4.5 Article

Distal Pancreatectomy with En Bloc Celiac Axis Resection for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Following Neoadjuvant Therapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 1152-1159

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-012-1839-0

Keywords

Appleby; Pancreatic cancer; Celiac artery resection; Neoadjuvant therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Celiac trunk encasement by adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic body is generally regarded as a contraindication for surgical resection. Recent studies have suggested that a subset of stage III patients will succumb to their disease in the absence of distant metastases. We hypothesized that patients with stage III tumors invading the celiac trunk, who are free of distant disease following neoadjuvant therapy, may derive prolonged survival benefit from aggressive surgical resection. We performed a retrospective review of distal pancreatectomies with en bloc celiac axis resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eleven patients underwent a distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection after completing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Median operative time was 8 h, 14 min, and median estimated blood loss was 700 ml. Median length of stay was 9 days. Five patients (45%) had postoperative complications; three were Clavien grade I. Four patients (35%) had pancreatic leaks; two were ISGPF grade B, and two were grade A. There were two 90-day perioperative deaths. Ten patients had R0 resections (91%). After a median follow-up of 41 weeks, six patients recurred. Four of the five patients with SMAD4 loss recurred, and two of the five patients with intact SMAD4 recurred. Median disease-free and overall survival were 21 weeks and 26 months, respectively. Resection of pancreatic body adenocarcinoma with celiac axis resection is technically feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available