These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical outcomes of preservation versus resection of portal/superior mesenteric vein during pancreaticoduodenectomy in pancreatic cancer patients who respond to neoadjuvant treatment: A retrospective cohort study.
    Author: Chae YS, Jung HS, Yun WG, Han Y, Cho YJ, Lee M, Kwon W, Park JS, Jang JY.
    Journal: Int J Surg; 2024 Sep 23; ():. PubMed ID: 39311909.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: R0 rates have increased as neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) has become the primary treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with venous involvement, suggesting a decrease in venous tumor infiltration. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of preserving the portal/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in PDAC patients who underwent NAT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The 113 patients with resectable and borderline resectable PDAC with venous involvement who responded to NAT and underwent curative PD between 2012 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Among the 113 patients, PV/SMV preservation (PVP) was performed in 68 patients (60.2%), and PV/SMV resection (PVR) was performed in 45 patients (39.8%). There was no significant difference in the R0 rate, 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival between the two groups. PV/SMV stenosis within 3 months after surgery was more common in the PVR group than in the PVP group (1.5% versus 22.2%; P < 0.001), and 5-year PV/SMV stenosis-free survival was significantly higher in the PVP group than in the PVR group (76.5% versus 53.4%; P=0.014). Multivariate analysis showed that gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with poor OS. PVR, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and locoregional recurrence were independent risk factors for PV/SMV stenosis. CONCLUSION: The PVP group had similar oncologic outcomes and better vessel-functional outcomes than the PVR group. Therefore, if dissection is possible and there is a high likelihood of achieving R0 resection after NAT, routine PVR may be unnecessary in PDAC patients with venous involvement.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]