Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles from Milan area
Based on 571 articles published since 2008
||||

These are the 571 published articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms that originated from Milan area 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 None 2018

Grimaldi, Franco / Fazio, Nicola / Attanasio, Roberto / Frasoldati, Andrea / Papini, Enrico / Cremonini, Nadia / Davi, Maria V / Funicelli, Luigi / Massironi, Sara / Spada, Francesca / Toscano, Vincenzo / Versari, Annibale / Zini, Michele / Falconi, Massimo / Oberg, Kjell. ·Endocrinology and Metabolic Disease Unit, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Udine, Italy. · Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumor, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Endocrinology Service, Galeazzi Institute IRCCS, Milan, Italy. · Endocrinology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Maria Nuova IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. · Department of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases, Regina Apostolorum Hospital, Albano Laziale (Rome), Italy. · Endocrinology Clinics, Clinica Villalba, Bologna, Italy. · Section of Endocrinology, Medicina Generale e Malattie Aterotrombotiche e Degenerative, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy. · Division of Radiology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. · Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. · Nuclear Medicine Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Maria Nuova IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. · Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita e Salute University, Milan, Italy. · Department of Endocrine Oncology, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. ·Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets · Pubmed #29237387.

ABSTRACT: Well-established criteria for evaluating the response to treatment and the appropriate followup of individual patients are critical in clinical oncology. The current evidence-based data on these issues in terms of the management of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) are unfortunately limited. This document by the Italian Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AME) on the criteria for the follow-up of GEP-NEN patients is aimed at providing comprehensive recommendations for everyday clinical practice based on both the best available evidence and the combined opinion of an interdisciplinary panel of experts. The initial risk stratification of patients with NENs should be performed according to the grading, staging and functional status of the neoplasm and the presence of an inherited syndrome. The evaluation of response to the initial treatment, and to the subsequent therapies for disease progression or recurrence, should be based on a cost-effective, risk-effective and timely use of the appropriate diagnostic resources. A multidisciplinary evaluation of the response to the treatment is strongly recommended and, at every step in the follow-up, it is mandatory to assess the disease state and the patient performance status, comorbidities, and recent clinical evolution. Local expertise, available technical resources and the patient preferences should always be evaluated while planning the individual clinical management of GEP-NENs.

3 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).

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 Guideline Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms. 2014

Anonymous4750793 / Anonymous4760793 / Buscarini, Elisabetta / Pezzilli, Raffaele / Cannizzaro, Renato / De Angelis, Claudio / Gion, Massimo / Morana, Giovanni / Zamboni, Giuseppe / Arcidiacono, Paolo / Balzano, Gianpaolo / Barresi, Luca / Basso, Daniela / Bocus, Paolo / Calculli, Lucia / Capurso, Gabriele / Canzonieri, Vincenzo / Casadei, Riccardo / Crippa, Stefano / D'Onofrio, Mirko / Frulloni, Luca / Fusaroli, Pietro / Manfredi, Guido / Pacchioni, Donatella / Pasquali, Claudio / Rocca, Rodolfo / Ventrucci, Maurizio / Venturini, Silvia / Villanacci, Vincenzo / Zerbi, Alessandro / Falconi, Massimo / Anonymous4770793. ·Gastroenterology Unit, Maggiore Hospital, Crema, Italy. Electronic address: ebuscarini@rim.it. · Pancreas Unit, Department of Digestive Diseases and Internal Medicine, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, CRO-National Cancer Institute, Aviano, Italy. · Gastroenterology and Hepatology Department, A.O. San Giovanni Battista/Molinette, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. · Department of Clinical Pathology, AULSS 12, Venice, Italy. · Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Ospedale Cà Foncello, Treviso, Italy. · Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Division of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita-Salute, Italy. · Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, ISMETT, Palermo, Italy. · Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital, Padua, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria, Negrar, Verona, Italy. · Department of Radiology, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Digestive and Liver Disease Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome at S. Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy. · Division of Pathology, CRO-National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, Aviano, Italy. · Department of Surgery, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Pancreas Unit, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. · Department of Radiology, University Hospital G.B. Rossi, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Surgical and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, Maggiore Hospital, Crema, Italy. · Pathology Unit, A.O. San Giovanni Battista/Molinette, Turin, Italy. · Surgery Unit IV, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. · Gastroenterology Unit, Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Bentivoglio Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · 2nd Pathology Section, Spedali Civili, Brescia, Brescia, Italy. · Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy. ·Dig Liver Dis · Pubmed #24809235.

ABSTRACT: This report contains clinically oriented guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms in patients fit for treatment. The statements were elaborated by working groups of experts by searching and analysing the literature, and then underwent a consensus process using a modified Delphi procedure. The statements report recommendations regarding the most appropriate use and timing of various imaging techniques and of endoscopic ultrasound, the role of circulating and intracystic markers and the pathologic evaluation for the diagnosis and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms.

9 Editorial Focus on pancreatic cancer. 2018

Silvestris, Nicola / Falconi, Massimo. ·Medical Oncology Unit and Scientific Directorate, Cancer Institute "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy. Electronic address: n.silvestris@oncologico.bari.it. · Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational and Research Institute, Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Hospital, University Vita e Salute, Milan, Italy. ·Dig Liver Dis · Pubmed #30301604.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

10 Editorial Prognostic factors for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs): what's better? 2018

Milione, Massimo. ·Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 1st Division of Pathology, IRCCS Foundation National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy. Massimo.milione@istitutotumori.mi.it. ·Endocrine · Pubmed #28417314.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

11 Editorial New strategies for the early detection of pancreatic cancer. 2016

Petrone, Maria Chiara / Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio. ·a Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, San Raffaele Scientific Institute , Vita Salute San Raffaele University , Milan , Italy. ·Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol · Pubmed #26582179.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains a deadly disease and early detection through screening is likely to be our best hope to improve survival. Considering the low incidence of PC, population-based screening is not feasible, but is advisable for high-risk patients. Screening individuals at high risk for developing PC leads to the detection of premalignant lesions. High-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm are the targets for early detection of PC. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging are considered the most accurate techniques for pancreatic imaging; in particular EUS has emerged as a promising imaging test given its potential for tissue sampling to obtain diagnosis and to provide material for molecular profiling of PC. At the moment, screening should be performed within research protocols at experienced centers with a specific clinical and research interest, where a multidisciplinary team of specialists is available.

12 Editorial Pancreatic EUS: the linear strikes back. 2015

Petrone, Maria Chiara / Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgo. ·Endosonography Unit, Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #26471999.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

13 Editorial Can we prevent pancreatic disease? 2014

Lowenfels, Albert B / Maisonneuve, Patrick. ·Departments of Surgery and Family and Community Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York. · Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. ·Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol · Pubmed #24607697.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

14 Review Epidemiology and burden of pancreatic cancer. 2019

Maisonneuve, Patrick. ·Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: patrick.maisonneuve@ieo.it. ·Presse Med · Pubmed #30878335.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer, although infrequent, has a very poor prognosis, making it currently the fourth common causes of cancer mortality in most developed countries including the European Union (EU). Its incidence varies across regions, which suggests that lifestyle factors play an important role in its etiology, although part of the variation could be ascribed to difference in diagnostic and coding practices. Because pancreatic cancer is strongly age-dependent, increasing population longevity and ageing will lead to an increase of the global burden of pancreatic cancer. It was estimated that, by 2040, the total number of cases in the EU will increase by more than 30%. Pancreatic cancer is a multifactorial disease and many risk factors have been identified. Hereditary factors are responsible for less than 10% of the cases while tobacco smoking and excess body weight, the two most important potentially modifiable risk factors, are responsible for 10 to 30% of the cases, affording a unique opportunity for preventing one of our deadliest cancers.

15 Review Diagnostic strategy with a solid pancreatic mass. 2019

Guarneri, Giovanni / Gasparini, Giulia / Crippa, Stefano / Andreasi, Valentina / Falconi, Massimo. ·Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; "Vita-Salute" University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; "Vita-Salute" University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: falconi.massimo@hsr.it. ·Presse Med · Pubmed #30878333.

ABSTRACT: The correct diagnosis of a patient presenting with a solid pancreatic mass requires a careful diagnostic work-up, since many differential diagnoses are possible that completely alter the following treatments. In our chapter, we have discussed the clinical approach to the problem in a sort of diagnostic flow-chart. Firstly, we analysed the different potential presentations of a solid pancreatic mass, which can be both asymptomatic or symptomatic, and the differential diagnosis based on the symptoms of presentation. Then we focused on the various imaging techniques commonly used in the diagnostic work-up, stressing on the different presentations according to the type of disease, and the operative procedures that can supplement this part. Lastly, we discussed the best diagnostic work up that should be followed to fully understand the characteristics of each disease, which is of paramount importance to choose the adequate treatment plan, with special attention to pancreatic adenocarcinoma and its many treatment strategies such as chemotherapy, surgery, or medical therapy. In patients presenting with a solid pancreatic mass it is crucial to reach a definitive diagnosis using a well determined diagnostic work-up to better characterize the lesion, since the best treatment varies widely according not only to the type of disease but also to its features.

16 Review Chemotherapy in elderly patients with pancreatic cancer: Efficacy, feasibility and future perspectives. 2019

Macchini, Marina / Chiaravalli, Marta / Zanon, Silvia / Peretti, Umberto / Mazza, Elena / Gianni, Luca / Reni, Michele. ·Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: reni.michele@hsr.it. ·Cancer Treat Rev · Pubmed #30414985.

ABSTRACT: By 2030 70% of newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will occur in older adults. Elderly patients, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as people older than 65 years, represent a heterogeneous group with different biological and functional characteristics that need personalized anticancer treatments. Since older patients are under-represented in randomized phase III trials, their management is mostly extrapolated from studies performed in younger patients, without robust evidence-based recommendations. However, data from retrospective studies and case-control series show that elderly may benefit from chemotherapy in both the adjuvant and advanced disease settings. Although with discordant results, gemcitabine-based treatment and dose-adapted fluorouracil combination regimens seem to be effective and well tolerated in this subset of patients. A proper balance of potential treatment benefits and side effects represent the crucial point for managing elderly patients with PDAC. Therefore an appropriate patient selection is essential to maximize the therapeutic benefit in the older population: randomized studies aiming to better standardizing fitness parameters and implementing the routine use of comprehensive geriatric assessments are strongly warranted. In this light, the detection of molecular prognostic markers able to detect patients who may benefit more from oncological treatments should be a primary endpoint of age-focused clinical trials. Altogether, the field of geriatric oncology will expand in the next years, and the clinical management of elderly patients affected by PDAC will become a major public health issue.

17 Review Entering the third decade of experience with octreotide LAR in neuroendocrine tumors: A review of current knowledge. 2019

Pusceddu, Sara / Prinzi, Natalie / Raimondi, Alessandra / Corti, Francesca / Buzzoni, Roberto / Di Bartolomeo, Maria / Seregni, Ettore / Maccauro, Marco / Coppa, Jorgelina / Milione, Massimo / Mazzaferro, Vincenzo / de Braud, Filippo. ·1 Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, ENETS Center of Excellence, Milan, Italy. · 2 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, ENETS Center of Excellence, Milan, Italy. · 3 Department of Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, ENETS Center of Excellence, Milan, Italy. · 4 Department of Pathology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, ENETS Center of Excellence, Milan, Italy. · 5 University of Milan, Milan, Italy. ·Tumori · Pubmed #29714658.

ABSTRACT: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a relatively rare group of heterogeneous neoplasms. The most significant advance in therapy of NETs has been the advent of the somatostatin analog octreotide, which represents a cornerstone in their management and dramatically changed the therapeutic landscape. Octreotide long-acting release (LAR) was developed to overcome some of the limitations of octreotide. Several clinical studies, including PROMID and RADIANT-2, have validated the clinical benefits of octreotide LAR in NETs, with tumor shrinkage in about 10% of patients and tumor stabilization in roughly half of cases. While the use of octreotide LAR is well-consolidated in NETs, some open questions remain. These include the use of high-dose octreotide LAR, as there is evidence that higher dose may provide longer disease control, and nonstandard treatment schedules, with administration every 21 days instead of 28 days, as well as their use in combination with targeted agents or peptide receptor radiotherapy in clinical practice. After 3 decades of clinical experience with octreotide LAR, the drug has a well-established safety profile. It is well-tolerated and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events are uncommon. One exception is cholelithiasis, which may increase with longer duration of treatment. According to the literature data, octreotide LAR is currently recommended in both functioning and nonfunctioning advanced NETs. This review summarizes the available clinical data with octreotide LAR and also provides future perspectives on its possible uses in patients with NETs.

18 Review Treatment challenges in and outside a specialist network setting: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. 2019

Lykoudis, Panagis M / Partelli, Stefano / Muffatti, Francesca / Caplin, Martyn / Falconi, Massimo / Fusai, Giuseppe K / Anonymous971001. ·Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery & Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. Electronic address: p.lykoudis@ucl.ac.uk. · Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Research Institute, Scientific Institute San Raffaele Hospital & University "Vita e Salute", Milan, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology and G.I. & Tumour Neuroendocrinology, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery & Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. ·Eur J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #29126671.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms comprise a group of rare tumours with special biology, an often indolent behaviour and particular diagnostic and therapeutic requirements. The specialized biochemical tests and radiological investigations, the complexity of surgical options and the variety of medical treatments that require individual tailoring, mandate a multidisciplinary approach that can be optimally achieved through an organized network. The present study describes currents concepts in the management of these tumours as well as an insight into the challenges of delivering the pathway in and outside a Network.

19 Review Biomarker-driven and molecularly targeted therapies for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. 2018

Zhen, David B / Coveler, Andrew / Zanon, Silvia / Reni, Michele / Chiorean, E Gabriela. ·Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: reni.michele@hsr.it. · Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: gchiorea@uw.edu. ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #30391013.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a deadly disease with few effective treatment options. Our knowledge of molecular alterations in PDAC has significantly grown and helped identify new therapeutic targets. The success of immune checkpoint inhibition in mismatch repair deficient tumors, PARP inhibitors for tumors with DNA repair defects, and targeting hyaluronan with PEGPH20 in patients with high expressing (hyaluronan-high) tumors are examples of promising biomarker-driven therapies. We review the major biological mechanisms in PDAC and discuss current and future directions for molecularly targeted therapies in this disease.

20 Review Pancreatic Cancer and Obesity: Molecular Mechanisms of Cell Transformation and Chemoresistance. 2018

Cascetta, Priscilla / Cavaliere, Alessandro / Piro, Geny / Torroni, Lorena / Santoro, Raffaela / Tortora, Giampaolo / Melisi, Davide / Carbone, Carmine. ·Medical Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, 37134 Verona, Italy. priscillacascetta@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, 37134 Verona, Italy. alessandro.cav@hotmail.com. · Digestive Molecular Clinical Oncology Research Unit, Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. genypiro@hotmail.com. · Digestive Molecular Clinical Oncology Research Unit, Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. lorena.torroni@univr.it. · Digestive Molecular Clinical Oncology Research Unit, Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. raffaela.santoro@univr.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, 37134 Verona, Italy. giampaolo.tortora@univr.it. · Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Roma, Italy. giampaolo.tortora@univr.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, 37134 Verona, Italy. davide.melisi@univr.it. · Digestive Molecular Clinical Oncology Research Unit, Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. davide.melisi@univr.it. · Digestive Molecular Clinical Oncology Research Unit, Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. carmine.carbone@univr.it. ·Int J Mol Sci · Pubmed #30366466.

ABSTRACT: Cancer and obesity are the two major epidemics of the 21st century. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the leading causes of death, with a five-year overall survival rate of only 8%. Its incidence and mortality have increased in recent years, and this cancer type is expected to be among the top five leading causes of cancer-related death by 2030 in the United States (US). In the last three decades, the prevalence of overweight people has boosted with a consequent increase in obesity-related diseases. Considerable epidemiologic evidence correlates overweight and obese conditions to an increased risk of several types of cancer, including PDAC. Besides being a risk factor for multiple metabolic disorders, the tumor-promoting effects of obesity occur at the local level via inflammatory mediators that are associated with adipose inflammation and metabolic or hormones mediators and microbiota dysbiosis. Although an excess of body mass index (BMI) represents the second most modifiable risk factor for PDAC with an increased cancer related-death of more than 20⁻40%, still little is known about the molecular mechanisms that underlie this strong association. In this review, we focused on the role of obesity as a preventable risk factor of PDAC, discussing the molecular mechanisms linking obesity to cancer initiation and progression. Moreover, we highlighted the role of obesity in defining chemoresistance, showing how a high BMI can actually reduce response to chemotherapy.

21 Review Systemic therapies in patients with advanced well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs): When cytoreduction is the aim. A critical review with meta-analysis. 2018

Pozzari, Marta / Maisonneuve, Patrick / Spada, Francesca / Berruti, Alfredo / Amoroso, Vito / Cella, Chiara Alessandra / Laffi, Alice / Pellicori, Stefania / Bertani, Emilio / Fazio, Nicola. ·Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. · Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. · Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia at ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy. · Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. · Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. · Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: nicola.fazio@ieo.it. ·Cancer Treat Rev · Pubmed #30352319.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Cytoreduction is sometimes an important aim of systemic anti-tumor therapies in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs). As there is not a gold standard treatment for these tumors in this field, we conducted a literature review in order to identify objective criteria for treatment choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We critically reviewed and performed a meta-analysis of all published clinical studies of systemic therapies in patients with well-differentiated unresectable PanNETs, selecting only those articles which reported tumor shrinkage (TS) with a waterfall plot (WP). Tumor downsizing of ≥10% was considered as objective response. RESULTS: We selected 17 out of 2758 studies, comprising 1118 patients with tumor response reported as WP. Proliferation index, tumor burden and anti-tumor therapies were heterogeneous. Chemotherapy alone (mainly, capecitabine/temozolomide) or in combination showed the best results, with ≥10% TS ranging from 65% to 93%. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy combined with chemotherapy (Chemo-PRRT) and sunitinib appeared promising by inducing objective response in a significant proportion of patients (93% and 60%, respectively). Time to tumor response was reported in only two trials. No clear clinical and/or biological predictive factors emerged. CONCLUSION: Based on response criteria used in our retrospective analysis, systemic chemotherapy alone or in combination appeared to have the main cytoreductive impact. However no conclusions regarding either a specific regimen or combination can be drawn. Furthermore, tumor population selection and/or choice of regimen may have a significant influence. Further analysis should be also conducted to identify potential predictive biomarkers of responses, in order to design future prospective interventional clinical trials enrolling more homogenous populations of advanced well-differentiated PanNETs.

22 Review Biology and Systemic Treatment of Advanced Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. 2018

Raj, Nitya / Fazio, Nicola / Strosberg, Jonathan. ·From the Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. ·Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book · Pubmed #30231344.

ABSTRACT: In recent years, there have been important scientific advances in the biologic characterization of neuroendocrine neoplasms and in their treatment. This review will describe these scientific advances, the evolving systemic treatment approaches, and important topics to be addressed in future research.

23 Review The New World Health Organization Classification for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasia. 2018

Inzani, Frediano / Petrone, Gianluigi / Rindi, Guido. ·Department of Anatomic Pathology, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy; Roma ENETS Center of Excellence, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy; Gynecological and Breast Pathology Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy. · Department of Anatomic Pathology, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy; Roma ENETS Center of Excellence, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy; Anatomic Pathology Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy. · Department of Anatomic Pathology, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy; Roma ENETS Center of Excellence, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy; Anatomic Pathology Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy; Institute of Pathology, Università Cattolica-IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, Roma I-00168, Italy. Electronic address: guido.rindi@unicatt.it. ·Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am · Pubmed #30098710.

ABSTRACT: Based on the 2010 version, the 2017 World Health Organization (WHO 2017) classification is for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNEN). The WHO 2017 classification introduces the novel well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of high grade (NET G3). A sharp distinction between NET and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is emphasized to highlight substantial biological differences. Further changes comprise the definition of mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasm (MiNEN), to accommodate all grades of both neoplasm components, and the abolition of preneoplastic lesions given their rarity in the pancreas. The 2017 American Joint Cancer Committee classification (AJCC 2017) adopts such a classification for all digestive sites.

24 Review Duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a still poorly recognized clinical entity. 2018

Rossi, Roberta Elisa / Rausa, Emanuele / Cavalcoli, Federica / Conte, Dario / Massironi, Sara. ·a Department of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy , Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico , Milan , Italy. · b Department of Pathophysiology and Organ Transplant , Università degli Studi di Milano , Milan , Italy. · c General and Emergency Surgery Department , ASST Trauma Center "Papa Giovanni XXIII" Hospital , Bergamo , Italy. ·Scand J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #29726295.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms (dNENs) are rare tumors, which usually show good prognosis. The optimal management of these tumors is still far from being clearly understood because of their rarity and the poor level of knowledge about their natural history. Herein, we have reviewed the literature on dNENs to collect and analyze the current data on epidemiology, diagnosis and management of these rare tumors. METHODS: Bibliographical searches were performed in PubMed, using the following keywords: duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasm; duodenum; gastrinoma; diagnosis; therapy; guidelines. We searched for all relevant articles published over the last 15 years. Non-English language papers were excluded. RESULTS: We reviewed the pertinent articles about dNENs. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsy is the cornerstone of the dNENs diagnostic process. Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration/biopsy should be performed in order to locally stage the disease and in all cases of non-diagnostic endoscopy. Endoscopic or complete surgical removal of the primary lesion is the recommended treatment and is generally achievable for the majority of the patients. A less aggressive approach may be suggested for well-differentiated low-stage tumors. After NEN removal, patients should be closely followed-up especially during the first 3 years by endoscopic examination, imaging tests and CgA measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-disciplinary approach and the preservation of the quality of life of the patients play a key role in the therapeutic process for dNENs. Further studies are needed to better define standardized guidelines specific to dNENs, including optimal management approaches and follow-up intervals.

25 Review How should incidental NEN of the pancreas and gastrointestinal tract be followed? 2018

Ariotti, Riccardo / Partelli, Stefano / Muffatti, Francesca / Andreasi, Valentina / Della Sala, Francesca / Falconi, Massimo. ·Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, "Vita-Salute" University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. · Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, "Vita-Salute" University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. falconi.massimo@hsr.it. ·Rev Endocr Metab Disord · Pubmed #29527619.

ABSTRACT: Neuroendocrine gastro-entero-pancreatic neoplasms (GEP-NENs) constitute a heterogeneous group of tumors, whose incidence has increased over the years. The most frequent site for primary disease is the stomach followed by small and large intestine, and pancreas. In the last decade, a dramatic growing in the incidence of small, incidental GEP-NENs has been recorded. In parallel, an increasing attitude toward more conservative approaches instead of surgical management has being widely spreading. This is particularly true for small, asymptomatic, pancreatic NEN as for these tumor forms an active surveillance has proven to be safe and feasible. Primary site and biological features of the neoplasms lead to different strategies and indications for surveillance and follow-up. This review focuses on the current evidence on modality and timing of surveillance and conservative treatment of incidentally discovered lesions.

Next