R0 Versus R1 Resection Matters after Pancreaticoduodenectomy, and Less after Distal or Total Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer

被引:131
|
作者
Demir, Ihsan Ekin [1 ]
Jaeger, Carsten [1 ]
Schlitter, A. Melissa [2 ]
Konukiewitz, Bjoern [2 ]
Stecher, Lynne [3 ]
Schorn, Stephan [1 ]
Tieftrunk, Elke [1 ]
Scheufele, Florian [1 ]
Calavrezos, Lenika [1 ]
Schirren, Rebekka [1 ]
Esposito, Irene [4 ]
Weichert, Wilko [2 ]
Friess, Helmut [1 ]
Ceyhan, Gueralp O. [1 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, Klinikum Rechts Isar, Dept Surg, Ismaninger Str 22, D-81675 Munich, Germany
[2] Tech Univ Munich, Klinikum Rechts Isar, Inst Pathol, Munich, Germany
[3] Tech Univ Munich, Inst Med Stat & Epidemiol, Munich, Germany
[4] Heinrich Heine Univ, Inst Pathol, Dusseldorf, Germany
关键词
distal pancreatectomy; margin; pancreatic cancer; pancreaticoduodenectomy; R0; R1; resection; total pancreatectomy; whipple;
D O I
10.1097/SLA.0000000000002345
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study was to decipher the true importance of RO versus R1 resection for survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Summary of Background Data: PDAC is characterized by poor survival, even after curative resection. In many studies, RO versus R1 does not result in different prognosis and does not affect the postoperative management. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened for prognostic studies on the association between resection status and survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled in a meta-analysis. Furthermore, our prospective database was retrospectively screened for curative PDAC resections according to inclusion criteria (n = 254 patients) between July 2007 and October 2014. Results: In the meta-analysis, R1 was associated with a decreased overall survival [HR 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 1.37-1.52)] and disease-free survival [HR 1.44 (1.30-1.59)] in PDAC when compared with R0. Importantly, this effect held true only for pancreatic head resection both in the meta-analysis [R0 >= 0 mm: HR 1.21 (1.05-1.39) vs R0 >= 1 mm: HR 1.66 (1.46-1.89)] and in our cohort (R0 >= 0 mm: 31.8 vs 14.5 months, P < 0.001; R0 >= 1 mm, 41.2 vs 16.8 months; P < 0.001). Moreover, R1 resections were associated with advanced tumor disease, that is, larger tumor size, lymph node metastases, and extended resections. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard model suggested G3, pN1, tumor size, and R1 (0 mm/1 mm) as independent predictors of overall survival. Conclusion: Resection margin is not a valid prognostic marker in publications before 2010 due to heterogeneity of cohorts and lack of standardized histopathological examination. Within standardized pathology protocols, R-status' prognostic validity may be primarily confined to pancreatic head cancers.
引用
收藏
页码:1058 / 1068
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Pancreatectomy for non-pancreatic malignancies results in improved survival after R0 resection
    Varker K.A.
    Muscarella P.
    Wall K.
    Ellison C.
    Bloomston M.
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 5 (1)
  • [2] Prognostic comparison of the longitudinal margin status in distal bile duct cancer: R0 on first bile duct resection versus R0 after additional resection
    Park, Yejong
    Hwang, Dae Wook
    Kim, Jin Hee
    Hong, Seung-Mo
    Jun, Sun-Young
    Lee, Jae Hoon
    Song, Ki Byung
    Jun, Eun Sung
    Kim, Song Cheol
    Park, Kwang-Min
    JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES, 2019, 26 (05) : 169 - 178
  • [3] Reporting the margin in pancreaticoduodenectomies: R0 versus R1
    Tampi C.S.
    Nilkanth S.
    Jagannath P.
    Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2017, 36 (2) : 81 - 87
  • [4] R0 resection for ductal pancreatic cancer - Japanese experience
    Matsuno, Seiki
    Egawa, Shinichi
    Unno, Michiaki
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2007, 194 (4A) : S110 - S114
  • [5] The prognosis of gastric cardia cancer after R0 resection
    An, Ji Yeong
    Baik, Yong Hae
    Choi, Min Gew
    Noh, Jae Hyung
    Sohn, Tae Sung
    Bae, Jae Moon
    Kim, Sung
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2010, 199 (06) : 725 - 729
  • [6] Role of adjuvant therapy after R0 resection for patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma
    Kim, Young Saing
    Hwang, In Gyu
    Park, Song-Ee
    Go, Se-Il
    Kang, Jung-Hun
    Park, Inkeun
    Oh, Sung Yong
    Ji, Jun Ho
    Song, Haa-Na
    Park, Se Hoon
    Kim, Seung Tae
    Park, Joon Oh
    CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2016, 77 (05) : 979 - 985
  • [7] Emergent endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholecystoduodenostomy does not prevent R0 resection in a pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer
    Larino-Noia, Jose
    Mejuto Fernandez, Rafael
    Paz Novo, Manuel
    de la Iglesia Garcia, Daniel
    Iglesias-Garcia, Julio
    Quiroga Castineira, Adriano
    Varo Perez, Evaristo
    Enrique Dominguez-Munoz, Juan
    CLINICAL JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2022, 15 (01) : 263 - 267
  • [8] Emergent endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholecystoduodenostomy does not prevent R0 resection in a pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer
    José Lariño-Noia
    Rafael Mejuto Fernández
    Manuel Paz Novo
    Daniel de la Iglesia García
    Julio Iglesias-García
    Adriano Quiroga Castiñeira
    Evaristo Varo Pérez
    Juan Enrique Dominguez-Muñoz
    Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology, 2022, 15 : 263 - 267
  • [9] R0 in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Surgery, Pathology, Biology, or Definition Matters?
    Buechler, Markus W.
    Werner, Jens
    Weitz, Juergen
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2010, 251 (06) : 1011 - 1012
  • [10] Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemoradiation with gemcitabine after R1 resection in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma
    Habermehl, Daniel
    Brecht, Ingo C.
    Bergmann, Frank
    Rieken, Stefan
    Werner, Jens
    Buechler, Markus W.
    Springfeld, Christoph
    Jaeger, Dirk
    Debus, Juergen
    Combs, Stephanie E.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 13