Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles from Netherlands
Based on 608 articles published since 2008
||||

These are the 608 published articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms that originated from Netherlands during 2008-2019.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20
1 Guideline Consensus statement on mandatory measurements in pancreatic cancer trials (COMM-PACT) for systemic treatment of unresectable disease. 2018

Ter Veer, Emil / van Rijssen, L Bengt / Besselink, Marc G / Mali, Rosa M A / Berlin, Jordan D / Boeck, Stefan / Bonnetain, Franck / Chau, Ian / Conroy, Thierry / Van Cutsem, Eric / Deplanque, Gael / Friess, Helmut / Glimelius, Bengt / Goldstein, David / Herrmann, Richard / Labianca, Roberto / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Macarulla, Teresa / van der Meer, Jonathan H M / Neoptolemos, John P / Okusaka, Takuji / O'Reilly, Eileen M / Pelzer, Uwe / Philip, Philip A / van der Poel, Marcel J / Reni, Michele / Scheithauer, Werner / Siveke, Jens T / Verslype, Chris / Busch, Olivier R / Wilmink, Johanna W / van Oijen, Martijn G H / van Laarhoven, Hanneke W M. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. · Department of Internal Medicine III, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Klinikum Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France. · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine and Lorraine University, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. · Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Oncology, Hôpital Riviera-Chablais, Vevey, Switzerland. · Department of Surgery, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. · Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Nelune Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. · Cancer Center, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (HUVH), Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, West German Cancer Cancer, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: h.vanlaarhoven@amc.uva.nl. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29508762.

ABSTRACT: Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.

2 Guideline Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline - March 2017. 2017

Polkowski, Marcin / Jenssen, Christian / Kaye, Philip / Carrara, Silvia / Deprez, Pierre / Gines, Angels / Fernández-Esparrach, Gloria / Eisendrath, Pierre / Aithal, Guruprasad P / Arcidiacono, Paolo / Barthet, Marc / Bastos, Pedro / Fornelli, Adele / Napoleon, Bertrand / Iglesias-Garcia, Julio / Seicean, Andrada / Larghi, Alberto / Hassan, Cesare / van Hooft, Jeanin E / Dumonceau, Jean-Marc. ·Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Oncology, Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The M. Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland Strausberg/Wriezen, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Medical University of Brandenburg, Germany. · Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, UK. · Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. · Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. · Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, ICMDM, IDIBAPS, CIBEREHD, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme & Hôpital Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. · Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. · Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital NORD AP-HM, Aix-Marseille-Université, Marseille, France. · Gastroenterology Department Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal. · Anatomic Pathology Unit, AUSL of Bologna, Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology, Ramsay Générale de Santé, Private Hospital Jean Mermoz, Lyon, France. · Gastroenterology Department, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. · Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. · Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Gedyt Endoscopy Center, Buenos Aires, Argentina. ·Endoscopy · Pubmed #28898917.

ABSTRACT: For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

3 Guideline Pathologic Evaluation and Reporting of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas and Other Tumoral Intraepithelial Neoplasms of Pancreatobiliary Tract: Recommendations of Verona Consensus Meeting. 2016

Adsay, Volkan / Mino-Kenudson, Mari / Furukawa, Toru / Basturk, Olca / Zamboni, Giuseppe / Marchegiani, Giovanni / Bassi, Claudio / Salvia, Roberto / Malleo, Giuseppe / Paiella, Salvatore / Wolfgang, Christopher L / Matthaei, Hanno / Offerhaus, G Johan / Adham, Mustapha / Bruno, Marco J / Reid, Michelle D / Krasinskas, Alyssa / Klöppel, Günter / Ohike, Nobuyuki / Tajiri, Takuma / Jang, Kee-Taek / Roa, Juan Carlos / Allen, Peter / Fernández-del Castillo, Carlos / Jang, Jin-Young / Klimstra, David S / Hruban, Ralph H / Anonymous6200823. ·*Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine and Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA †Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA ‡Department of Pathology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan §Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY ¶Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy ||Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA **Department of Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy ††Department of Surgery, Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD ‡‡Departments of Surgery, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany §§Departments of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands ¶¶Department of Surgery, Edouard Herriot Hospital, HCL, Lyon, France ||||Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands ***Departments of Pathology, Technical University, Munich, Germany †††Department of Pathology, Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, Yokohama, Japan ‡‡‡Department of Pathology, Tokai University Hachioji Hospital, Tokyo, Japan §§§Department of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea ¶¶¶Department of Pathology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile ||||||Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY ****Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA ††††Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea ‡‡‡‡Department of Pathology, Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #25775066.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There are no established guidelines for pathologic diagnosis/reporting of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). DESIGN: An international multidisciplinary group, brought together by the Verona Pancreas Group in Italy-2013, was tasked to devise recommendations. RESULTS: (1) Crucial to rule out invasive carcinoma with extensive (if not complete) sampling. (2) Invasive component is to be documented in a full synoptic report including its size, type, grade, and stage. (3) The term "minimally invasive" should be avoided; instead, invasion size with stage and substaging of T1 (1a, b, c; ≤ 0.5, > 0.5-≤ 1, > 1 cm) is to be documented. (4) Largest diameter of the invasion, not the distance from the nearest duct, is to be used. (5) A category of "indeterminate/(suspicious) for invasion" is acceptable for rare cases. (6) The term "malignant" IPMN should be avoided. (7) The highest grade of dysplasia in the non-invasive component is to be documented separately. (8) Lesion size is to be correlated with imaging findings in cysts with rupture. (9) The main duct diameter and, if possible, its involvement are to be documented; however, it is not required to provide main versus branch duct classification in the resected tumor. (10) Subtyping as gastric/intestinal/pancreatobiliary/oncocytic/mixed is of value. (11) Frozen section is to be performed highly selectively, with appreciation of its shortcomings. (12) These principles also apply to other similar tumoral intraepithelial neoplasms (mucinous cystic neoplasms, intra-ampullary, and intra-biliary/cholecystic). CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will ensure proper communication of salient tumor characteristics to the management teams, accurate comparison of data between analyses, and development of more effective management algorithms.

4 Guideline Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials). 2014

Bonnetain, Franck / Bonsing, Bert / Conroy, Thierry / Dousseau, Adelaide / Glimelius, Bengt / Haustermans, Karin / Lacaine, François / Van Laethem, Jean Luc / Aparicio, Thomas / Aust, Daniela / Bassi, Claudio / Berger, Virginie / Chamorey, Emmanuel / Chibaudel, Benoist / Dahan, Laeticia / De Gramont, Aimery / Delpero, Jean Robert / Dervenis, Christos / Ducreux, Michel / Gal, Jocelyn / Gerber, Erich / Ghaneh, Paula / Hammel, Pascal / Hendlisz, Alain / Jooste, Valérie / Labianca, Roberto / Latouche, Aurelien / Lutz, Manfred / Macarulla, Teresa / Malka, David / Mauer, Muriel / Mitry, Emmanuel / Neoptolemos, John / Pessaux, Patrick / Sauvanet, Alain / Tabernero, Josep / Taieb, Julien / van Tienhoven, Geertjan / Gourgou-Bourgade, Sophie / Bellera, Carine / Mathoulin-Pélissier, Simone / Collette, Laurence. ·Methodology and Quality of Life Unit in Cancer, EA 3181, University Hospital of Besançon and CTD-INCa Gercor, UNICNCER GERICO, Besançon, France. Electronic address: franck.bonnetain@univ-fcomte.fr. · Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France. · Bordeaux Segalen University & CHRU, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium. · Digestive Surgical Department, Tenon hospital, Paris, France. · Gastro Intestinal Cancer Unit Erasme Hospital Brussels, Belgium. · Gastroenterology Department, Avicenne Hospital, Paris 13, Bobigny, France. · Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav-Carus, Dresden, Germany. · Surgical and Gastroenterological Department, Endocrine and Pancreatic Unit, Hospital of 'G.B.Rossi', University of Verona, Italy. · Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest - Centre Paul Papin Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer (CLCC), Angers, France. · Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Oncology Department, Hôpital Saint-Antoine & CTD-INCa GERCOR, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, UPMC Paris VI, Paris, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Hopital la Timone, Assitance publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Gastroenterology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Biostatistician, Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Institut fuer Radioonkologie, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Royal Liverpool Hospital, United Kingdom. · Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Digestive Oncology and Gastro-enterology Department, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. · Digestive Cancer Registry, INSERM U866, Dijon, France. · Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Bergamo, Bergame, Italy. · Inserm, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Biostatistics Team, Villejuif, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Caritas Hospital, Saarbrücken, Germany. · Department of the Gastrointestinal Tumors and Phase I Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. · Statistics Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Hôpital René Huguenin, Saint-Cloud, France. · Division of Surgery and Oncology at the University of Liverpool and Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Universitu Hospital Strasbourg, France. · Department of Hepato-pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Department of Hepato-gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Georges Pompidou European hospital, Paris, France. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Institut Du Cancer de Montpellier, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, and Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Montpellier, France. · Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit, Institut Bergonie, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France; Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique - Épidémiologie Clinique CIC-EC 7, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #25256896.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.

5 Guideline Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Tol, Johanna A M G / Gouma, Dirk J / Bassi, Claudio / Dervenis, Christos / Montorsi, Marco / Adham, Mustapha / Andrén-Sandberg, Ake / Asbun, Horacio J / Bockhorn, Maximilian / Büchler, Markus W / Conlon, Kevin C / Fernández-Cruz, Laureano / Fingerhut, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Hartwig, Werner / Izbicki, Jakob R / Lillemoe, Keith D / Milicevic, Miroslav N / Neoptolemos, John P / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Vollmer, Charles M / Yeo, Charles J / Charnley, Richard M / Anonymous3050801. ·Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: D.J.Gouma@amc.nl. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of General-, Visceral- and Thoracic-Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · First Department of Digestive Surgery, Hippokrateon Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Section for Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgery, Penn Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. ·Surgery · Pubmed #25061003.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy is, however, disputed, and there is no true definition of the optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to formulate a definition for standard lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy. METHODS: During a consensus meeting of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, pancreatic surgeons formulated a consensus statement based on available literature and their experience. RESULTS: The nomenclature of the Japanese Pancreas Society was accepted by all participants. Extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of Ln's along the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and around the celiac trunk, splenic artery, or left gastric artery showed no survival benefit compared with a standard lymphadenectomy. No level I evidence was available on prognostic impact of positive para-aortic Ln's. Consensus was reached on selectively removing suspected Ln's outside the resection area for frozen section. No consensus was reached on continuing or terminating resection in cases where these nodes were positive. CONCLUSION: Extended lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended. Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy should strive to resect Ln stations no. 5, 6, 8a, 12b1, 12b2, 12c, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, and 17b. For cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas, removal of stations 10, 11, and 18 is standard. Furthermore, lymphadenectomy is important for adequate nodal staging. Both pancreatic resection in relatively fit patients or nonresectional palliative treatment were accepted as acceptable treatment in cases of positive Ln's outside the resection plane. This consensus statement could serve as a guide for surgeons and researchers in future directives and new clinical studies.

6 Guideline Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Hartwig, Werner / Vollmer, Charles M / Fingerhut, Abe / Yeo, Charles J / Neoptolemos, John P / Adham, Mustapha / Andrén-Sandberg, Ake / Asbun, Horacio J / Bassi, Claudio / Bockhorn, Max / Charnley, Richard / Conlon, Kevin C / Dervenis, Christos / Fernandez-Cruz, Laureano / Friess, Helmut / Gouma, Dirk J / Imrie, Clem W / Lillemoe, Keith D / Milićević, Miroslav N / Montorsi, Marco / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Vashist, Yogesh K / Izbicki, Jakob R / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous1520795. ·Department of Surgery, Klinikum Großhadern, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Penn Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy, France. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of General-, Visceral- and Thoracic-Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: markus.buechler@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Surgery · Pubmed #24856668.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Complete macroscopic tumor resection is one of the most relevant predictors of long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Because locally advanced pancreatic tumors can involve adjacent organs, "extended" pancreatectomy that includes the resection of additional organs may be needed to achieve this goal. Our aim was to develop a common consistent terminology to be used in centers reporting results of pancreatic resections for cancer. METHODS: An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature on extended pancreatectomies and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and the role of extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Macroscopic (R1) and microscopic (R0) complete tumor resection can be achieved in patients with locally advanced disease by extended pancreatectomy. Operative time, blood loss, need for blood transfusions, duration of stay in the intensive care unit, and hospital morbidity, and possibly also perioperative mortality are increased with extended resections. Long-term survival is similar compared with standard resections but appears to be better compared with bypass surgery or nonsurgical palliative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. It was not possible to identify any clear prognostic criteria based on the specific additional organ resected. CONCLUSION: Despite increased perioperative morbidity, extended pancreatectomy is warranted in locally advanced disease to achieve long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma if macroscopic clearance can be achieved. Definitions of extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced disease (and not distant metastatic disease) are established that are crucial for comparison of results of future trials across different practices and countries, in particular for those using neoadjuvant therapy.

7 Guideline Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Bockhorn, Maximilian / Uzunoglu, Faik G / Adham, Mustapha / Imrie, Clem / Milicevic, Miroslav / Sandberg, Aken A / Asbun, Horacio J / Bassi, Claudio / Büchler, Markus / Charnley, Richard M / Conlon, Kevin / Cruz, Laureano Fernandez / Dervenis, Christos / Fingerhutt, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Gouma, Dirk J / Hartwig, Werner / Lillemoe, Keith D / Montorsi, Marco / Neoptolemos, John P / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Takaori, Kyoichi / Traverso, William / Vashist, Yogesh K / Vollmer, Charles / Yeo, Charles J / Izbicki, Jakob R / Anonymous1510795. ·Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · First Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy, France. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. · St. Luke's Clinic - Center For Pancreatic and Liver Diseases, Boise, ID. · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Penn Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: izbicki@uke.de. ·Surgery · Pubmed #24856119.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This position statement was developed to expedite a consensus on definition and treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BRPC) that would have worldwide acceptability. METHODS: An international panel of pancreatic surgeons from well-established, high-volume centers collaborated on a literature review and development of consensus on issues related to borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for the definition of BRPC. Current evidence supports operative exploration and resection in the case of involvement of the mesentericoportal venous axis; in addition, a new classification of extrahepatic mesentericoportal venous resections is proposed by the ISGPS. Suspicion of arterial involvement should lead to exploration to confirm the imaging-based findings. Formal arterial resections are not recommended; however, in exceptional circumstances, individual therapeutic approaches may be evaluated under experimental protocols. The ISGPS endorses the recommendations for specimen examination and the definition of an R1 resection (tumor within 1 mm from the margin) used by the British Royal College of Pathologists. Standard preoperative diagnostics for BRPC may include: (1) serum levels of CA19-9, because CA19-9 levels predict survival in large retrospective series; and also (2) the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio because of the prognostic relevance of the systemic inflammatory response. Various regimens of neoadjuvant therapy are recommended only in the setting of prospective trials at high-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Current evidence justifies portomesenteric venous resection in patients with BRPC. Basic definitions were identified, that are currently lacking but that are needed to obtain further evidence and improvement for this important patient subgroup. A consensus for each topic is given.

8 Editorial The Value of International Collaboration in Pancreatic Cancer Research: EURECCA. 2019

Besselink, Marc. ·Pancreatic and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.g.besselink@amc.uva.nl. ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #30610556.

ABSTRACT:

9 Editorial Pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals: Ready for prime time? 2018

Bruno, Marco J. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #29759159.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

10 Editorial The importance of a well-structured pancreatic screening program for familial and hereditary pancreatic cancer. 2018

Vasen, Hans F A. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. hfavasen@stoet.nl. ·Fam Cancer · Pubmed #29204967.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

11 Review Modeling Human Digestive Diseases With CRISPR-Cas9-Modified Organoids. 2019

Fujii, Masayuki / Clevers, Hans / Sato, Toshiro. ·Department of Gastroenterology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. · Hubrecht Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht and Princess Maxima Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Department of Gastroenterology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: t.sato@keio.jp. ·Gastroenterology · Pubmed #30476497.

ABSTRACT: Insights into the stem cell niche have allowed researchers to cultivate adult tissue stem cells as organoids that display structural and phenotypic features of healthy and diseased epithelial tissues. Organoids derived from patients' tissues are used as models of disease and to test drugs. CRISPR-Cas9 technology can be used to genetically engineer organoids for studies of monogenic diseases and cancer. We review the derivation of organoids from human gastrointestinal tissues and how CRISPR-Cas9 technology can be used to study these organoids. We discuss burgeoning technologies that are broadening our understanding of diseases of the digestive system.

12 Review Translational molecular imaging in exocrine pancreatic cancer. 2018

Cornelissen, Bart / Knight, James C / Mukherjee, Somnath / Evangelista, Laura / Xavier, Catarina / Caobelli, Federico / Del Vecchio, Silvana / Rbah-Vidal, Latifa / Barbet, Jacques / de Jong, Marion / van Leeuwen, Fijs W B. ·CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. bart.cornelissen@oncology.ox.ac.uk. · CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. · Istituto Oncologico Veneto I.R.C.C.S., Padova, Italy. · Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Radiology, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. · Universita' degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", Naples, Italy. · CRCINA, INSERM, CNRS, Université d'Angers, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France. · Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. · Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. ·Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging · Pubmed #30225616.

ABSTRACT: Effective treatment for pancreatic cancer remains challenging, particularly the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which makes up more than 95% of all pancreatic cancers. Late diagnosis and failure of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are all too common, and many patients die soon after diagnosis. Here, we make the case for the increased use of molecular imaging in PDAC preclinical research and in patient management.

13 Review Fluorescent-guided surgery for sentinel lymph node detection in gastric cancer and carcinoembryonic antigen targeted fluorescent-guided surgery in colorectal and pancreatic cancer. 2018

Vuijk, Floris A / Hilling, Denise E / Mieog, J Sven D / Vahrmeijer, Alexander L. ·Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. ·J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #30216455.

ABSTRACT: Sentinel lymph node procedures for gastric cancer resections using indocyanine green (ICG) linked to Nanocoll outperformed normal ICG but did not provide information on possible lymph node metastasis. Carcinoembryonic antigen targeted fluorescent imaging using SGM-101 was successful in both pancreatic and colorectal cancer. A large phase III multicentre trial will soon be initiated in colorectal cancer patients.

14 Review The diagnostic performance of CT versus FDG PET-CT for the detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2018

Daamen, Lois A / Groot, Vincent P / Goense, Lucas / Wessels, Frank J / Borel Rinkes, Inne H / Intven, Martijn P W / van Santvoort, Hjalmar C / Molenaar, I Quintus. ·Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: L.A.Daamen-3@umcutrecht.nl. · Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. of Surgery, The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Dept. of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Dept. of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Dept. of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht Cancer Center & St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein. · Dept. of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht Cancer Center & St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein. Electronic address: I.Q.Molenaar@umcutrecht.nl. ·Eur J Radiol · Pubmed #30150034.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Radiologic surveillance after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) can provide information on the extent and location of disease recurrence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the literature on the diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities for the detection of recurrent disease after surgery for PDAC. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library up to 20 December 2017. All studies reporting on the diagnostic value of imaging modalities for the detection of local and/or distant disease recurrence during follow-up after resection of PDAC were eligible. Both histologic confirmation of recurrent PDAC and clinical confirmation by disease progression on follow-up imaging were considered as suitable reference standard. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. Diagnostic accuracy data were extracted or calculated and presented in forest plots. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A total of seven retrospective studies with 333 relevant patients were ultimately eligible for data extraction. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was acceptable. All seven articles described test results of contrast-enhanced CT, whilst five and three articles reported outcomes on diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET-CT and FDG PET-CT combined with contrast-enhanced CT, respectively. For CT, pooled estimates for sensitivity were 0.70 (95% CI 0.61-0.78) and for specificity 0.80 (95% CI 0.69-0.88). For FDG PET-CT, pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 0.88 (95% CI 0.81-0.93) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.94), respectively. For FDG PET-CT in combination with contrast-enhanced CT, pooled estimates for sensitivity were 0.95 (95% CI 0.88-0.98) and for specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.63-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: According to the current literature, post-operative CT has a moderate diagnostic accuracy in the detection of recurrent disease. FDG PET-CT imaging could be of additional value when disease recurrence is suspected despite negative or equivocal CT findings. Nevertheless, evidence supporting radiologic surveillance after resection of PDAC is limited. Future prospective studies are needed to optimize surveillance strategies after resection of pancreatic cancer.

15 Review Advances in Diagnostic and Intraoperative Molecular Imaging of Pancreatic Cancer. 2018

Tummers, Willemieke S / Willmann, Juergen K / Bonsing, Bert A / Vahrmeijer, Alexander L / Gambhir, Sanjiv S / Swijnenburg, Rutger-Jan. ·Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #29894417.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis. To improve outcomes, there is a critical need for improved tools for detection, accurate staging, and resectability assessment. This could improve patient stratification for the most optimal primary treatment modality. Molecular imaging, used in combination with tumor-specific imaging agents, can improve established imaging methods for PDAC. These novel, tumor-specific imaging agents developed to target specific biomarkers have the potential to specifically differentiate between malignant and benign diseases, such as pancreatitis. When these agents are coupled to various types of labels, this type of molecular imaging can provide integrated diagnostic, noninvasive imaging of PDAC as well as image-guided pancreatic surgery. This review provides a detailed overview of the current clinical imaging applications, upcoming molecular imaging strategies for PDAC, and potential targets for imaging, with an emphasis on intraoperative imaging applications.

16 Review Meta-analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. 2018

Versteijne, E / Vogel, J A / Besselink, M G / Busch, O R C / Wilmink, J W / Daams, J G / van Eijck, C H J / Groot Koerkamp, B / Rasch, C R N / van Tienhoven, G / Anonymous2681013. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Medical Library, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ·Br J Surg · Pubmed #29708592.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8 months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8 months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1 versus 15·0 months respectively). The overall resection rate was lower with neoadjuvant treatment than with upfront surgery (66·0 versus 81·3 per cent; P < 0·001), but the R0 rate was higher (86·8 (95 per cent c.i. 84·6 to 88·7) versus 66·9 (64·2 to 69·6) per cent; P < 0·001). Reported by intention to treat, the R0 rates were 58·0 and 54·9 per cent respectively (P = 0·088). The pathological lymph node rate was 43·8 per cent after neoadjuvant therapy and 64·8 per cent in the upfront surgery group (P < 0·001). Toxicity of at least grade III was reported in up to 64 per cent of the patients. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.

17 Review Pain in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A multidisciplinary, International guideline for optimized management. 2018

Drewes, Asbjørn M / Campbell, Claudia M / Ceyhan, Güralp O / Delhaye, Myriam / Garg, Pramod K / van Goor, Harry / Laquente, Berta / Morlion, Bart / Olesen, Søren S / Singh, Vikesh K / Sjøgren, Per / Szigethy, Eva / Windsor, John A / Salvetti, Marina G / Talukdar, Rupjyoti. ·Centre for Pancreatic Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark. Electronic address: amd@rn.dk. · Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. · Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain. · Centre for Algology & Pain Management, University Hospitals Leuven, Pellenberg, Belgium. · Centre for Pancreatic Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark. · Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. · Section of Palliative Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. · Division of Gastroenterology, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. · Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand. · Medical Surgical Department, School of Nursing, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. · Department of Gastroenterology, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India. ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #29706482.

ABSTRACT: Abdominal pain is an important symptom in most patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Adequate control of pain is often unsatisfactory due to limited treatment options and significant variation in local practice, emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach. This review contends that improvement in the management of PDAC pain will result from a synthesis of best practice and evidence around the world in a multidisciplinary way. To improve clinical utility and evaluation, the evidence was rated according to the GRADE guidelines by a group of international experts. An algorithm is presented, which brings together all currently available treatment options. Pain is best treated early on with analgesics with most patients requiring opioids, but neurolytic procedures are often required later in the disease course. Celiac plexus neurolysis offers medium term relief in a substantial number of patients, but other procedures such as splanchnicectomy are also available. Palliative chemotherapy also provides pain relief as a collateral benefit. It is stressed that the assessment of pain must take into account the broader context of other physical and psychological symptoms. Adjunctive treatments for pain, depression and anxiety as well as radiotherapy, endoscopic therapy and neuromodulation may be required in selected patients. There are few comparative studies to help define which combination and order of these treatment options should be applied. New pain therapies are emerging and could for example target neural transmitters. However, until better methods are available, management of pain should be individualized in a multidisciplinary setting to ensure optimal care.

18 Review Dilemmas for the pathologist in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens : An overview of different grossing approaches and the relevance of the histopathological characteristics in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. 2018

Soer, Eline / Brosens, Lodewijk / van de Vijver, Marc / Dijk, Frederike / van Velthuysen, Marie-Louise / Farina-Sarasqueta, Arantza / Morreau, Hans / Offerhaus, Johan / Koens, Lianne / Verheij, Joanne. ·Department of pathology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.c.soer@amc.uva.nl. · Department of pathology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, Netherlands. · Department of pathology, Radboud Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. · Department of pathology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. · Department of pathology, Leiden Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. ·Virchows Arch · Pubmed #29589102.

ABSTRACT: A pancreatoduodenectomy specimen is complex, and there is much debate on how it is best approached by the pathologist. In this review, we provide an overview of topics relevant for current clinical practice in terms of gross dissection, and macro- and microscopic assessment of the pancreatoduodenectomy specimen with a suspicion of suspected pancreatic cancer. Tumor origin, tumor size, degree of differentiation, lymph node status, and resection margin status are universally accepted as prognostic for survival. However, different guidelines diverge on important issues, such as the diagnostic criteria for evaluating the completeness of resection. The macroscopic assessment of the site of origin in periampullary tumors and cystic lesions is influenced by the grossing method. Bi-sectioning of the head of the pancreas may offer an advantage in this respect, as this method allows for optimal visualization of the periampullary area. However, a head-to-head comparison of the assessment of clinically relevant parameters, using axial slicing versus bi-sectioning, is not available yet and the gold standard to compare both techniques prospectively might be subject of debate. Further studies are required to validate the various dissection protocols used for pancreatoduodenectomy specimens and their specific value in the assessment of pathological parameters relevant for prognosis.

19 Review Irreversible Electroporation in Hepatopancreaticobiliary Tumours. 2018

Ruarus, A H / Vroomen, L G P H / Puijk, R S / Scheffer, H J / Zonderhuis, B M / Kazemier, G / van den Tol, M P / Berger, F H / Meijerink, M R. ·Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.ruarus@vumc.nl. · Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. · Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ·Can Assoc Radiol J · Pubmed #29458954.

ABSTRACT: Hepatopancreaticobiliary tumours are often diagnosed at an advanced disease stage, in which encasement or invasion of local biliary or vascular structures has already occurred. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is an image-guided tumour ablation technique that induces cell death by exposing the tumour to high-voltage electrical pulses. The cellular membrane is disrupted, while sparing the extracellular matrix of critical tubular structures. The preservation of tissue integrity makes IRE an attractive treatment option for tumours in the vicinity of vital structures such as splanchnic blood vessels and major bile ducts. This article reviews current data and discusses future trends of IRE for hepatopancreaticobiliary tumours.

20 Review Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. 2017

Gurusamy, Kurinchi Selvan / Riviere, Deniece / van Laarhoven, C J H / Besselink, Marc / Abu-Hilal, Mohammed / Davidson, Brian R / Morris, Steve. ·Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom. · Department of Surgery, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom. · Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom. ·PLoS One · Pubmed #29272281.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A recent Cochrane review compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for people with for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas and found that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may reduce the length of hospital stay. We compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. METHOD: Model based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. A decision tree model was constructed using probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources. A time horizon of 5 years was used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental net monetary benefit was positive (£3,708.58 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -£9,473.62 to £16,115.69) but the 95% CI includes zero, indicating that there is significant uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy. The probability laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer was between 70% and 80% at the willingness-to-pay thresholds generally used in England (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to the survival proportions and the operating time. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable uncertainty about whether laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in the NHS setting.

21 Review Robotic stereotactic treatment for malignant metastasis of solid tumour in the pancreas: A multiple case report and review of literature. 2017

Loi, M / Magallon-Baro, A / Papalazarou, C / Milder, M / Nuyttens, J J. ·Radiotherapy Department, Erasmus MC, Groene Hilledijk 301, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: m.loi@erasmusmc.nl. · Medical Physics, Erasmus MC, Groene Hilledijk 301, Rotterdam, Netherlands. · Radiotherapy Department, Erasmus MC, Groene Hilledijk 301, Rotterdam, Netherlands. ·Cancer Radiother · Pubmed #29132801.

ABSTRACT: Metastatic involvement of the pancreas occurs in 5% of patients affected by advanced malignancies. Surgical resection has been reported by number of authors as a valuable option to improve disease control, in particular in patients with limited disease burden and favourable histotypes; however, the benefit of this procedure has been questioned due to patient selection, technical challenges and relevant risk of perioperative mortality and severe complications. In the present study, a cohort of surgically unfit patients affected by a solitary metastasis in the pancreas from various primary tumours received stereotactic radiotherapy with an ablative dose schedule, obtaining promising local and distant disease progression-free delay with minor toxicity. This is the first report to our knowledge on the use of ablative stereotactic radiotherapy of metastasis in the pancreatic gland.

22 Review Clinical benefit of systemic treatment in patients with advanced pancreatic and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours according to ESMO-MCBS and ASCO framework. 2017

de Hosson, L D / van Veenendaal, L M / Schuller, Y / Zandee, W T / de Herder, W W / Tesselaar, M E T / Klümpen, H J / Walenkamp, A M E. ·Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen. · Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. · Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam. · Department of Endocrinology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #29045525.

ABSTRACT: Background: Assessment of clinical benefit of systemic treatments of rare diseases including gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NET) is challenging. Recently several tools have been developed to grade the clinical benefit of cancer drugs. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has developed and revised the ASCO framework consisting of the Net Health Benefit (NHB) score juxtaposed against the costs of the treatment. In this review, we graded systemic treatments for GEP-NET patients with both frameworks. Methods: The electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched for papers reporting comparative trials, conducted in adult GEP-NET patients in the English language. Papers were assessed according to the ESMO-MCBS and the NHB part of the ASCO revised Framework (NHB-ASCO-F) by four independent assessors, and discrepancies were discussed. Results: The search yielded 32 trials of which 6 were eligible for grading with the ESMO-MCBS resulting in scores of 2 or 3. Eight trials were eligible for grading with the NHB-ASCO-F, resulting in scores between 37.6 and 57.4. Trials that were not primary assessable by the tools were analysed separately. Consensus between assessors was reached in 68% of trials with the ESMO-MCBS and in 23% of trials with the NHB-ASCO-F. Conclusion: The currently used systemic treatments for GEP-NET patients had low scores according to the NHB-ASCO-F and none could be graded as meaningful clinical beneficial according to the ESMO-MCBS. Despite the low incidence, the heterogeneous patient population and relatively long natural course of NET, future studies on new treatment modalities should aim for high clinical benefit outcomes.

23 Review A mechanopharmacology approach to overcome chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer. 2017

Coppola, Stefano / Carnevale, Ilaria / Danen, Erik H J / Peters, Godefridus J / Schmidt, Thomas / Assaraf, Yehuda G / Giovannetti, Elisa. ·Physics of Life Processes, Huygens-Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Pharmacology Lab, AIRC Start-Up Unit, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. · Division of Toxicology, LACDR, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · The Fred Wyszkowski Cancer Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. · Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Pharmacology Lab, AIRC Start-Up Unit, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Institute for Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies, CNR-Nano, Pisa. Electronic address: elisa.giovannetti@gmail.com. ·Drug Resist Updat · Pubmed #28867243.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly chemoresistant malignancy. This chemoresistant phenotype has been historically associated with genetic factors. Major biomedical research efforts were concentrated that resulted in the identification of subtypes characterized by specific genetic lesions and gene expression signatures that suggest important biological differences. However, to date, these distinct differences could not be exploited for therapeutic interventions. Apart from these genetic factors, desmoplasia and tumor microenvironment have been recognized as key contributors to PDAC chemoresistance. However, while several strategies targeting tumor-stroma have been explored including drugs against members of the Hedgehog family, they failed to meet the expectations in the clinical setting. These unsatisfactory clinical results suggest that, an important link between genetics and the influence of tumor microenvironment on PDAC chemoresistance remains to be elucidated. In this respect, mechanobiology is an emerging multidisciplinary field that encompasses cell and developmental biology as well as biophysics and bioengineering. Herein we provide a comprehensive overview of the key players in pancreatic cancer chemoresistance from the perspective of mechanobiology, and discuss novel experimental avenues such as elastic micropillar arrays that could provide fresh insights for the development of mechanobiology-targeted therapeutic approaches (know as mechanopharmacology) to overcome anticancer drug resistance in pancreatic cancer.

24 Review Clinical value of ctDNA in upper-GI cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2017

Creemers, A / Krausz, S / Strijker, M / van der Wel, M J / Soer, E C / Reinten, R J / Besselink, M G / Wilmink, J W / van de Vijver, M J / van Noesel, C J M / Verheij, J / Meijer, S L / Dijk, F / Bijlsma, M F / van Oijen, M G H / van Laarhoven, H W M. ·Cancer Center Amsterdam, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM)/Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology (LEXOR), AMC, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, AMC, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.creemers@amc.uva.nl. · Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, AMC, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, AMC, The Netherlands. · Department of Pathology, AMC, The Netherlands. · Cancer Center Amsterdam, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM)/Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology (LEXOR), AMC, The Netherlands. · Cancer Center Amsterdam, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM)/Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology (LEXOR), AMC, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, AMC, The Netherlands. ·Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer · Pubmed #28801248.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The recent expanding technical possibilities to detect tumor derived mutations in blood, so-called circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), has rapidly increased the interest in liquid biopsies. This review and meta-analysis explores the clinical value of ctDNA in malignancies of the upper gastro-intestinal tract. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched to identify studies reporting the diagnostic, prognostic or predictive value of ctDNA in patients with esophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer, until January 2017. The diagnostic accuracy and, using random-effect pair-wise meta-analyses, the prognostic value of ctDNA was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. For esophageal and gastric cancer, amplification of oncogenes in blood, such as HER2 and MYC, can be relevant for diagnostic purposes, and to predict treatment response in certain patient subpopulations. Given the limited number of studies assessing the role of ctDNA in esophageal and gastric cancer, the meta-analysis estimated the diagnostic accuracy and predictive value of ctDNA in pancreatic cancer only (n=10). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ctDNA as a diagnostic tool in pancreatic cancer were 28% and 95%, respectively. Patients with pancreatic cancer and detectable ctDNA demonstrated a worse overall survival compared to patients with undetectable ctDNA (HR 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-3.22, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: The presence of ctDNA is significantly associated with a poor prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer. The use of ctDNA in clinical practice is promising, although standardization of sequencing techniques and further development of high-sensitive detection methods is needed.

25 Review Geographical variation and trends in outcomes of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with or without splenic vessel preservation: A meta-analysis. 2017

Yongfei, Hua / Javed, Ammar A / Burkhart, Richard / Peters, Niek A / Hasanain, Alina / Weiss, Matthew J / Wolfgang, Christopher L / He, Jin. ·Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Surgery, Lihuili Eastern Hospital, Ningbo, China. · Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA; University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: jhe11@jhmi.edu. ·Int J Surg · Pubmed #28735894.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is performed to treat tumors of the pancreatic body and tail. Traditionally, splenectomy is performed with a DP, however, laparoscopic spleen-preserving DP (SPDP) using Warshaw's (splenic vessels ligation) or Kimura's (splenic vessels preservation) techniques have been reported. The clinical benefits of using either technique remain unclear. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing Warshaw's and Kimura SPDP. This is the first study to evaluate the geographical variation in outcomes of Warshaw's and Kimura SPDP. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were used to identify studies reporting Warshaw's and Kimura SPDP. Clinical outcomes were compared. Pooled odds risk and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated using random effect models. RESULTS: Fourteen non-randomized controlled studies involving 945 patients met our selection criteria. 301 (31.9%) patients underwent Warshaw's SPDP; 644 (68.1%) underwent Kimura SPDP. Compared to Warshaw's SPDP, patients undergoing Kimura SPDP had a lower incidence of post-operative complications including spleen infarction (OR = 9.64, 95% CI = 5.79 to 16.05, P < 0.001) and gastric varices (OR = 11.88, 95% CI = 5.11 to 27.66, P < 0.001). The length of surgery was significantly shorter for Warshaw's SPDP (WMD = -18.12, 95%CI = -26.52 to -9.72, p < 0.001). Decreased blood loss was reported for patients undergoing Warshaw's SPDP (WMD = -59.72, 95%CI = -102.01 to -17.43, p = 0.006). There were no differences between the two groups' rates of conversion to an open procedure (P = 0.35), postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = 0.71), need for reoperation (P = 0.25), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Both Warshaw's and Kimura are safe SPDP techniques. These data suggest Kimura SPDP is the preferred technique due to less risk of splenic infarct and gastric varices. Despite evidence of regional variation in volume performed (between Kimura and Warshaw's), there are no statistically significant differences in outcomes between these techniques.

Next