Log in
Surgery

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

REDISCOVER2024Full text
Full text · CC BYBoggi U, Kauffmann E, Napoli N, Barreto SG, Besselink MG, Fusai GK et al.. REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. Ann Surg, 2024. Licensed under CC BY. Changes: reformatted for the web. Original: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006248

Summary

Objective:

The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Background:

Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking.

Methods:

The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines.

Results:

Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population (https://rediscover.unipi.it/).

Conclusions:

The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains an aggressive and frequently mortal malignancy.1 The poor prognosis of PDAC is influenced by late detection and poor response to existing oncologic treatments.2–6

In about one-third of the patients, PDAC exhibits a predominantly localized growth pattern.7 PDAC has the proclivity to surround and invade neighboring vascular structures and may be referred to as borderline-resectable (BR-PDAC) or locally advanced PDAC (LA-PDAC), based on the extent of involvement of these vessels.8 On practical grounds, a BR-PDAC is considered resectable to macroscopically negative margins. Resection of the portal vein and/or hepatic artery, however, may be required with the pathologic examination revealing a higher rate of microscopically positive resection margins, when compared to resectable PDAC. An LA-PDAC refers to an unresectable tumor. Resection of an LA-PDAC would typically require extensive retroperitoneal dissection or resection of an arterial segment and often vein resection, with no guarantee of complete tumor clearance. Historically, most patients with either BR-PDAC or LA-PDAC were not considered candidates for resection due to concerns of high morbidity and mortality, coupled with incomplete oncologic resection resulting in poor prognosis. Many considered such resection as a futile effort.9,10

The development of effective multiagent chemotherapy regimens has positively impacted the use of resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC. Indeed, the administration of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting has become a game changer giving rise to the novel concept of “prognosis-based resectability” providing information about tumor biology and responsiveness.11 Following neoadjuvant therapy, PDAC is currently deemed resectable if there is no tumor progression or evidence of tumor regression, a decline of Ca 19.9 levels, and the general conditions of the patients are satisfactory. In an intention-to-treat analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy permitted resection in around 24% of patients with BR-PDAC and 9% with LA-PDAC.12 Therefore, this approach allows for a selection based on response to treatment. Oncology guidelines currently suggest considering surgical resection when such control or regression is observed.8,13

While this strategy based on “prognosis-based rationale” may justify a surgical approach to select patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, it adds new questions regarding the selection and management of these patients during the perioperative phase.14–16 The REDISCOVER international consensus conference was specifically organized to provide guidelines for clinical practice in this new context of decision-making based on oncologic responses, and still influenced by local institutional discussions at multidisciplinary tumor boards and surgical expertise.

METHODS

The REDISCOVER guidelines were an initiative of the Italian Society of Surgery endorsed by the Pancreas Club Inc.

Four separate committees were formed. First, a 12-member Steering Committee was created based on clinical and scientific backgrounds, as well as an established surgical competence with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC (Europe: 8, USA: 2, India: 1, South Australia: 1). The Steering Committee included the chairperson of the consensus conference (U.B.). This committee designated a Validation Committee consisting of 15 members (Europe: 12; USA: 2) chaired by a pancreatic surgeon familiar with the methodology (H.J.A.; USA) as well as 3 patient representatives and a Research Committee of 18 members (all from Europe) devoted to a comprehensive literature search for BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC. A large Expert Committee of 79 members (Europe: 64; USA: 7; Japan: 5; China: 3) was also created serving for the discussion at the consensus conference and the voting. Finally, a 19-member The REDISCOVER Multidisciplinary Advisory Board comprising members of medical and radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, diagnostic and interventional endoscopy, and pathology was selected to guarantee adherence to guidelines.

The methodology used to establish the REDISCOVER guidelines has been previously employed in other evidence-based guidelines.17–20 Briefly, working groups of experts and researchers used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to evaluate the evidence and create guideline recommendations.21 The strength of recommendation was based on the GRADE rating.22 The Expert Committee then used the Delphi method to reach a consensus on the recommendations,23 and the Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines and externally validate them.24 The Validation Committee operated autonomously since it was not involved in developing the recommendations and was not provided with any advance notice of the precise content of the guidelines before the meeting.

A total of 52 clinical questions were identified by the steering committee to be allocated to 5 working groups. Each working group consisted of 2 to 3 members of the steering committee, 1 to 2 senior researchers, and 2 to 3 junior researchers.

The working groups used the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to conduct systematic reviews of the literature for each question (the overall PRISMA flowchart is depicted in Fig. 1). Studies published in English that had a minimum sample size of 10 patients were included. Following screening, all studies deemed eligible were examined and condensed into distinct evidence tables.

FIGURE 1

Flow chart of systematic literature review.

— figure not reproduced here; see the original article.

The experts of working groups developed recommendations for each clinical question based on the quality of the evidence. A GRADE rating was attached to each recommendation. The Chairman received the final recommendations from each panel. Recommendations were combined into a questionnaire and distributed to the experts for the first online vote in accordance with the Delphi process. Experts could vote on whether they agreed or disagreed with the respective recommendations in addition to providing comments. For the first online Delphi session, an agreement rate of at least 90% was required. The recommendations that did not reach that agreement were sent back to the original working group for revision. A second online Delphi voting session was held with revised recommendations (agreement rate of at least 80%). The voting process was kept confidential and anonymous. The Chairman and researcher leaders were the only persons with access to the voting rounds’ results, which otherwise remained anonymous. All experts received the first and second online Delphi surveys on August 28 and September 10, 2023

An in-person meeting was held in Pisa, Italy, on September 17 and 18, 2023, during the 125th National Congress of the Italian Society of Surgery. Each working group delivered its evidence-based recommendations in a dedicated session. Following each statement, the audience used a digital voting system to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposed statement. To promote transparency and stimulate discussion, the results of the audience’s final vote were displayed in a real-time manner. The Validation Committee examined the recommendations’ wording and evaluated the methodology and quality of the guidelines for each topic according to the AGREE II-GRS tool. This was carried out following the presentation of the questions allocated to each working group during private Validation Committee sessions. The Validation Committee provided a report with the quality scores for every topic and recommendations for additions or deletions during the 2-day meeting. Recommendations, which had an initial audience approval percentage of <80% were revised/updated by the Validation Committee based on the discussions held by the experts in the audience and were then put to a second vote by the audience. The Chairman Committee and Expert Committee examined and approved all additional changes and recommendations.

RESULTS

While each recommendation was approved after the online Delphi rounds, minor phrasing modifications were made following the in-person meeting in Pisa, Italy. Twelve of the 52 clinical questions were consolidated into 6, 12 were dropped including 3 by the audience and 9 by the validation committee. Supplementary Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/SLA/F30 displays the 34 recommendations that were ultimately adopted. The clinical questions, accepted recommendations, audience agreement, expert agreement, grade of evidence, strength of recommendation, and quality score are listed in Supplementary Table 2, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/SLA/F30. Some comments are also added, when applicable. Figure 2 provides a flowchart of the process. A list of the clinical questions that were dropped is provided in Supplementary Table 3, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/SLA/F30. The consensus conference was attended by 136 participants from 18 countries.

FIGURE 2

Flow chart of the guideline process.

— figure not reproduced here; see the original article.

Two recommendations were graded as “strong”—one of which was upgraded by experts—and 22 recommendations were graded as “expert opinion” because of the low level of evidence for 29 of the 34 clinical questions (85%) (Fig. 3). The 2 strong recommendations concern whether pancreatic resection should be pursued in patients with BR-PDAC after successful neoadjuvant treatments and whether epidural anesthesia should be preferred over standard anesthesia/analgesia. The low level of evidence was influenced by the many studies that reported BR and LA-PDAC as one unique entity.

FIGURE 3

Histograms showing the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations.

— figure not reproduced here; see the original article.

The REDISCOVER guidelines outline specific recommendations for the present care of patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC and indicate the several areas in which additional research is required.

Participants in the consensus meeting concluded that well-designed clinical trials and multi-institutional registries are urgently needed to improve the level of evidence and address several important issues about the treatment of BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC. Participants agreed that the most practical way to advance promptly our understanding is to establish an international registry, given that these studies may be challenging to conduct and may require much time to complete. The REDISCOVER registry is now available online (https://rediscover.unipi.it/).

DISCUSSION

The REDISCOVER guidelines were developed to advance the understanding, management, and science around patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC. Indeed, a growing number of patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC are now considered eligible for surgery after receiving successful neoadjuvant therapies.25–27 An international assessment on the management of LA-PDAC among high-volume pancreatic surgeons revealed that all surgeons are willing to undertake portal vein resection in well-selected patients, and half of them were also willing to consider artery resection. Even in the case of oligometastatic liver metastases, around one-third of the experts would accept the option of resection. Nonetheless, this survey revealed a considerable variation in clinical practice, that is largely based on the lack of prospective studies.28 Therefore, it was clear that there is a great need for the international community of pancreas surgeons to convene and set some universal guidelines for evidence-based practice in these patients and determine areas where further evidence and collaboration are needed.

It is unrealistic to assume that the REDISCOVER guidelines could address all issues pertaining to the management and perioperative care of patients with LA-PDAC and BR-PDAC. Instead, they ought to be viewed as a first step toward an ongoing, worldwide cooperative endeavor to standardize these procedures. With this priority, we developed an online registry, which is currently available to enter cases on a large scale (https://rediscover.unipi.it/). It is expected that the international register REDISCOVER will serve as a tool for resolving some compelling issues. There is also a major need for high-quality prospective studies.

The REDISCOVER recommendations are not intended to supersede or conflict with already available oncology guidelines.8,13 Instead, they seek to address a number of surgical topics not covered in these documents and offer perspectives on a number of contentious issues pertaining to the use of oncology guidelines in surgical practice. In addition to that, some new concepts that were not included in earlier guidelines—such as the “test of time” and arterial divestment—need to be assessed in the REDISCOVER guidelines in light of the available evidence.

The REDISCOVER guidelines emphasize the importance of patient selection. Preoperative systemic therapy should be delivered to all patients with or without radiation. Surgery remains the treatment end-goal option for BR-PDAC and should be taken into consideration also in well-selected patients with LA-PDAC using stringent criteria including tumor regression/stability, a significant decline in Ca 19.9 levels, and limited to patients fit for surgery. Indeed, the new paradigm of prognosis-based resectability, emphasizing biological behavior over anatomic tumor features (ie, A-B-C approach), allows expert pancreatic surgeons to prepare for vessels and pancreatic resection.11 With this new strategy, surgeons must be always prepared to handle unplanned vein or artery resection and reconstruction during surgery.29–31

Vascular resections and reconstructions can be performed by liver transplant or vascular surgeons following preoperative planning or upon intraoperative consultation.32,33 Appreciating that timely support of vascular and liver transplant surgeons may not always be available has led the participants of the REDISCOVER consensus conference to advise that pancreatic surgeons should achieve proficiency and independence in vascular resection and reconstruction. Resection of BR-PDAC and, especially of LA-PDAC, requires the pancreatic surgeon to have the extra technical skill not usually encountered in routine pancreatic resections. The planning of the procedure based on imaging after neoadjuvant treatments,34 safe vascular control,35 portal hypertension management,36 preservation of blood supply to essential organs,35 workflow adaptation to patient’s anatomy,35 and patient management both before and after surgery35 are some of these specific technical challenges. Thus, a comprehensive reevaluation of the professional profile of pancreatic surgeons is necessary. Focused training in vascular techniques should be provided to the upcoming generation of pancreatic surgeons.

A substantial body of research suggests that outcomes of pancreatic resections improve if surgery is performed in high-volume centers.37 Although the postoperative mortality of pancreatic resections is improved when the historical threshold of 20 pancreatoduodenectomy procedures annually is applied, it is increasingly evident that this capped annual number of operations is only the start of a global quality improvement process.38,39 Furthermore, it was made evident during the REDISCOVER consensus meeting that not all large-volume centers agree on the oncologic value of arterial resections and/or are comfortable handling peripancreatic arteries. For this reason, the REDISCOVER guidelines introduced the idea of a center of excellence for pancreatic surgery. A center of excellence provides patients with comprehensive, interdisciplinary treatment delivered by highly skilled professionals, resulting in high-quality patient outcomes.40 Thus, this goes well beyond just volume, although high-volume (ie, >50–100 pancreatoduodenectomies/yr) is essential for this type of surgery. Recent benchmark studies demonstrated that centers operating on difficult cases offer better outcomes to all their patients, for example with lower rates of clinically relevant severe postoperative pancreatic fistula.41–43 One of the requirements for becoming a center of excellence should be to enroll patients in a prospective database or registry.

The annual incidence of pancreatic resections is approximately 6 per 105 inhabitants.44 For BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, the annual incidence drops to ~0.5 and 0.16 procedures per 105 inhabitants, respectively.45 While these figures, clearly and further, support the need for BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC to be centralized for resection, it is important to note that centralization of pancreatic resections has only occurred in a few countries. Despite the overwhelming amount of data supporting this strategy, there are a number of obstacles that prevent centralization from being widely implemented.46

Arterial resection is still linked to significant death rates, even in high-volume centers with an established reputation in pancreatic surgery.22,30,31 Therefore, the REDISCOVER guidelines cannot generally advocate arterial resections in routine practice. Surgeons who are willing to pursue arterial resection must devote a significant amount of time and resources to learning how to perform it. The learning process is not just limited to surgical skills since a comprehensive preoperative assessment and planning are critical to the success of artery resection. Unplanned artery resection is associated with higher perioperative mortality than planned resection. Some unplanned arterial resections result from iatrogenic injury while peeling off the tumor from a visceral artery (also known as arterial divestment).30,31 Therefore, while arterial divestment may be a treatment option in selected patients to spare arterial resection,47,48 while accepting a non-negligible risk of false-negative frozen section histology potentially resulting in margin positive resection,49 surgeons must be prepared to unexpectedly proceed with arterial resection and reconstruction. Finally, up to 60% of the patients undergoing arterial resection did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the era of preoperative oncology treatments.31 Unanticipated arterial resection accounts for some of these pancreatectomies performed beyond the current guidelines, further underscoring the need for careful patient selection and inclusion in the registry. The REDISCOVER guidelines permit the prudent pursuit of arterial resections in highly selected patients (showing involvement of the celiac trunk and/or hepatic artery, but not of the superior mesenteric artery), operated upon by skilled pancreatic surgeons in centers of excellence, provided that a multidisciplinary tumor board decides to proceed with surgery and that the results are documented in a prospective database, and from now in the registry This is based on some pilot studies that demonstrate improved outcomes.35,36,50,51

Reviews of the literature and meeting discussions brought to light a few shortcomings in the BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC definitions as they stand. First, there is just 1 category of LA-PDAC (anatomic) compared to 3 categories of BR-PDAC (A-B-C: anatomic, biological, and conditional).52,53 Second, while encasement of both the celiac trunk and the superior mesenteric artery match the current definition of LA-PDAC, the REDISCOVER guidelines accept surgery as an option only when arterial involvement is limited to the celiac trunk. Third, there is a significant amount of heterogeneity in the interpretation of anatomic data.28,54 Moreover, tumor anatomy in cross-sectional imaging may not match tumor histology following neoadjuvant treatments, and may not be able to predict the extent of local malignant involvement.55 Fourth, in the current era of preoperative systemic therapy and multimodality management, the anatomic definition of BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC should be reassessed by the multispecialty board after neoadjuvant therapy to consider surgical resection or not. Such a decision must be individualized to each patient by the board. This decision should incorporate the patient’s response to neoadjuvant treatment, the patient’s age, and baseline conditions as well as integrate anatomic and biological criteria.

Finally, one important outcome of the REDISCOVER guidelines is the introduction of the concept of avoiding excessive delay in treatment initiation when a pathologic diagnosis has not been obtained after multiple attempts. In a selected group of patients who are well-informed and have an evident clinical and radiologic presentation for PDAC, starting neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered without the need for pretreatment tissue diagnosis. While the NCCN and ESMO guidelines both require tissue diagnosis before the administration of neoadjuvant treatments, they also recognize that, in cases where a multidisciplinary tumor board at a high-volume center agrees on the clinical diagnosis of PDAC and at least 2 biopsies failed to define a tissue diagnosis, oncology treatments may be initiated even lacking histology/cytology confirmation of PDAC.8,13

In conclusion, a group of experienced pancreas surgeons from all over the world came together at the REDISCOVER international consensus conference in an attempt to reach a consensus regarding the practical aspects of surgical therapy for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC. The REDISCOVER guidelines are only a starting point. The recommendations defined during the REDISCOVER international consensus conference should guide current pancreas surgeons and institutions on how to manage patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC and guide future advances.

The very low level of evidence supporting the recommendations as well as the vibrant in-person discussion demonstrate how many aspects of perioperative care are still up to individual’s preference emphasizing the need for consensus and further development of evidence. The terms BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, and studies frequently incorporate data on both tumor phases, which added confusion to the topic. Perhaps, a new definition of BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC should be proposed that is less subjective in interpretation. As the development of high-quality evidence in this field will take a significant number of years, we hope that the implementation of the REDISCOVER international registry can supply some of the missing information.

Supplementary Material

Figure — figure not reproduced here; see the original article.

References

  1. Siegel RL Miller KD Fuchs HE . Cancer statistics, 2021 . CA Cancer J Clin . 2021 ; 71 : 7 – 33 . 33433946 10.3322/caac.21654 PubMed DOI
  2. Rhim AD Mirek ET Aiello NM . EMT and dissemination precede pancreatic tumor formation . Cell . 2012 ; 148 : 349 – 361 . 22265420 10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.025 PMC3266542 PubMed DOI
  3. Schober M Jesenofsky R Faissner R . Desmoplasia and chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer . Cancers (Basel) . 2014 ; 6 : 2137 – 2154 . 25337831 10.3390/cancers6042137 PMC4276960 PubMed DOI
  4. Seshacharyulu P Baine MJ Souchek JJ . Biological determinants of radioresistance and their remediation in pancreatic cancer . Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer . 2017 ; 1868 : 69 – 92 . 28249796 10.1016/j.bbcan.2017.02.003 PMC5548591 PubMed DOI
  5. Bear AS Vonderheide RH O’Hara MH . Challenges and opportunities for pancreatic cancer immunotherapy . Cancer Cell . 2020 ; 38 : 788 – 802 . 32946773 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.08.004 PMC7738380 PubMed DOI
  6. Kather JN Heij LR Grabsch HI . Pan-cancer image-based detection of clinically actionable genetic alterations . Nat Cancer . 2020 ; 1 : 789 – 799 . 33763651 10.1038/s43018-020-0087-6 PMC7610412 PubMed DOI
  7. Peixoto RD Speers C McGahan CE . Prognostic factors and sites of metastasis in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer . Cancer Med . 2015 ; 4 : 1171 – 1177 . 25891650 10.1002/cam4.459 PMC4559028 PubMed DOI
  8. Tempero MA Malafa MP Benson Ⅲ AB . National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Version 2.2023. June 19, 2023. Accessed October 22, 2023 . https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf
  9. Mollberg N Rahbari NN Koch M . Arterial resection during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Ann Surg . 2011 ; 254 : 882 – 893 . 22064622 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823ac299 PubMed DOI
  10. Boggi U Del Chiaro M Croce C . Prognostic implications of tumor invasion or adhesion to peripancreatic vessels in resected pancreatic cancer . Surgery . 2009 ; 146 : 869 – 881 . 19744432 10.1016/j.surg.2009.04.029 PubMed DOI
  11. Oba A Croce C Hosokawa P . Prognosis based definition of resectability in pancreatic cancer: a road map to new guidelines . Ann Surg . 2022 ; 275 : 175 – 181 . 32149822 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003859 PubMed DOI
  12. Maggino L Malleo G Marchegiani G . Outcomes of primary chemotherapy for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma . JAMA Surg . 2019 ; 154 : 932 – 942 . 31339530 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2277 PMC6659151 PubMed DOI
  13. Conroy T Pfeiffer P Vilgrain V . ESMO Guidelines Committee . Pancreatic cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up . Ann Oncol . 2023 ; 34 : 987 – 1002 . 37678671 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.08.009 PubMed DOI
  14. Loos M Mack CE Xu ATL . Distal pancreatectomy: extent of resection determines surgical risk categories . Ann Surg . 2023 ; 279 : 479 – 485 . 37259852 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005935 PMC10829897 PubMed DOI
  15. Loos M Al-Saeedi M Hinz U . Categorization of differing types of total pancreatectomy . JAMA Surg . 2022 ; 157 : 120 – 128 . 34787667 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.5834 PMC8600456 PubMed DOI
  16. Mihaljevic AL Hackert T Loos M . Not all Whipple procedures are equal: proposal for a classification of pancreatoduodenectomies . Surgery . 2021 ; 169 : 1456 – 1462 . 33386130 10.1016/j.surg.2020.11.030 PubMed DOI
  17. Boggi U Vistoli F Marchetti P . World Consensus Group on Pancreas Transplantation . First world consensus conference on pancreas transplantation: part I—methods and results of literature search . Am J Transplant . 2021 ; 21 ( suppl 3 ): 1 – 16 . 10.1111/ajt.16738 PMC8519053 34245116 DOI PubMed
  18. Boggi U Vistoli F Andres A . First World Consensus Conference on pancreas transplantation: part II—recommendations . Am J Transplant . 2021 ; 21 ( suppl 3 ): 17 – 59 . 34245223 10.1111/ajt.16750 PMC8518376 PubMed DOI
  19. Asbun HJ Moekotte AL Vissers FL . International Study Group on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Surgery (I-MIPS). The Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection . Ann Surg . 2020 ; 271 : 1 – 14 . 31567509 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003590 PubMed DOI
  20. Abu Hilal M van Ramshorst TME Boggi U . Collaborators. The Brescia internationally validated European guidelines on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (EGUMIPS) . Ann Surg . 2023 ; 279 : 45 – 57 . 37450702 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006006 PMC10727198 PubMed DOI
  21. SIGN 50: a guideline developer’s handbook. Accessed October 22, 2023. Available at: https://www.sign.ac.uk/media/2038/sign50_2019.pdf
  22. Grading Tutorial. Accessed October 22, 2023. Available at : https://www.uptodate.com/home/gradingtutorial
  23. The Delphi method. Accessed October 22, 2023. Available at: https://citationsy.com/archives/q?doi=10.2307/315075 5
  24. Brouwers MC Kho ME Browman GP . AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care . CMAJ . 2010 ; 182 : E839 – E842 . 20603348 10.1503/cmaj.090449 PMC3001530 PubMed DOI
  25. Hackert T Klaiber U Pausch T . Fifty years of surgery for pancreatic cancer . Pancreas . 2020 ; 49 : 1005 – 1013 . 32833940 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001634 PubMed DOI
  26. Boggi U . Resection of pancreatic cancer with arterial involvement: a paradigm shift away from nresectable to how I do it . Surgery . 2021 ; 169 : 1036 . 33257038 10.1016/j.surg.2020.10.047 PubMed DOI
  27. Napoli N Kauffmann EF Lombardo C . Postoperative results, learning curve, and outcomes of pancreatectomy with arterial resection: a single-center retrospective cohort study on 236 procedures . Int J Surg . 2023 . doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000971 PMC11486960 38079592 DOI PubMed
  28. Reames BN Blair AB Krell RW . Management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer: results of an international survey of current practice . Ann Surg . 2021 ; 273 : 1173 – 1181 . 31449138 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003568 PubMed DOI
  29. Kim PT Wei AC Atenafu EG . Planned versus unplanned portal vein resections during pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma . Br J Surg . 2013 ; 100 : 1349 – 1356 . 23939847 10.1002/bjs.9222 PubMed DOI
  30. Stoop TF Mackay TM Brada LJH . Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group . Pancreatectomy with arterial resection for periampullary cancer: outcomes after planned or unplanned events in a nationwide, multicentre cohort . Br J Surg . 2023 ; 110 : 638 – 642 . 36308339 10.1093/bjs/znac353 PMC10364546 PubMed DOI
  31. Ren L Jäger C Schorn S . Arterial resection for pancreatic cancer: feasibility and current standing in a high-volume center . Ann Surg Open . 2023 ; 4 : e302 . 37746627 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000302 PMC10513225 PubMed DOI
  32. Turley RS Peterson K Barbas AS . Vascular surgery collaboration during pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular reconstruction . Ann Vasc Surg . 2012 ; 26 : 685 – 692 . 22305864 10.1016/j.avsg.2011.11.009 PubMed DOI
  33. Zhang Q Wu J Tian Y . Arterial resection and reconstruction in pancreatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes . BMC Surg . 2019 ; 19 : 141 . 31601220 10.1186/s12893-019-0560-2 PMC6785878 PubMed DOI
  34. Fromer MW Hawthorne J Philips P . An improved staging system for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a critical need in the multidisciplinary era . Ann Surg Oncol . 2021 ; 28 : 6201 – 6210 . 34089107 10.1245/s10434-021-10174-z PubMed DOI
  35. Boggi U Napoli N Kauffmann EF . Pancreatectomy with resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric artery . Br J Surg . 2023 ; 110 : 901 – 904 . 36378526 10.1093/bjs/znac363 PMC10361681 PubMed DOI
  36. Bachellier P Rosso E Fuchshuber P . Use of a temporary intraoperative mesentericoportal shunt for pancreatic resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer with portal vein occlusion and portal hypertension . Surgery . 2014 ; 155 : 449 – 456 . 24462078 10.1016/j.surg.2013.09.003 PubMed DOI
  37. Ratnayake B Pendharkar SA Connor S . Patient volume and clinical outcome after pancreatic cancer resection: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis . Surgery . 2022 ; 172 : 273 – 283 . 35034796 10.1016/j.surg.2021.11.029 PubMed DOI
  38. Krautz C Nimptsch U Weber GF . Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital morbidity and mortality following pancreatic surgery in Germany . Ann Surg . 2018 ; 267 : 411 – 417 . 28379871 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002248 PubMed DOI
  39. van der Geest LG van Rijssen LB Molenaar IQ Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group . Volume-outcome relationships in pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer . HPB (Oxford) . 2016 ; 18 : 317 – 324 . 27037200 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.01.515 PMC4814615 PubMed DOI
  40. Vivian E Brooks MR Longoria R . Improving the standard of care for all—a practical guide to developing a center of excellence . Healthcare (Basel) . 2021 ; 9 : 777 . 34205635 10.3390/healthcare9060777 PMC8235374 PubMed DOI
  41. Sánchez-Velázquez P Muller X Malleo G . Benchmarks in pancreatic surgery: a novel tool for unbiased outcome comparisons . Ann Surg . 2019 ; 270 : 211 – 218 . 30829701 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003223 PubMed DOI
  42. Staiger RD Schwandt H Puhan MA . Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking . Br J Surg . 2019 ; 106 : 59 – 64 . 30485405 10.1002/bjs.10976 PubMed DOI
  43. Gero D Muller X Staiger RD . How to establish benchmarks for surgical outcomes: a checklist based on an international expert Delphi consensus . Ann Surg . 2022 ; 275 : 115 – 120 . 32398485 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003931 PubMed DOI
  44. Farges O Bendersky N Truant S . The theory and practice of pancreatic surgery in France . Ann Surg . 2017 ; 266 : 797 – 804 . 28885506 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002399 PubMed DOI
  45. Farnes I Kleive D Verbeke CS . Resection rates and intention-to-treat outcomes in borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: real-world data from a population-based, prospective cohort study (NORPACT-2) . BJS Open . 2023 ; 7 : zrad137 . 38155512 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad137 PMC10755199 PubMed DOI
  46. Vonlanthen R Lodge P Barkun JS . Toward a consensus on centralization in surgery . Ann Surg . 2018 ; 268 : 712 – 724 . 30169394 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002965 PubMed DOI
  47. Cai B Lu Z Neoptolemos JP . Sub-adventitial divestment technique for resecting artery-involved pancreatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study . Langenbecks Arch Surg . 2021 ; 406 : 691 – 701 . 33507403 10.1007/s00423-021-02080-5 PubMed DOI
  48. Diener MK Mihaljevic AL Strobel O . Periarterial divestment in pancreatic cancer surgery . Surgery . 2021 ; 169 : 1019 – 1025 . 33032819 10.1016/j.surg.2020.08.030 PubMed DOI
  49. Nelson DW Blanchard TH Causey MW . Examining the accuracy and clinical usefulness of intraoperative frozen section analysis in the management of pancreatic lesions . Am J Surg . 2013 ; 205 : 613 – 617 ; discussion 617 . 23592172 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.01.015 PubMed DOI
  50. Tee MC Krajewski AC Groeschl RT . Indications and perioperative outcomes for pancreatectomy with arterial resection . J Am Coll Surg . 2018 ; 227 : 255 – 269 . 29752997 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.05.001 PubMed DOI
  51. Loos M Kester T Klaiber U . Arterial resection in pancreatic cancer surgery: effective after a learning curve . Ann Surg . 2022 ; 275 : 759 – 768 . 33055587 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004054 PubMed DOI
  52. Isaji S Mizuno S Windsor JA . International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017 . Pancreatology . 2018 ; 18 : 2 – 11 . 29191513 10.1016/j.pan.2017.11.011 PubMed DOI
  53. Katz MH Pisters PW Evans DB . Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: the importance of this emerging stage of disease . J Am Coll Surg . 2008 ; 206 : 833 – 846 ; discussion 846–848 . 18471707 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.020 PMC5901743 PubMed DOI
  54. Giannone F Capretti G Abu Hilal M . Resectability of pancreatic cancer is in the eye of the observer: a multicenter, blinded, prospective assessment of interobserver agreement on NCCN resectability status criteria . Ann Surg Open . 2021 ; 2 : e087 . 37635813 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000087 PMC10455302 PubMed DOI
  55. Ferrone CR Marchegiani G Hong TS . Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer . Ann Surg . 2015 ; 261 : 12 – 17 . 25599322 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000867 PMC4349683 PubMed DOI

Conditions covered

Pancreatic cancerPerioperative care

Other guidelines on this topic

Reproduced for free educational use under the licence shown above. WhiteCoat Pro is not affiliated with or endorsed by the authors, the publisher or the issuing organisation. Always check the original document for the current version.