Highlights
- •A summary of the expert discussions at the 3rd European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer St. Gallen conference.
- •Radical surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy offers the only evidence-based treatment with a chance for cure.
- •Initial staging is used to classify localised tumours as resectable, borderline-resectable (BR) or unresectable tumours.
- •The concept of BR tumours is considered as a good basis to select patients for preoperative therapy.
- •Neoadjuvant therapy clearly has the potential to further improve long-term results, especially in BR tumours.
Abstract
The primary treatment of pancreatic cancer was the topic of the 3rd St. Gallen Conference 2016. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed the current evidence and discussed controversial issues in a moderated consensus session. Here we report on the key expert recommendations.
It was generally accepted that radical surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy offers the only evidence-based treatment with a chance for cure. Initial staging should classify localised tumours as resectable or unresectable (i.e. locally advanced pancreatic cancer) although there remains a large grey-zone of potentially resectable disease between these two categories which has recently been named as borderline resectable, a concept which was generally accepted by the panel members. However, the definition of these borderline-resectable (BR) tumours varies between classifications due to their focus on either (i) technical hurdles (e.g. the feasibility of vascular resection) or (ii) oncological outcome (e.g. predicting the risk of a R1 resection and/or occult metastases).
The resulting expert discussion focussed on imaging standards as well as the value of pretherapeutic laparoscopy. Indications for biliary drainage were seen especially before neoadjuvant therapy. Following standard resection, the panel unanimously voted for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy after R0 resection and considered it as a reasonable standard of care after R1 resection, even though the optimal pathologic evaluation and the definition of R0/R1 was the issue of an ongoing debate.
The general concept of BR tumours was considered as a good basis to select patients for preoperative therapy, albeit its current impact on the therapeutic strategy was far less clear. Main focus of the conference was to discuss the limits of surgical resection and to identify ways to standardise procedures and to improve curative outcome, including adjuvant and perioperative treatment.
Keywords
1. Introduction
The main topic of the 3rd St. Gallen European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference 2016 was the primary treatment of pancreatic cancer. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Predictions for 2025 rank pancreatic cancer as the third-leading cause of cancer-related death in the European Union [
[1]
] and by 2030 as the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in both genders in the United States of America [[2]
]. Prognosis is dismal with a life expectancy below 5% after 5 years [[3]
]. The only proven chance for increased long-term survival or even cure consists in radical surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy [4
, 5
]. However, less than 20% of the patients present with a localised tumour that is clearly resectable at the outset. Initial staging is used to classify localised pancreatic cancer as resectable or unresectable (locally advanced pancreatic cancer [LAPC]) with a large grey-zone of potentially resectable tumours between these two categories, which has led to the identification of a third category, the so-called borderline-resectable (BR) tumours. However, definition varies between different classification systems due to their focus on either technical hurdles (e.g. vascular resection) or oncological outcomes (e.g. predicted R1 resection) [6
, 7
, Network NCC. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Version 22016.https://www.nccn.org.
8
, 9
, 10
]. Therefore, the main focus of this conference was to discuss the limits of surgical resection and to identify ways to improve outcome—including optimised planning of the therapeutic strategy, more advanced surgical techniques as well as adjuvant or perioperative treatments.A representative faculty of expert surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, pathologists and gastroenterologists reviewed the current treatment recommendations in a panel session based on a moderated consensus process. The main interests were controversial issues that could not be easily resolved through the study of published evidence and guidelines. As in the St. Gallen Breast Cancer Conferences, the panel was asked to assess the available evidence and vote on recommendations using a pre-circulated set of questions. Here, we summarise the key discussion points of the panel members.
2. Methods
In preparation for the panel session, which was held on 12th March 2016 and involved 18 experts, existing guidelines [
7
, Network NCC. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Version 22016.https://www.nccn.org.
8
, 11
, 12
] were used to identify areas of uncertainty in order to define the topics for debate. Over 100 questions were circulated between panel members, of which 68 were retained for the panel discussion. During the session, which was moderated by JZ and ML the panel members were asked to assess and comment on optimal care based on the existing data and to recommend treatment strategies as expert opinion. Panel members were given the opportunity to comment on the issues raised by the questions before and after an electronic vote. Here, we summarise the extent of agreement or disagreement of the panel members on specific topics.Even though care was taken to invite a representative spectrum of panellists from relevant disciplines, the general applicability of their conclusions may be limited by an unequal distribution of disciplines and/or underrepresentation of some regions of the world (all panelists are co-authors). The ensuing statements are generally meant for reasonably fit patients without severe comorbidities. In clinical practice, some patients will not match the model and treatment decisions need to be adapted.
3. Staging
Accurate pretherapeutic imaging of the primary tumour is the key component of any treatment decision [
[13]
], in addition to the full assessment of the patient's clinical status, comorbidities as well as screening for distant metastases. Resectability and the surgical approach depend on tumour size and location, and—most importantly—is limited by involvement of regional blood vessels. Arterial abutment or venous occlusion not only have a technical impact on the surgical approach and the complication rate, but also affect prognosis [[10]
].For primary visualisation of the tumour, a dedicated pancreatic protocol computed tomography (CT) scan with submillimetre sections was chosen as the preferred method by most panel members (92%), with only 8% opting for mandatory magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).
To evaluate the potential for resection, a dedicated multiphase pancreatic CT scan was unanimously voted as the preferred diagnostic method (100%), with no need for a second imaging modality if the tumour and the surrounding vessels were visualised appropriately (92%). If needed, MRI was preferred over EUS (75% versus 25%) as the additional imaging method. Image acquisition has to be performed carefully within a defined multiphase protocol with high resolution. The imaging report should follow the recently published consensus recommendations [
[13]
] (Table 1).Table 1Technical requirements, interpretation and reporting of pretherapeutic dedicated multidetector CT in pancreatic cancer.
Adapted from the Consensus Statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association (Radiology 270; 1:248–260, 2014)
| Technical parameters (dedicated dual-phase pancreatic protocol with angiography) | |
| Scan type | Helical (preferably at least 16-detector rows) |
| Section thickness | Preferably submillimeter (0.5–1 mm) |
| Interval | Same as section thickness |
| Oral contrast agent | Neutral or low-Hounsfield units oral agent |
| Intravenous contrast agent | Preferably high iodine concentration, injection rate of 3–5 ml/s |
| Scan acquisition |
|
| Image reconstruction |
|
| Morphologic evaluation | |
| Appearance |
|
| Pancreatic duct | Narrowing/abrupt cut-off with or without dilatation |
| Biliary tree | Abrupt cut-off with or without upstream dilatation |
| Arterial evaluation | |
| Superior mesenteric artery (SMA) |
|
| Celiac axis |
|
| Common hepatic artery (CHA) |
|
| Arterial variant |
|
| Venous evaluation | |
| Portal vein (MPV) |
|
| Superior mesenteric vein (SMV) |
|
| Thrombus within vein | Present or absent (MPV, SMV or splenic vein) |
| Venous collaterals | Present or absent (location: around pancreatic head, porta hepatis, root of the mesentery or left upper quadrant) |
Routine laparoscopic staging in resectable cancer was not considered necessary by all but one of the panel members. However, laparoscopy would be performed by 38% of the panelists in patients with BR tumours, by 1/3 of the panel in patients with risk factors (e.g. pain or grossly elevated CA 19-9 levels potentially indicating subradiographic systemic disease [
14
, 15
, 16
]) and by 14% in all patients with left-sided tumours in the pancreatic tail or body because of the increased risk of peritoneal seeding in this population [[17]
]. Thirty-eight percent would also perform laparoscopy before any neoadjuvant treatment, again with the aim to exclude peritoneal disease before starting multimodal therapy. Peritoneal lavage was deemed of no use by almost all panellists (94%), mainly because most (77%) would not change their surgical approach based on positive cytology alone.Complete staging includes the search for distant metastases in liver and lung. Staging for lung metastases is preferably performed by CT scan (90%) and not by chest X-ray (0%). Imaging of the liver is usually included in the staging CT of the primary tumour with no need for an additional MRI (only 18% were in favour of an additional scan) and no role for ultrasonography (voted as ‘not sufficient’ by 62% with 38% abstentions). There was also no role for positron-emission tomography–CT (82%). If CT demonstrates ‘small pulmonary nodules’, virtually all panel members would neglect them if they are smaller than 5 mm (93%). Fifty seven percent would even neglect those that are smaller than 10 mm, a view supported by two retrospective series from the US using preoperative chest CT scans and clinical follow up of 374 and 329 patients, respectively. Indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPN) [
[18]
] or subcentimeter pulmonary nodules (SCPN) [[19]
] were detected in 49% and 18% of the scans with no statistically relevant difference in median overall survival (15.6 months with IPN versus 18.0 months without IPN and 16.1 months with SCPM versus 19.1 months without SCPN). IPN also had no significant impact on the rate of subsequent development of lung metastases (16% versus 13%). In fact, only increasing age was associated with SCPN and no single individual radiographic criterion of SCPN including number, size, calcification or contour had an impact on overall survival [[19]
].Of note, the discussion did not cover the imaging strategy within surveillance programmes for early detection of pancreatic cancer in individuals at increased risk which has been the topic of several recent publications [
20
, 21
, 22
].4. Pretherapeutic bile-duct drainage
In patients with bile duct obstruction, placement of a biliary stent via endoscopy may be used to relieve jaundice, albeit with some risk of procedural complications and a significantly increased risk of bacterial cholangitis [
[23]
] that might have a negative impact on the success of surgery [[24]
].Therefore, the majority of the panel (54%) felt that biliary drainage before primary surgery should generally be avoided and restricted to patients with signs of cholangitis or even to patients with cholangitis and grossly elevated bilirubin levels only. Most panel members (81%) would even avoid a stent altogether if tumour resection was possible within one week.
Prior to preoperative multimodal therapy stent placement was deemed useful in cholangitis, but not necessarily in patients with simple cholestasis and no signs of infection (64% pro drainage in all patients). Some additional 18% of the panellists would be more restrictive and place stents only if bilirubin levels were grossly elevated (10 × upper limit of normal (ULN)). In any case, bilirubin levels should be lowered to 1.5 × ULN if preoperative FOLFIRINOX is to be given.
The preferred type of stent is a short metal stent (54% versus 46% for a plastic stent) which is more expensive but has the potential for longer patency, a lower risk of cholangitis interfering with neoadjuvant treatment and—if short enough—can easily be removed during resection [
25
, 26
].5. Adjuvant treatment
Removal of the primary tumour without any additional treatment results in 5 year survival rates of 8–12% [
4
, 27
, 28
]. Several randomised phase III trials [27
, 28
, 29
] have shown that additional postoperative chemotherapy (CTx) after macroscopically complete resection (i.e. R0 and R1) with either gemcitabine or 5-FU consistently increases 5-year survival by at least 11% (up to 24.4% in one trial). In contrast, results with postoperative radiochemotherapy (RCTx) vary between trials, with some reports even suggesting a deleterious effect [30
, 31
].Final results of the multicentre randomised phase III ESPAC-4 trial were published by Neoptolemos et al. [
[32]
] shortly after the St. Gallen conference, demonstrating a further increase in median overall survival from 25.5 months in the gemcitabine arm to 28 months with a combination regimen of gemcitabine and the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–0.98, p = 0.032). The 5-year survival estimates increased from 16.3% (95% CI 10.2–23.7) for patients randomised to gemcitabine to 28.8% (22.9–35.2) with gemcitabine/capecitabine. Similar to previous trials, patients with R0 resections had better survival and significant benefit from combination treatment whereas the survival benefit for margin positive tumours did not reach significance.- Neoptolemos J.P.
- Palmer D.H.
- Ghaneh P.
- Psarelli E.E.
- Valle J.W.
- Halloran C.M.
- et al.
Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
Lancet. 2017; 389: 1011-1024
The panel unanimously (100%) voted for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) after R0 resection, with no role for simultaneous RCTx or sequential CTx/RCTx. Gemcitabine was chosen as preferred CTx regimen (73%), with minority votes for the use of 5-FU/leucovorin, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel. The same holds true after R1 resection (80% were in favour of CTx). Please note, that this vote most likely would have been influenced by the positive results of the ESPAC-4 trial cited above which are in favour of the combination of gemcitabine and the orally active 5-FU derivative capecitabine [
[32]
] but had not yet been available during the conference. Also, whereas gemcitabine, 5-FU and gemcitabine/capecitabine have all been successfully investigated as adjuvant treatment in phase III trials, studies with other regimens (i.e. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel) are still ongoing and results are pending. There is currently no role for biologically targeted or biomarker-oriented therapy in the adjuvant setting [- Neoptolemos J.P.
- Palmer D.H.
- Ghaneh P.
- Psarelli E.E.
- Valle J.W.
- Halloran C.M.
- et al.
Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
Lancet. 2017; 389: 1011-1024
[33]
]. Even though preliminary reports have suggested that expression of the drug-transporter, hENT1 may be predictive for the benefit of gemcitabine-based CTx [[34]
], technical problems with the commercially available antibodies preclude their use in clinical practice.A major confounding factor is the rate and definition of R0 resection, which has a large impact on prognosis [
35
, 36
, 37
, 38
]. Whereas a clearly significant benefit of adjuvant CTx after R0 resection has been shown in subgroup analyses for overall survival with hazard ratios of 0.59 (standard deviation (SD): 0.11 with 5-FU), 0.76 (95% CI of 0.60–0.98 with gemcitabine) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.49–0.93 with gemcitabine/capecitabine) in the three largest trials, the benefit of postoperative therapy is more controversial after a R1 resection with hazard ratios of 0.99, 0.66 (95% CI of 0.39–1.13) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.72–1.13), respectively [4
, 31
, 32
, - Neoptolemos J.P.
- Palmer D.H.
- Ghaneh P.
- Psarelli E.E.
- Valle J.W.
- Halloran C.M.
- et al.
Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
Lancet. 2017; 389: 1011-1024
36
].Two competing definitions of R0/R1 are currently used [
[38]
]. The International Union Against Cancer (UICC) distinguishes microscopically negative resection margins (R0) from ‘the presence of residual tumour after treatment’ (R1) which is usually defined as one or more tumour cells on the immediate resection margin (0 mm rule). In contrast, the British Royal College of Pathology (RCPath) defines R1 as the presence of tumour cells within 1 mm of the resection margin which leads to a 1.3–1.8 fold higher rate of resections classified as R1 [39
, 40
]. The rate of R1 resections increases even further if all margins of the resected specimen are systematically stained, axially sliced and thoroughly investigated [37
, 41
], a technique which is only inconsistently followed in clinical practice [[42]
]. In a recent meta-analysis, R1 resection rates were 28% if a 0-mm margin rule was used, 51% with any slicing technique and a 1 mm-margin minimum, and 71% with an axial slicing technique and a 1 mm-margin minimum [[37]
]. Five-year survival rates for ‘R0’ resected patients accordingly increase from 20.4% to 30.1% and 37.7% [[38]
].Most panel members suggested using the RCPath criteria for the definition of the R0 resection status (77%), with 89% requesting multicolour staining of the resection margins by the surgeon [
[40]
]. A practical suggestion is that any pathology report should clearly indicate the definition and give both versions: R1 according to UICC (i.e. R1-direct with a minimum margin of 0 mm), and R1 according to RCPath (i.e. R1<1 mm with a margin of 1 mm). If reporting only one, each study must state which definition is being used.6. Neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or BR tumours
Neoadjuvant CTx and/or RCTx have the potential to improve surgical outcome. Several small phase II trials have suggested increased R0 resection rates and a promising effect on overall survival with multimodal therapy. The heterogeneity of trials limits the power of any conclusion [
[8]
], but two meta-analyses and a recent propensity score matched analysis of the US National Cancer Database suggested positive effects not only in BR tumours where secondary resection after downsizing might be an option but also in those tumours that appear to be resectable upfront [43
, 44
, 45
].When asked if patients with resectable tumours should receive neoadjuvant treatment, none of the panel members were in favour of this approach with all proceeding directly to resection. Several randomised trials which address this question have recently started accrual (e.g. AIO—NCT02047513; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology—NCT02839343, UNICANCER—NCT02959879, NCT01900327, NCT02172976).
The general concept of ‘borderline-resectable’ tumours to highlight the potential for preoperative therapy was accepted by a majority (62%, with a number of abstentions) of the panel.
The most widely propagated definition of BR is provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines [
[7]
] which have also been adopted in Europe [Network NCC. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Version 22016.https://www.nccn.org.
[8]
]. Briefly, any direct contact of the tumour with major arterial vessels but with less than 180° encasement or obvious involvement of the superior mesenteric or portal vein (for details see Table 2) is considered as BR. In contrast, major (>180°) involvement of the arteries or unreconstructible venous involvement is classified as unresectable LAPC. Even though this definition was judged as acceptable by a majority of voting panel members (50% abstentions; of the remaining panellists, 60% were in favour), most panellists would not consider the tumour to be classified as BR if there was only venous involvement (88% of those voting) and also were not decided as to its value for arterial involvement (50/50). In summary, the vast majority did not consider the NCCN definition to be the optimal discriminator for preoperative therapy. The main reason for this ambiguity was the potential discrepancy between technical feasibility and oncologic reasoning. Most of the panellists consider vessel involvement as a technical hurdle which primarily impacts surgical morbidity (75%), whereas the general concept of BR was felt to be oriented towards the improvement of oncological outcome (78%) through identification of a subgroup of patients who are in need of additional treatment.Table 2Criteria defining resectability status according to the NCCN Guidelines (Version 2.2016) and Evans et al. (Ann Surg Oncol 2015).
| Resectability status | Resectable | Borderline-resectable | LARC type A (may be considered for resection after neoadjuvant Tx) | LARC type B (not considered for resection) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vessels defining resectability status | ||||
| Arterial | ||||
| CA | No s.t.c. | s.t.c. ≤ 180° or s.t.c. > 180° w/o involvement of aorta and GDA | s.t.c. > 180° amenable to resection, w/o involvement of aorta | s.t.c. > 180° with involvement of the aorta |
| SMA | No s.t.c. | s.t.c. ≤ 180° | s.t.c. > 180° but ≤270° | s.t.c. > 270° or 1st jejunal branch |
| CHA | No s.t.c. | s.t.c. w/o extension to CA or HA bifurcation | s.t.c > 180° with extention to CA amenable to reconstruction | >180° with extension beyond Bifurcation of proper HA |
| Venous | ||||
| SMV/PV | No s.t.c. or ≤180° w/o contour irregularity | s.t.c. ≤ 180° with contour irreg. or s.t.c. > 180° | Unreconstructable or s.t.c. with most proximal jejunal branch | |
| IVC | No s.t.c. | s.t.c. | ||
CA, coeliac artery; CHA, common hepatic artery; GDA, gastroduodenal artery; HA, hepatic artery; IVC, inferior vena cava; LARC, locally advances rectal cancer; PV, portal vein; SMA, superior mesenteric artery; SMV, superior mesenteric vein; s.t.c, solid tumour contact.
If neoadjuvant treatment is considered as an option, chemotherapy (79%) with FOLFIRINOX (100%) was preferred. Alternatively, induction chemotherapy followed by RCTx was the favoured approach for 21% of the panel members. Ideally RTx should be intensity modulated (73%) with a fluoropyrimidine (100%) added as a radiosensitizer. In any case, a pathological diagnosis was considered mandatory before the start of multimodal treatment for 92% of panel members. If this was not possible, 88% would proceed directly to surgical exploration and omit preoperative therapy.
Restaging after preoperative treatment should include CT and/or MRI (54% CT, 8% MRI and 31% both) for optimal treatment planning, knowing that assessment of the treatment response by imaging is notoriously difficult in this patient population [
[6]
]. Serial measurements of CA 19-9 may be used to exclude progression but this has never been validated prospectively [46
, 47
, 48
]. Therefore, all such patients without progression on radiologic imaging should undergo either exploratory laparotomy (57%) or at least restaging laparoscopy with the option for open surgical exploration if deemed appropriate (additional 43%).7. Locally advanced disease
Patients with unresectable localised tumours without distant metastases (LAPC) are commonly considered as incurable. Systemic chemotherapy is widely used with a palliative treatment goal. If patients present with stable disease after 6 months of CTx, sequential RCTx is sometimes considered an option [
[12]
], with the aim to increase local control [[10]
]. The addition of radiation therapy to chemotherapy, however is not supported by a recent European phase III trial, which did not demonstrate any overall survival benefit [[49]
].- Hammel P.
- Huguet F.
- van Laethem J.L.
- Goldstein D.
- Glimelius B.
- Artru P.
- et al.
Effect of chemoradiotherapy vs chemotherapy on survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib: the LAP07 randomized clinical trial.
JAMA. 2016; 315: 1844-1853
Of note, CTx as well as CRTx occasionally result in objective or even complete responses in individual patients which may render the tumour resectable [
10
, 50
, 51
]. In a recent patient-level meta-analysis, the pooled resectability rate after CTx for LAPC was 28% after FOLFIRINOX with R0 resections reported in 74% of the patients. There appears to be a subgroup of patients who—when responsive to systemic therapy—may technically be considered for resection. A first definition of this group was recently proposed by Evans et al. [[10]
], again based on cross-sectional imaging at the time of diagnosis and the extent of vessel involvement (Table 2). The resulting concept separates BR tumours (which are technically resectable but might profit from additional neoadjuvant treatment to improve oncologic outcome) from a group of LAPC which are technically unresectable upfront but may become ‘potentially resectable after response’ (i.e. LAPC A according to Evans et al.) and from another group which will not be resectable (LAPC B).The distinction of LAPC A from BR was considered useful by all panel members. Their recommendations for the primary approach matched those for BR tumours. CTx (67%) was the preferred option (CRTx suggested by 8%, sequential CTx-CRTx by 25%). Surgical exploration was recommended in all patients with response (100%) but also in patients with stable disease (58%).
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, standardised cross-sectional imaging was considered mandatory for any treatment decision. Based on vessel involvement, the panel distinguished four groups of patients with different treatment strategies. Those with a potential for primary R0 resection have to be separated from patients with either BR tumours—where resection is technically feasible but more likely to yield R1 resections—and from two groups of locally advanced tumours (LAPC) which include either patients might become technically resectable after downsizing (LAPC type A) or those who are definitely inoperable (LAPC type B). In clinical practice, the first group (resectable) would be directly referred to surgery, followed by postoperative CTx to improve overall survival. Neoadjuvant therapy clearly has the potential to further improve long-term results, especially in BR tumours, even though there currently is no evidence-based role for a combined approach outside of a clinical trial.
Addendum
For additional information, including site live lectures and discussions, please refer to: www.oncoconferences.ch/gicc16.
Conflict of interest statement
There are no relevant conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
This meeting was made possible through the financial support of St. Gallen Oncology Conferences. The authors wish to thank Hans-Jörg Senn and Agnes Glaus for sharing their expertise as well as Judith Eberhardt for the excellent operational management of the meeting.
References
- More deaths from pancreatic cancer than breast cancer in the EU by 2017.Acta Oncol. 2016; 55: 1158-1160
- Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States.Cancer Res. 2014; 74: 2913-2921
- Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE–5-a population-based study.Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: 23-34
- Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and long-term outcomes among patients with resected pancreatic cancer: the CONKO-001 randomized trial.JAMA. 2013; 310: 1473-1481
- Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA. 2010; 304: 1073-1081
- Response of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer to neoadjuvant therapy is not reflected by radiographic indicators.Cancer. 2012; 118: 5749-5756
Network NCC. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Version 22016.https://www.nccn.org.
- Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Ann Oncol. 2015; 26: v56-v68
- Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).Surgery. 2014; 155: 977-988
- Non-metastatic pancreatic cancer: resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced-definitions of increasing importance for the optimal delivery of multimodality therapy.Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 3409-3413
- [S3-guideline exocrine pancreatic cancer].Z Gastroenterol. 2013; 51: 1395-1440
- Locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 2654-2668
- Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association.Gastroenterology. 2014; 146: 291-304 e1
- Preoperative CA 19-9 and the yield of staging laparoscopy in patients with radiographically resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 3512-3520
- Indications for staging laparoscopy in pancreatic cancer.HPB (Oxford). 2016; 18: 13-20
- Carbohydrate antigen 19.9 accurately selects patients for laparoscopic assessment to determine resectability of pancreatic malignancy.Br J Surg. 2008; 95: 453-459
- Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 7: CD009323
- What is the Significance of indeterminate pulmonary nodules in patients undergoing resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma?.J Gastrointest Surg. 2015; 19: 841-847
- Natural history of preoperative subcentimeter pulmonary nodules in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Ann Surg. 2015; 261: 970-975
- Refinement of screening for familial pancreatic cancer.Gut. 2016; 65: 1314-1321
- A multicentre comparative prospective blinded analysis of EUS and MRI for screening of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals.Gut. 2016; 65: 1505-1513
- Benefit of Surveillance for pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals: outcome of long-term prospective follow-up studies from three European Expert Centers.J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 2010-2019
- Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas.N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 129-137
- Role of preoperative biliary stents, bile contamination and antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical site infections after pancreaticoduodenectomy.BMC Gastroenterol. 2016; 16: 43
- Metal or plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in resectable pancreatic cancer.Gut. 2016; 65: 1981-1987
- Metal versus plastic stents for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction before primary surgical resection.Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 84: 814-821
- A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer.N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 1200-1210
- Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA. 2007; 297: 267-277
- Adjuvant chemotherapy of S-1 versus gemcitabine for resected pancreatic cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (JASPAC 01).Lancet. 2016; 388: 248-257
- Adjuvant gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after curative resection for pancreatic cancer: a randomized EORTC-40013-22012/FFCD-9203/GERCOR phase II study.J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 4450-4456
- Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2001; 358: 1576-1585
- Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.Lancet. 2017; 389: 1011-1024
- CONKO-005: adjuvant therapy in R0 resected pancreatic cancer patients with gemcitabine plus erlotinib versus gemcitabine for 24 weeks-A prospective randomized phase III study.J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33
- Levels of gemcitabine transport and metabolism proteins predict survival times of patients treated with gemcitabine for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Gastroenterology. 2012; 143: 664-674 e1–6
- Definition of microscopic tumor clearance (r0) in pancreatic cancer resections.Cancers (Basel). 2010; 2: 2001-2010
- 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: 758-768
- Meta-analysis of radical resection rates and margin assessment in pancreatic cancer.Br J Surg. 2015; 102: 1459-1472
- Pancreatic cancer surgery: the new R-status counts.Ann Surg. 2017; 265: 565-573
- Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections.Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 1651-1660
- Dataset for the histopathological reporting of carcinomas of the pancreas, ampulla of Vater and common bile duct.2010
- Pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a French multicentre prospective evaluation of resection margins in 150 evaluable specimens.HPB (Oxford). 2014; 16: 20-33
- Survey of UK histopathologists' approach to the reporting of resection specimens for carcinomas of the pancreatic head.J Clin Pathol. 2013; 66: 715-717
- Neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis of phase II trials.Surgery. 2011; 150: 466-473
- Preoperative/neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages.PLoS Med. 2010; 7: e1000267
- Neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection versus upfront resection for resectable pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matched analysis.J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 515-522
- Serum CA 19-9 as a marker of resectability and survival in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17: 1794-1801
- Neoadjuvant treatment of borderline resectable and non-resectable pancreatic cancer.Ann Oncol. 2013; 24: 2484-2492
- Serum CA19-9 alterations during preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation therapy for resectable invasive ductal carcinoma of the pancreas as an indicator for therapeutic selection and survival.Ann Surg. 2010; 251: 461-469
- Effect of chemoradiotherapy vs chemotherapy on survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib: the LAP07 randomized clinical trial.JAMA. 2016; 315: 1844-1853
- FOLFIRINOX induction therapy for stage 3 pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 3512-3521
- Chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer achieves a high rate of R0 resection.Acta Oncol. 2016; : 1-7
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 29, 2017
Accepted:
March 20,
2017
Received:
March 14,
2017
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy
