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
  • [31] R0 Resection for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer with Low-dose Gemcitabine with Wide Irradiation Area as Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
    Kamachi, Hirofumi
    Tsuruga, Yousuke
    Orimo, Tatsuya
    Wakayama, Kenji
    Shimada, Shingo
    Nagatsu, Akihisa
    Yokoo, Hideki
    Kamiyama, Toshiya
    Katoh, Norio
    Taketomi, Akinobu
    IN VIVO, 2018, 32 (05): : 1183 - 1191
  • [32] A margin-negative R0 resection accomplished with minimal postoperative complications is the surgeon’s contribution to long-term survival in pancreatic cancer
    Thomas J. Howard
    Joseph E. Krug
    Jian Yu
    Nick J. Zyromski
    C. Max Schmidt
    Lewis E. Jacobson
    James A. Madura
    Eric A. Wiebke
    Keith D. Lillemoe
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 2006, 10 : 1338 - 1346
  • [33] Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with bile duct tumor thrombus after R0 resection:a matched study
    Ding-Ding Wang
    Li-Qun Wu
    Zu-Sen Wang
    Hepatobiliary&PancreaticDiseasesInternational, 2016, 15 (06) : 626 - 632
  • [34] How long should follow-up be continued after R0 resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma?
    Nakahashi, Koichi
    Ebata, Tomoki
    Yokoyama, Yukihiro
    Igami, Tsuyoshi
    Mizuno, Takashi
    Yamaguchi, Junpei
    Onoe, Shunsuke
    Watanabe, Nobuyuki
    Nagino, Masato
    SURGERY, 2020, 168 (04) : 617 - 624
  • [35] Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with bile duct tumor thrombus after R0 resection: a matched study
    Wang, Ding-Ding
    Wu, Li-Qun
    Wang, Zu-Sen
    HEPATOBILIARY & PANCREATIC DISEASES INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 15 (06) : 626 - 632
  • [36] ASO Author Reflections: R0 Resection After Oncologic Esophagectomy-Cutting on the Edge (0 cm) is Not Enough
    St-Amour, Penelope
    Schafer, Markus
    Mantziari, Styliani
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 28 (12) : 7107 - 7108
  • [37] Impact of lymph node involvement on long-term survival after R0 pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas
    Zacharias, Thomas
    Jaeck, Daniel
    Oussoultzoglou, Elie
    Neuville, Agnes
    Bachellier, Philippe
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2007, 11 (03) : 350 - 356
  • [38] Impact of Lymph Node Involvement on Long-term Survival after R0 Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas
    Thomas Zacharias
    Daniel Jaeck
    Elie Oussoultzoglou
    Agnes Neuville
    Philippe Bachellier
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 2007, 11 : 350 - 356
  • [39] Classification of R1 resections for pancreatic cancer: the prognostic relevance of tumour involvement within 1 mm of a resection margin
    Campbell, Fiona
    Smith, Richard A.
    Whelan, Philip
    Sutton, Robert
    Raraty, Michael
    Neoptolemos, John P.
    Ghaneh, Paula
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2009, 55 (03) : 277 - 283
  • [40] Impact of Surgical Margin Status on Survival and Recurrence After Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: Is Microscopic Residual Tumor (R1) Associated with Higher Rates of Local Recurrence?
    Umino, Ryosuke
    Nara, Satoshi
    Mizui, Takahiro
    Takamoto, Takeshi
    Ban, Daisuke
    Esaki, Minoru
    Hiraoka, Nobuyoshi
    Shimada, Kazuaki
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 31 (08) : 4910 - 4921