4.6 Article

Is celiac axis resection justified for T4 pancreatic body cancer?

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 151, Issue 1, Pages 61-69

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.06.030

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health Welfare and Labor of Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The clinical impact of the distal pancreatectomy with en-bloc celiac axis resection for locally advanced pancreatic body cancer remains unclear Methods. We reviewed the records of 13 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy-celiac axis resection between 1991 and 2009, 58 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic body cancer involving major vessels, the extrapancreatic neural plexus or other organs (T4 according to the Japanese stage classification) between 1991 and 2009, and 24 patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer without distant metastases (unresectable group) between 2001 and 2009. The clinicopathologic factors and overall survival among the 3 groups were compared. Results. The distal pancreatectomy-celiac axis resection group was associated with a significantly higher incidence of morbidity (92% vs 60%, P = .03) and positive surgical margins (69% vs 26%, P = .003) than the distal pancreatectomy group; however; no survival difference was found between, the 2. groups. No survivor has lived more than 3 years after operation in the distal pancreatectomy-celiac axis resection group. The distal pancreatectomy-celiac axis resection group had a significantly better prognosis than the unresectable group (median survival time, 20.8 vs 9.8 months; P = .01). Conclusion. Aggressive resection for T4 pancreatic body cancer by distal pancreatectomy-celiac axis resection can be justified for otherwise unresectable tumors. The surgical indication should be evaluated carefully because of the higher incidence of morbidity and lower incidence of curability compared with distal pancreatectomy, as well as because there have been no long-term survivors so far (Surgery 2012;151:61-9.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available