Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2026
Redefining Upfront Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Should Vein Abutment Matter?
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tan Po Hong, Thiels Cornelius A, Poruk Katherine, Miller Richard Max, Hor Hoe Yan, Tu Melody Pi Yin, Huyser Michelle R, Stucky Chee-Chee, Wasif Nabil, Bold Richard J, Smoot Rory L, Starlinger Patrick P, Warner Susanne G, Kendrick Michael L, Stauffer John A, Truty Mark J, Fong Zhi Ven, Mayo Clinic Enterprise HPB Disease Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Upfront resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is defined by the NCCN as disease with ≤180° portomesenteric vein (PMV) abutment. However, the clinical significance of PMV abutment in this cohort remains unexplored, and we sought to investigate its impact.
METHODS: This multi-institutional study included patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for upfront resectable PDAC from 2002 to 2023. Patients with PDAC with ≤180° PMV abutment were compared with those without. Overall survival (OS) was compared and stratified based on whether patients underwent upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy (NAT).
RESULTS: Among 1,446 patients included, 521 (36.0%) had PMV abutment. Median OS for patients with PMV abutment was 28.8 months compared with 31.2 months for those without (P=.17). In a stratified analysis of patients who underwent upfront surgery, patients with PMV abutment had worse OS (19.2 vs 27.6 months; P<.05) and lower R0 resection rates (63.1% vs 87.2%; P<.05) compared with those without. However, in patients who underwent NAT, this difference in R0 resection rate was not observed (91.4% vs 94.0%, respectively; P=.27). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in median OS with NAT (42.5 vs 51.6 months, respectively; P=.48).
CONCLUSIONS: In this largest cohort to date of patients with upfront resectable PDAC, PMV abutment was associated with worse OS compared with no PMV abutment when an upfront resection strategy was used. The use of NAT in patients with PMV abutment mitigated this survival difference with increased R0 resection rates. These findings suggest that patients with upfront resectable PDAC with PMV abutment benefit from a NAT approach for optimal survival outcomes, and that the current criteria guidelines need to be redefined.
METHODS: This multi-institutional study included patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for upfront resectable PDAC from 2002 to 2023. Patients with PDAC with ≤180° PMV abutment were compared with those without. Overall survival (OS) was compared and stratified based on whether patients underwent upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy (NAT).
RESULTS: Among 1,446 patients included, 521 (36.0%) had PMV abutment. Median OS for patients with PMV abutment was 28.8 months compared with 31.2 months for those without (P=.17). In a stratified analysis of patients who underwent upfront surgery, patients with PMV abutment had worse OS (19.2 vs 27.6 months; P<.05) and lower R0 resection rates (63.1% vs 87.2%; P<.05) compared with those without. However, in patients who underwent NAT, this difference in R0 resection rate was not observed (91.4% vs 94.0%, respectively; P=.27). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in median OS with NAT (42.5 vs 51.6 months, respectively; P=.48).
CONCLUSIONS: In this largest cohort to date of patients with upfront resectable PDAC, PMV abutment was associated with worse OS compared with no PMV abutment when an upfront resection strategy was used. The use of NAT in patients with PMV abutment mitigated this survival difference with increased R0 resection rates. These findings suggest that patients with upfront resectable PDAC with PMV abutment benefit from a NAT approach for optimal survival outcomes, and that the current criteria guidelines need to be redefined.