We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Prognostic Value of Resection Margin Involvement After Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Updates From a French Prospective Multicenter Study.
Annals of Surgery 2017 November
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the relevance of resection margin status for survival after resection of pancreatic-head ductal adenocarcinoma.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The definition and prognostic value of incomplete microscopic resection (R1) remain controversial.
METHODS: Prognostic factors were analyzed in 147 patients included in a prospective multicenter study on the impact of tumor clearance evaluated using a standardized pathology protocol.
RESULTS: Thirty patients received neoadjuvant treatment (NAT = 20%); 41 had venous resection (VR = 28%), and 70% received adjuvant chemotherapy. In-hospital mortality was 3% (5/147). Follow-up was 83 months. Tumor clearance was 0, <1.0, <1.5, and <2.0 mm in 35 (25%), 92 (65%), 95 (67%), and 109 (77%) patients, respectively. R0-resection rates decreased from 75% to 35% when changing the definition of R1 status from R1-direct invasion (0 mm) to R1 <1.0 mm. On univariate analysis, clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm, pT stage, pN stage, LNR ≥0.2, tumor grade 3, and lymphovascular invasion were significantly associated with 5-year survival. On multivariate analysis, pN was the most powerful independent predictor (P = 0.004). Clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm had borderline significance for the entire cohort, but was relevant in certain subgroups (upfront pancreatectomy (n = 117; P = 0.049); without VR or NAT (n = 87; P = 0.003); N+ without VR or NAT (n = 50; P = 0.004). No N0-patient had R1-0 mm. Additional independent risk predictors were (1) R1 <1.0 mm for the SMA-margin in specific subgroups (upfront pancreatectomy, N0 patients without NAT, N+ patients without NAT or VR; (2) R1-0 mm posterior-margin for the NAT group (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: Tumor clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm was an independent determinants of postresection survival in certain subgroups. To avoid misinterpretation, future trials should specify the clearance margin in millimeter.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00918853.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The definition and prognostic value of incomplete microscopic resection (R1) remain controversial.
METHODS: Prognostic factors were analyzed in 147 patients included in a prospective multicenter study on the impact of tumor clearance evaluated using a standardized pathology protocol.
RESULTS: Thirty patients received neoadjuvant treatment (NAT = 20%); 41 had venous resection (VR = 28%), and 70% received adjuvant chemotherapy. In-hospital mortality was 3% (5/147). Follow-up was 83 months. Tumor clearance was 0, <1.0, <1.5, and <2.0 mm in 35 (25%), 92 (65%), 95 (67%), and 109 (77%) patients, respectively. R0-resection rates decreased from 75% to 35% when changing the definition of R1 status from R1-direct invasion (0 mm) to R1 <1.0 mm. On univariate analysis, clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm, pT stage, pN stage, LNR ≥0.2, tumor grade 3, and lymphovascular invasion were significantly associated with 5-year survival. On multivariate analysis, pN was the most powerful independent predictor (P = 0.004). Clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm had borderline significance for the entire cohort, but was relevant in certain subgroups (upfront pancreatectomy (n = 117; P = 0.049); without VR or NAT (n = 87; P = 0.003); N+ without VR or NAT (n = 50; P = 0.004). No N0-patient had R1-0 mm. Additional independent risk predictors were (1) R1 <1.0 mm for the SMA-margin in specific subgroups (upfront pancreatectomy, N0 patients without NAT, N+ patients without NAT or VR; (2) R1-0 mm posterior-margin for the NAT group (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: Tumor clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm was an independent determinants of postresection survival in certain subgroups. To avoid misinterpretation, future trials should specify the clearance margin in millimeter.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00918853.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app