF. A PF is a drain output of any measurable volume of fluid on or after postoperative day 3 with an amylase content greater than 3 times the serum amylase activity. The severity of PF is graded as follows: Grade A: PF managed medically; Grade B: PF requires endoscopic or radiological intervention; Grade C: reoperation[52]. In the case of a Grade C fistula, an increased mortality of 40% was found in a recently published French multicenter study of more than 680 consecutive patients[53]. Friable pancreatic tissue, a main pancreatic duct (Wirsung) smaller than 3 mm in diameter and low volume pancreatic surgeons are reported to be risk factors for the development of PF[54]. To decrease the incidence of PF, several different technical and medical strategies have been proposed: (1) internal or external perioperative drainage of the main pancreatic duct; (2) temporary fibrin glue sealing (TFGS) of the main pancreatic duct; (3) the perioperative systematic use of somatostatin or its analogues; and (4) the role of different types of pancreatic-enteric reconstruction [pancreatico-jejunostomy (PJ) vs pancreatico-gastrostomy (PG)] (Table 3).

Table 3 Prevention of pancreatic fistula.
There is currently no favored pancreatico-digestive anastomotic technique with regard to decreased pancreatic fistula rates
The routine use of octreotide can only be recommended in the case of:
Friable pancreatic tissue
Small diameter of the main pancreatic duct (< 3 mm)
Trans-anastomotic, percutaneously placed drainage of the main pancreatic duct decreases the risk of pancreatic fistula formation
Drainage of the main pancreatic duct (Wirsung)

A prospective randomized trial from the Johns Hopkins University failed to demonstrate any benefit of an intraoperatively placed internal main pancreatic duct stent regarding the incidence and/or severity of PFs[55]. In contrast, external drainage of the main pancreatic duct, especially in the case of soft or friable pancreatic parenchyma, significantly reduced the number of perioperative PFs. In a prospective, randomized trial, the effect of external pancreatic main duct drainage during duodenopancreatectomy was found to be associated with a significantly lower incidence of PFs (6.8% vs 29.3%; P < 0.007) compared to the group of patients without drainage[56]. This finding has been further supported by a prospective, randomized study which not only showed a significantly lower incidence of PFs (20% vs 6.7%; P = 0.032) but also a decreased length of hospital stay (23 d vs 17 d; P = 0.039) for the drained group[57]. Analogue findings were also reported in a recently published French multicenter study[58].

TFGS of the main pancreatic duct

Several studies have investigated the possible value of TFGS of the main pancreatic duct to decrease the number and/or severity of clinically evident PFs. One in particular is a multicenter study of patients who underwent pancreatic resection with the formation of a pancreatico-jejunal anastomosis. Patients in group 1 (n = 80) received TFGS, and the control group 2 (n = 102) underwent standard PJ without fibrin glue sealing. The incidence of PF was found to be equal in the two groups (17% vs 15%) with no significant difference in the incidence of intra-abdominal septic complications (15% vs 24%) and postoperative mortality (9% vs 6%)[59]. Based on the currently available data in the medical literature, TFGS does not decrease the incidence or the severity of PF, therefore, can not be recommended in daily routine practice.

Routine post-operative administration of somatostatin or its analogues

The systematic application of somatostatin or its analogues, which are known to decrease the secretory capacity of the endo- and exocrine pancreatic gland, has been assumed to have a protective effect against the formation and/or severity of PF.

If somatostatin or its analogues are used, they should be started before surgery[60]. In a meta-analysis of seven studies including a total of 1359 patients having undergone pancreatic surgery, the perioperative application of somatostatin or its analogues was found to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of PF after elective pancreatic surgery. However, this risk reduction was not associated with a significant difference in postoperative mortality. Another meta-analysis of 1918 patients found that somatostatin or its analogues did not reduce mortality after pancreatic surgery, but reduced overall morbidity as well as the incidence of biochemical fistula but not that of clinical anastomotic disruption[61]. However, there are also data showing that the routine use of somatostatin or its analogues is not beneficial in all patients and should be limited to certain situations with an increased risk for PF formation such as: low volume pancreas centers with a high PF rate > 10%, a small main pancreatic duct (< 3 mm) and a friable pancreatic gland[62,63].

PJ vs PG

There is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal pancreatico-enteric reconstruction technique after PD. When comparing PJ with PG, several clinical trials reported a decreased incidence of PFs after PG[64-66]. In contrast to these data, three prospective randomized trials comparing PJ and PG found equal outcomes for both techniques[67-69]. In a meta-analysis published in 2007 by Wente et al[70], no difference was found between PJ and PG by analyzing prospective randomized trials, whereas observational clinical studies favored the use of PG with a reduced incidence of PF and postoperative mortality rates. The authors concluded, that there was a possible risk of publication bias in observational clinical trials and all randomized controlled trials failed to show an advantage of a specific type of reconstruction. Therefore, PG and PJ can be considered to be equally safe[70]. Theoretically, PG might lead to decreased activity of pancreatic enzymes due to inactivation by gastric acid which would result in an increased incidence of postoperative exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. However, this issue was refuted in a study by Lemaire et al[71] who found no difference in pancreatic exocrine insufficiency between PG and PJ.

Pylorus preserving PD or classic Kausch-Whipple

Proponents of pylorus preservation argue that the gastro-duodenal physiology is better maintained and therefore, especially postoperative quality of life, is superior to the classic Kausch-Whipple (CKW) technique. In contrast, proponents of the CKW technique state that preservation of the pylorus does not follow the rules of radical tumor surgery with inadequate clearance of lymphatic nodes, inadequate tumor staging, and increased risk of tumor recurrence and impaired overall survival. In the most recently published meta-analysis by Fitzmaurice et al[72], 43 studies [6 randomized controlled trials, 12 prospective studies and 25 retrospectives studies; pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD): n = 1870; CKW: n = 1923] were analyzed. To investigate the postoperative overall survival, a total of 26 studies with only surgery for pancreatic cancer patients were analyzed. The overall postoperative survival was found to be equal following PPPD and CKW. However, by only analyzing those studies of higher scientific quality, a significantly longer overall survival was found in patients who had undergone PPPD.

Thirty-three studies were eligible for analyzing postoperative mortality. The authors reported no significant difference between the two procedures. As far as the quality of life is concerned, the studies are difficult to compare since a large variety of different quality of life scores (if used at all) and parameters were used[72]. Another recently published meta-analysis has shown that PPPD reduced the operation time and reduced blood loss[73,74]. Therefore, the CKW operation should only be performed in situations where tumor spread towards the stomach cannot be ruled out or when lymph node metastases are suspected. Irrespective of whether PPPD or CKW is performed, antecolic reconstruction is preferred to decrease the incidence of postoperative delayed gastric emptying[75].

Is there a role for routine intra-peritoneal drainage?

The theoretical advantage of routine intraoperatively placed abdominal drainage is to drain the pancreatic juice in the case of PF formation which avoids the negative sequelae of free pancreatic juice in the abdominal cavity. The concept of the routine use of intra-peritoneal drainage (IPD) is still in the mind of many surgeons. In contrast to such paradigms, Conlon et al[76] found in their prospective, randomized study of patients having undergone pancreatic resections that the routine use of a closed IPD resulted in a higher number of patients suffering from local septic complications and an increased rate of PFs (22% vs 9%, P < 0.02). In another recently published trial, short-term abdominal drainage (< 3 d) in patients with a low risk of PF formation did not show any benefit in the routine use of an IPD. To date, there is a lack of evidence for the routine use of IPD in pancreatic surgery[77].

LYMPH NODE DISSECTION AND PATHOLOGICAL WORK-UP
Radicality of pancreatic resection

A strict surgical technique and a high quality pathological work-up of the surgical specimen are of utmost importance. To improve the number of R0 resections, transsection of the main bile duct is performed just below the biliary confluence in a monobloc technique including the gallbladder - preparation is carried out in close contact with the right border of the superior mesenteric artery to achieve maximum retroperitoneal tumor clearance. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of the resection margins is mandatory - especially, as the pancreatic resection margin shows microscopic tumor infiltration in 10%-20% of cases[78].

Lymphadenectomy during pylorus PPPD/CKW

As for any other cancer type, the lymph node status is of major clinical and prognostic value. However, some controversies remain regarding how these should be reported (total number or lymph node ratio) and on the impact of an extended lymphatic clearance. Standard lymphadenectomy for PPPD/CKW includes the lymph nodes of the hepato-duodenal ligament, along the common hepatic artery, portal vein, cranial portion of the superior mesenteric vein as well as the right border along the superior mesenteric artery and celiac trunk. Extended lymphadenectomy includes in addition to the lymphatic reservoir of the interaortocaval space, the left-side of the celiac trunk as well as the left side along the superior mesenteric artery. In a study of 517 pancreatic cancer patients, no prognostic difference was found between peripancreatic lymph node metastases and second level lymphatic nodes N2 (along the common hepatic artery, portal vein, cranial portion of the superior mesenteric vein as well as the right border along the mesenteric superior artery and celiac trunk). Furthermore, in patients with one positive lymph node metastasis (N1), overall survival was similar to nodal negative (N0) patients. A poorer prognosis was reported with two or more positive lymphatic nodes (> N1), irrespective of the total number of affected lymph nodes[79]. The lymph node ratio has been introduced to characterize lymphatic tumor load and to create a prognostic parameter independent of the rough estimation N0 vs N1 or the overall number of affected lymph nodes[80,81]. There is still some debate about the exact cut-off level of the lymph node ratio which indicates poorer survival. In a study of 4000 patients, a cut-off of 0.2 was reported as a strong predictor of poor survival[82]. Currently, a minimum of 10-12 lymph nodes need to be cleared during PPPD/CKW[83]. The para-aortic lymph nodes are generally considered as metastatic disease (M1). However, some confusion exists whether clearance of these nodes improves survival. In a review by Glanemann et al[84], patients with para-aortal positive lymph nodes showed a poor survival. The authors concluded that such patients should not undergo resection. The role of extended lymph node dissection has been extensively investigated. No benefit was found for this approach[85,86]. Since extended lymphadenectomy increases perioperative morbidity and impairs quality of life, this procedure should not be performed routinely.

Resection margins

Surgical resection margin is a major prognostic factor. Any incomplete resection (R1) must be considered as palliative[87,88]. However, there are also data on long-term survival after R1 resections[88,89]. A possible explanation for such conflicting data is most likely due to the heterogeneity between the study populations and different pathological work-up standards of the surgical specimens. Indeed, the number of patients with a positive resection margin was found to be between 14% and 85%[90,91]. In fact, a standardized examination of the resected specimens showed intraoperative coloration of the retroperitoneal resection margin using India ink and in a higher number of paraffin-embedded thin-sliced sections. With this technique, more than two-thirds of patients were found to be R1 resected in the retroperitoneal margin[91]. The incidence of R1 resections was correlated with the number of thin-sliced sections performed[90]. A retroperitoneal margin of 1.5 mm was classified as a R0 resection. This, however, is unfortunately rarely achievable[92].

Management of vascular infiltration

Major arterial resection such as the superior mesenteric artery is technically feasible, major arterial resection during duodenopancreatectomy is currently not established and there are insufficient data to perform such a procedure[4]. In contrast, venous involvement is not a contraindication for excluding patients from undergoing curative surgery. Venous resection, partial or even circumferential with an adequate technique of reconstruction is associated with a survival similar to those groups of patients having undergone PD for adenocarcinoma[89]. However, if the tumoral infiltration of the portal vein is 50% or more of the vascular circumference, survival rates of such patients undergoing duodenopancreatectomy and venous resection are inferior compared to patients having undergone duodenopancreatectomy alone[93]. Unfortunately, the exact extent of venous tumoral infiltration is difficult to estimate preoperatively, and the definitive extent of vascular infiltration is only made by pathological examination of the resected specimen[89,94-97]. However, the impact of portal vein resection during PD remains unclear. The number of patients who undergo a R1 resection varies between 38% and 59%[97-101]. In a recently published review of 1600 patients having undergone pancreatic resection in combination with venous resection, the number of patients who finally had a R1 resection was 40%[102]. Several series have reported a similar survival after PD with or without venous resection[97,98,99-101]. In a review of 1646 patients having undergone portal/superior mesenteric vein resection, the long-term survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years was 50%, 16% and 7%, respectively[102]. Since PD and mesenteric or portal vein resection have the same reported morbidity and mortality as patients who have undergone PD without vascular resection, and the tumor involvement of such venous structures is a consequence of the tumor location rather than a reflection of highly aggressive tumoral behavior, venous resection during duodenopancreatectomy has become a standard procedure. However, vascular infiltration has been reported as a risk factor for local tumor recurrence[97]. In addition, the results remain disappointing since the reported median survival after duodenopancreatectomy and venous resection was only 13 mo[4,102] with a high number of patients (40%) not free of tumor (R1)[89] (Table 4).

Table 4 Improvement of radicality of resection.
ResectionExclusion of resection
Standard lymph node clearance for PPPD/CKW include the regional peripancreatic lymph nodes, hepato-duodenal ligament, common hepatic artery, portal vein, cranial portion of the superior mesenteric vein, right border along the mesenteric superior artery and celiac trunkExtended lymphadenectomy can not be recommended
Vascular resection of the portal vein or superior mesenteric vein is feasible and safe and should not be an exclusion criterion in curative surgeryThrombosis of the mesenteric-portal vein or tumoral infiltration > 180° of these vascular structures are contraindications in attempting curative resection
CONCLUSION

The survival of patients with pancreatic cancer has only slightly improved over the last few years. An increase in median survival from 16 mo in the eighties to 20 mo nowadays was reported by the French Surgical Association in 2010. This achievement is poor compared to the progress made in other cancer types (e.g., rectal cancer). Radical surgery so far remains the only chance of long-term cure. However, new molecular markers for early diagnosis[103-105], a deeper understanding of the molecular alterations during the genesis and progression of pancreatic cancer, specifically designed new neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapies which directly interact with the molecular cancer cascade need to be developed in the future. Without such progress, the prognosis of pancreatic cancer remains catastrophic.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Professor Faucheron JL, Head of the Department of Colorectal, Grenoble France; The authors are thankful to Professor Gigot JF, Head of the Department of Abdominal Surgery and Transplantation, Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Universite’ Catholique de Louvain, Bruxelles, Belgique Surgery for help and advice.

Footnotes

Peer reviewers: De-Liang Fu, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China; Kyu Taek Lee, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, No. 50 Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-710, South Korea

S- Editor Shi ZF L- Editor Webster JR E- Editor Xiong L

References
1.  Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:23-47.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
2.  Ouaissi M, Hubert C, Verhelst R, Astarci P, Sempoux C, Jouret-Mourin A, Loundou A, Gigot JF. Vascular reconstruction during pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas improves resectability but does not achieve cure. World J Surg. 2010;34:2648-2661.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
3.  Baumel H, Huguier M, Manderscheid JC, Fabre JM, Houry S, Fagot H. Results of resection for cancer of the exocrine pancreas: a study from the French Association of Surgery. Br J Surg. 1994;81:102-107.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
4.  Delpero JR, Paye F, Bachellier P.  Cancer du pancréas, Monographies de l'Association française de chirurgie. Paris: Wolters Kluwer France 2010; .  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
5.  Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, Gellert K, Langrehr J, Ridwelski K, Schramm H, Fahlke J, Zuelke C, Burkart C. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297:267-277.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
6.  Evans DB, Varadhachary GR, Crane CH, Sun CC, Lee JE, Pisters PW, Vauthey JN, Wang H, Cleary KR, Staerkel GA. Preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation for patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3496-3502.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
7.  Campbell JP, Wilson SR. Pancreatic neoplasms: how useful is evaluation with US? Radiology. 1988;167:341-344.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
8.  Rösch T, Braig C, Gain T, Feuerbach S, Siewert JR, Schusdziarra V, Classen M. Staging of pancreatic and ampullary carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography. Comparison with conventional sonography, computed tomography, and angiography. Gastroenterology. 1992;102:188-199.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
9.  Rösch T, Lorenz R, Braig C, Feuerbach S, Siewert JR, Schusdziarra V, Classen M. Endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic tumor diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:347-352.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
10.  Yamaguchi K. How to define patients at high risk for pancreatic cancer. Pancreatology. 2011;11 Suppl 2:3-6.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
11.  D'Onofrio M, Barbi E, Dietrich CF, Kitano M, Numata K, Sofuni A, Principe F, Gallotti A, Zamboni GA, Mucelli RP. Pancreatic multicenter ultrasound study (PAMUS). Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:630-638.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
12.  Grossjohann HS, Rappeport ED, Jensen C, Svendsen LB, Hillingsø JG, Hansen CP, Nielsen MB. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced transabdominal ultrasound for tumor classification and tumor staging in the pancreatic head. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:917-924.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
13.  Dietrich C, Hartung E, Ignee A. The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in patients with GIST metastases that are negative in CT and PET. Ultraschall Med. 2008;29 Suppl 5:276-277.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
14.  Freeny PC, Marks WM, Ryan JA, Traverso LW. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and staging with dynamic CT. Radiology. 1988;166:125-133.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
15.  Bluemke DA, Cameron JL, Hruban RH, Pitt HA, Siegelman SS, Soyer P, Fishman EK. Potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: spiral CT assessment with surgical and pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1995;197:381-385.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
16.  Prokesch RW, Chow LC, Beaulieu CF, Bammer R, Jeffrey RB. Isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma at multi-detector row CT: secondary signs. Radiology. 2002;224:764-768.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
17.  Diehl SJ, Lehmann KJ, Sadick M, Lachmann R, Georgi M. Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology. 1998;206:373-378.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
18.  Legmann P, Vignaux O, Dousset B, Baraza AJ, Palazzo L, Dumontier I, Coste J, Louvel A, Roseau G, Couturier D. Pancreatic tumors: comparison of dual-phase helical CT and endoscopic sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170:1315-1322.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
19.  Megibow AJ. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: designing the examination to evaluate the clinical questions. Radiology. 1992;183:297-303.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
20.  Muranaka T. Morphologic changes in the body of the pancreas secondary to a mass in the pancreatic head. Analysis by CT. Acta Radiol. 1990;31:483-488.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
21.  Freeny PC, Traverso LW, Ryan JA. Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with dynamic computed tomography. Am J Surg. 1993;165:600-606.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
22.  Lu DS, Reber HA, Krasny RM, Kadell BM, Sayre J. Local staging of pancreatic cancer: criteria for unresectability of major vessels as revealed by pancreatic-phase, thin-section helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:1439-1443.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
23.  Furukawa H, Kosuge T, Mukai K, Iwata R, Kanai Y, Shimada K, Yamamoto J, Ushio K. Helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of portal vein invasion by pancreatic head carcinoma: usefulness for selecting surgical procedures and predicting the outcome. Arch Surg. 1998;133:61-65.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
24.  Richter GM, Simon C, Hoffmann V, DeBernardinis M, Seelos R, Senninger N, Kauffmann GW. [Hydrospiral CT of the pancreas in thin section technique]. Radiologe. 1996;36:397-405.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
25.  Trede M, Rumstadt B, Wendl K, Gaa J, Tesdal K, Lehmann KJ, Meier-Willersen HJ, Pescatore P, Schmoll J. Ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging improves the staging of pancreatic tumors. Ann Surg. 1997;226:393-405; discussion 405-407.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
26.  Pisters PW, Lee JE, Vauthey JN, Charnsangavej C, Evans DB. Laparoscopy in the staging of pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2001;88:325-337.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
27.  Barreiro CJ, Lillemoe KD, Koniaris LG, Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Coleman J, Fishman EK, Cameron JL. Diagnostic laparoscopy for periampullary and pancreatic cancer: what is the true benefit? J Gastrointest Surg. 2002;6:75-81.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
28.  Vollmer CM, Drebin JA, Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Linehan DC, Soper NJ, Eagon CJ, Strasberg SM. Utility of staging laparoscopy in subsets of peripancreatic and biliary malignancies. Ann Surg. 2002;235:1-7.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
29.  Lopez Hänninen E, Amthauer H, Hosten N, Ricke J, Böhmig M, Langrehr J, Hintze R, Neuhaus P, Wiedenmann B, Rosewicz S. Prospective evaluation of pancreatic tumors: accuracy of MR imaging with MR cholangiopancreatography and MR angiography. Radiology. 2002;224:34-41.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
30.  Adamek HE, Albert J, Breer H, Weitz M, Schilling D, Riemann JF. Pancreatic cancer detection with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective controlled study. Lancet. 2000;356:190-193.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
31.  Waters JA, Schmidt CM, Pinchot JW, White PB, Cummings OW, Pitt HA, Sandrasegaran K, Akisik F, Howard TJ, Nakeeb A. CT vs MRCP: optimal classification of IPMN type and extent. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:101-109.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
32.  Bipat S, Phoa SS, van Delden OM, Bossuyt PM, Gouma DJ, Laméris JS, Stoker J. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and determining resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29:438-445.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
33.  Andersson M, Kostic S, Johansson M, Lundell L, Asztély M, Hellström M. MRI combined with MR cholangiopancreatography versus helical CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected periampullary tumors: a prospective comparative study. Acta Radiol. 2005;46:16-27.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
34.  Ichikawa T, Sou H, Araki T, Arbab AS, Yoshikawa T, Ishigame K, Haradome H, Hachiya J. Duct-penetrating sign at MRCP: usefulness for differentiating inflammatory pancreatic mass from pancreatic carcinomas. Radiology. 2001;221:107-116.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
35.  Müller MF, Meyenberger C, Bertschinger P, Schaer R, Marincek B. Pancreatic tumors: evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1994;190:745-751.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
36.  Lee SE, Jang JY, Lim CS, Kang MJ, Kim SH, Kim MA, Kim SW. Measurement of pancreatic fat by magnetic resonance imaging: predicting the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2010;251:932-936.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
37.  Bronstein YL, Loyer EM, Kaur H, Choi H, David C, DuBrow RA, Broemeling LD, Cleary KR, Charnsangavej C. Detection of small pancreatic tumors with multiphasic helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:619-623.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
38.  Cannon ME, Carpenter SL, Elta GH, Nostrant TT, Kochman ML, Ginsberg GG, Stotland B, Rosato EF, Morris JB, Eckhauser F. EUS compared with CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography and the influence of biliary stenting on staging accuracy of ampullary neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:27-33.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
39.  Snady H, Bruckner H, Siegel J, Cooperman A, Neff R, Kiefer L. Endoscopic ultrasonographic criteria of vascular invasion by potentially resectable pancreatic tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:326-333.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
40.  Schick V, Franzius C, Beyna T, Oei ML, Schnekenburger J, Weckesser M, Domschke W, Schober O, Heindel W, Pohle T. Diagnostic impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT evaluating solid pancreatic lesions versus endosonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography with intraductal ultrasonography and abdominal ultrasound. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1775-1785.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
41.  Wakabayashi H, Nishiyama Y, Otani T, Sano T, Yachida S, Okano K, Izuishi K, Suzuki Y. Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in surgery for pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:64-69.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
42.  Heinrich S, Goerres GW, Schäfer M, Sagmeister M, Bauerfeind P, Pestalozzi BC, Hany TF, von Schulthess GK, Clavien PA. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness. Ann Surg. 2005;242:235-243.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
43.  Strobel K, Heinrich S, Bhure U, Soyka J, Veit-Haibach P, Pestalozzi BC, Clavien PA, Hany TF. Contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT: 1-stop-shop imaging for assessing the resectability of pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1408-1413.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
44.  Wang Q, Gurusamy KS, Lin H, Xie X, Wang C. Preoperative biliary drainage for obstructive jaundice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;CD005444.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
45.  van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, Bruno MJ, van der Harst E, Kubben FJ, Gerritsen JJ, Greve JW, Gerhards MF, de Hingh IH. Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:129-137.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
46.  Nomura T, Shirai Y, Hatakeyama K. Bacteribilia and cholangitis after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction. Dig Dis Sci. 1999;44:542-546.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
47.  Jethwa P, Breuning E, Bhati C, Buckles J, Mirza D, Bramhall S. The microbiological impact of pre-operative biliary drainage on patients undergoing hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HPB) surgery. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:1175-1180.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
48.  Lermite E, Pessaux P, Teyssedou C, Etienne S, Brehant O, Arnaud JP. Effect of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage on infectious morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy: a case-control study. Am J Surg. 2008;195:442-446.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
49.  Kehlet H, Wilmore DW. Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:189-198.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
50.  Berberat PO, Ingold H, Gulbinas A, Kleeff J, Müller MW, Gutt C, Weigand M, Friess H, Büchler MW. Fast track--different implications in pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:880-887.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
51.  Balzano G, Zerbi A, Braga M, Rocchetti S, Beneduce AA, Di Carlo V. Fast-track recovery programme after pancreatico- duodenectomy reduces delayed gastric emptying. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1387-1393.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
52.  Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8-13.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
53.  Fuks D, Piessen G, Huet E, Tavernier M, Zerbib P, Michot F, Scotte M, Triboulet JP, Mariette C, Chiche L. Life-threatening postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade C) after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, prognosis, and risk factors. Am J Surg. 2009;197:702-709.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
54.  Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM. Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme. World J Surg. 2008;32:419-428.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
55.  Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Chang DC, Riall TS, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK. Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1280-1290; discussion 1290.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
56.  Roder JD, Stein HJ, Böttcher KA, Busch R, Heidecke CD, Siewert JR. Stented versus nonstented pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective study. Ann Surg. 1999;229:41-48.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
57.  Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, Ng KK, Yuen WK, Yeung C, Wong J. External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:425-433; discussion 433-435.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
58.  Pessaux P, Sauvanet A, Mariette C, Paye F, Muscari F, Cunha AS, Sastre B, Arnaud JP. External pancreatic duct stent decreases pancreatic fistula rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy: prospective multicenter randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2011;253:879-885.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
59.  Suc B, Msika S, Fingerhut A, Fourtanier G, Hay JM, Holmières F, Sastre B, Fagniez PL. Temporary fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications after pancreatic resection: prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2003;237:57-65.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
60.  Li-Ling J, Irving M. Somatostatin and octreotide in the prevention of postoperative pancreatic complications and the treatment of enterocutaneous pancreatic fistulas: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg. 2001;88:190-199.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
61.  Connor S, Alexakis N, Garden OJ, Leandros E, Bramis J, Wigmore SJ. Meta-analysis of the value of somatostatin and its analogues in reducing complications associated with pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1059-1067.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
62.  Sastre B, Ouassi M, Pirro N, Cosentino B, Sielezneff I. [Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the era of evidence based medicine]. Ann Chir. 2005;130:295-302.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
63.  Stojadinovic A, Brooks A, Hoos A, Jaques DP, Conlon KC, Brennan MF. An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:954-964.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
64.  Kim SW, Youk EG, Park YH. Comparison of pancreatogastrostomy and pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy performed by one surgeon. World J Surg. 1997;21:640-643.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
65.  Takano S, Ito Y, Watanabe Y, Yokoyama T, Kubota N, Iwai S. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy in reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2000;87:423-427.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
66.  Arnaud JP, Tuech JJ, Cervi C, Bergamaschi R. Pancreaticogastrostomy compared with pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Eur J Surg. 1999;165:357-362.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
67.  Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, Salvia R, Butturini G, Sartori N, Mantovani W, Pederzoli P. Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study. Ann Surg. 2005;242:7677-7771, discussion 7771-7773.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
68.  Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Maher MM, Sauter PK, Zahurak ML, Talamini MA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA. A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 1995;222:580-588; discussion 580-588.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
69.  Duffas JP, Suc B, Msika S, Fourtanier G, Muscari F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Millat B, Radovanowic A, Fagniez PL. A controlled randomized multicenter trial of pancreatogastrostomy or pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg. 2005;189:720-729.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
70.  Wente MN, Shrikhande SV, Müller MW, Diener MK, Seiler CM, Friess H, Büchler MW. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2007;193:171-183.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
71.  Lemaire E, O'Toole D, Sauvanet A, Hammel P, Belghiti J, Ruszniewski P. Functional and morphological changes in the pancreatic remnant following pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastric anastomosis. Br J Surg. 2000;87:434-438.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
72.  Fitzmaurice C, Seiler CM, Büchler MW, Diener MK. [Survival, mortality and quality of life after pylorus-preserving or classical Whipple operation. A systematic review with meta-analysis]. Chirurg. 2010;81:454-471.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
73.  Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Heukaufer C, Antes G, Büchler MW, Seiler CM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus classical pancreaticoduodenectomy for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;245:187-200.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
74.  Diener MK, Heukaufer C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Buchler MW, Knaebel HP. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;CD006053.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
75.  Hartel M, Wente MN, Hinz U, Kleeff J, Wagner M, Müller MW, Friess H, Büchler MW. Effect of antecolic reconstruction on delayed gastric emptying after the pylorus-preserving Whipple procedure. Arch Surg. 2005;140:1094-1099.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
76.  Conlon KC, Labow D, Leung D, Smith A, Jarnagin W, Coit DG, Merchant N, Brennan MF. Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection. Ann Surg. 2001;234:487-493; discussion 493-494.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
77.  Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, Crippa S, Butturini G, Salvia R, Talamini G, Pederzoli P. Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:207-214.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
78.  Doucas H, Neal CP, O'Reilly K, Dennison AR, Berry DP. Frozen section diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy: a sensitive diagnostic technique. Pancreatology. 2006;6:210-213; discussion 214.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
79.  Konstantinidis IT, Deshpande V, Zheng H, Wargo JA, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Thayer SP, Androutsopoulos V, Lauwers GY, Warshaw AL, Ferrone CR. Does the mechanism of lymph node invasion affect survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:261-267.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
80.  Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, Hayashidani Y, Hashimoto Y, Nakashima A, Yuasa Y, Kondo N, Ohge H, Sueda T. Number of metastatic lymph nodes, but not lymph node ratio, is an independent prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:196-204.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
81.  Bhatti I, Peacock O, Awan AK, Semeraro D, Larvin M, Hall RI. Lymph node ratio versus number of affected lymph nodes as predictors of survival for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2010;34:768-775.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
82.  Slidell MB, Chang DC, Cameron JL, Wolfgang C, Herman JM, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Pawlik TM. Impact of total lymph node count and lymph node ratio on staging and survival after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large, population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:165-174.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
83.  Pawlik TM, Gleisner AL, Cameron JL, Winter JM, Assumpcao L, Lillemoe KD, Wolfgang C, Hruban RH, Schulick RD, Yeo CJ. Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery. 2007;141:610-618.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
84.  Glanemann M, Shi B, Liang F, Sun XG, Bahra M, Jacob D, Neumann U, Neuhaus P. Surgical strategies for treatment of malignant pancreatic tumors: extended, standard or local surgery? World J Surg Oncol. 2008;6:123.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
85.  Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, Coleman J, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma: comparison of morbidity and mortality and short-term outcome. Ann Surg. 1999;229:613-622; discussion 622-624.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
86.  Farnell MB, Pearson RK, Sarr MG, DiMagno EP, Burgart LJ, Dahl TR, Foster N, Sargent DJ. A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery. 2005;138:618-628; discussion 628-630.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
87.  Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Arnold MA, Chang DC, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Riall TS. 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1199-1210; discussion 1210-1211.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
88.  Schnelldorfer T, Ware AL, Sarr MG, Smyrk TC, Zhang L, Qin R, Gullerud RE, Donohue JH, Nagorney DM, Farnell MB. Long-term survival after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: is cure possible? Ann Surg. 2008;247:456-462.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
89.  Raut CP, Tseng JF, Sun CC, Wang H, Wolff RA, Crane CH, Hwang R, Vauthey JN, Abdalla EK, Lee JE. Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;246:52-60.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
90.  Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV, McMahon MJ, Guillou PJ, Anthoney A. Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1232-1237.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
91.  Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F, Reiser C, Herpel E, Friess H, Schirmacher P, Büchler MW. Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1651-1660.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
92.  Chang DK, Johns AL, Merrett ND, Gill AJ, Colvin EK, Scarlett CJ, Nguyen NQ, Leong RW, Cosman PH, Kelly MI. Margin clearance and outcome in resected pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2855-2862.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
93.  Ishikawa O, Ohigashi H, Sasaki Y, Kabuto T, Furukawa H, Nakamori S, Imaoka S, Iwanaga T, Kasugai T. Practical grouping of positive lymph nodes in pancreatic head cancer treated by an extended pancreatectomy. Surgery. 1997;121:244-249.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
94.  Nakagohri T, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, Inoue K, Takahashi S. Survival benefits of portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg. 2003;186:149-153.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
95.  Nakao A, Harada A, Nonami T, Kaneko T, Inoue S, Takagi H. Clinical significance of portal invasion by pancreatic head carcinoma. Surgery. 1995;117:50-55.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
96.  Nakao A, Takeda S, Inoue S, Nomoto S, Kanazumi N, Sugimoto H, Fujii T. Indications and techniques of extended resection for pancreatic cancer. World J Surg. 2006;30:976-982; discussion 983-984.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
97.  Matsuno S, Egawa S, Fukuyama S, Motoi F, Sunamura M, Isaji S, Imaizumi T, Okada S, Kato H, Suda K. Pancreatic Cancer Registry in Japan: 20 years of experience. Pancreas. 2004;28:219-230.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
98.  Bachellier P, Nakano H, Oussoultzoglou PD, Weber JC, Boudjema K, Wolf PD, Jaeck D. Is pancreaticoduodenectomy with mesentericoportal venous resection safe and worthwhile? Am J Surg. 2001;182:120-129.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
99.  Howard TJ, Villanustre N, Moore SA, DeWitt J, LeBlanc J, Maglinte D, McHenry L. Efficacy of venous reconstruction in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:1089-1095.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
100.  Carrère N, Sauvanet A, Goere D, Kianmanesh R, Vullierme MP, Couvelard A, Ruszniewski P, Belghiti J. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with mesentericoportal vein resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. World J Surg. 2006;30:1526-1535.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
101.  Kawada M, Kondo S, Okushiba S, Morikawa T, Katoh H. Reevaluation of the indications for radical pancreatectomy to treat pancreatic carcinoma: is portal vein infiltration a contraindication? Surg Today. 2002;32:598-601.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
102.  Siriwardana HP, Siriwardena AK. Systematic review of outcome of synchronous portal-superior mesenteric vein resection during pancreatectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:662-673.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
103.  Ouaïssi M, Sielezneff I, Silvestre R, Sastre B, Bernard JP, Lafontaine JS, Payan MJ, Dahan L, Pirrò N, Seitz JF. High histone deacetylase 7 (HDAC7) expression is significantly associated with adenocarcinomas of the pancreas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2318-2328.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
104.  Ouaïssi M, Cabral S, Tavares J, da Silva AC, Mathieu Daude F, Mas E, Bernard J, Sastre B, Lombardo D, Ouaissi A. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) encoding gene expression in pancreatic cancer cell lines and cell sensitivity to HDAC inhibitors. Cancer Biol Ther. 2008;7:523-531.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
105.  Ouaïssi M, Giger U, Sielezneff I, Pirrò N, Sastre B, Ouaissi A. Rationale for possible targeting of histone deacetylase signaling in cancer diseases with a special reference to pancreatic cancer. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011;2011:315939.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]