Journal List > Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg > v.26(1) > 1160407

TOOLS
Lee, Han, Kang, Kwon, Paik, Song, Yang, Chung, Jeong, and Kim: Korean Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2022: A summary of evidence-based surgical approaches
Invited Article

Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2022;26(1):1-16.

Published online: 28 February 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.22-009

Korean Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2022: A summary of evidence-based surgical approaches

Seung Eun Lee1, Sung-Sik Han2, , Chang Moo Kang3, Wooil Kwon4, Kwang Yeol Paik5, Ki Byung Song6, Jae Do Yang7, Jun Chul Chung8, Chi-Young Jeong9, Sun-Whe Kim2

1Department of Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Surgery, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

3Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

4Department of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

5Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

6Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

7Department of Surgery, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea

8Department of Surgery, Soon Chun Hyang University School of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea

9Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea

Corresponding author: Sung-Sik Han, Department of Surgery, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu,, Goyang 10408, Korea, Tel: +82-31-920-1000, Fax: +82-31-920-1069, E-mail: sshan@ncc.re.kr, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7047-7961

Received 3 February 2022       Revised 17 February 2022       Accepted 17 February 2022

Copyright © 2022 by The Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery

(open-access):

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Korea. Despite the increasing incidence and high mortality rate of pancreatic cancer, there are no appropriate surgical practice guidelines for the current domestic medical situation. To enable standardization of management and facilitate improvements in surgical outcome, a total of 10 pancreatic surgical experts who are members of Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery have developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date, evidence-based research findings and expert opinions. This is an English version of the Korean Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2022. This guideline includes 13 surgical questions and 15 statements. Due to the lack of high-level evidence, strong recommendation is almost impossible. However, we believe that this guideline will help surgeons understand the current status of evidence and suggest what to investigate further to establish more solid recommendations in the future.

Keywords: Pancreatic carcinoma, Surgery, Practice guideline

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is the eighth most common cancer (with an annual new case number of approximately 7,000 in 2017) and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related death in South Korea [1]. The incidence and mortality of pancreatic cancer have increased gradually with a 5-year relative survival rate of 12.2% in 2017 with nearly no improvements in this figured over the last 20 years.
Despite the increasing incidence and high mortality rate of pancreatic cancer, there are no appropriate surgical practice guidelines for the current domestic medical situation regarding this cancer. Various practice guidelines for pancreatic cancer have been established and reported [2-4]. However, none of them has provided detailed guidelines for surgical procedures. Although Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer 2021 has been published, only a limited number of surgical issues have been addressed [5]. Thus, surgeons in the committee of the Korean Clinical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2021 gathered and tried to establish a surgical practice guideline.
This guideline was designed to provide adequate surgical information and stimulate research to build evidence for the treatment of pancreatic cancer including 13 surgical questions and 15 statements. Among these 13 questions, four questions were extracted from the Korean clinical practice guidelines for pancreatic cancer 2021 with the addition of a few new references [5]. It is very difficult to obtain high-level evidence for the management of pancreatic disease, especially surgical management of pancreatic cancer. The low number of cases is insufficient to undertake a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The technique is too complicated to be standardized. In addition, technical issues are rapidly changing and supportive groups for clinical studies about surgery are rare. High-level evidence and strong recommendations are almost impossible. However, we believe that this guideline will help surgeons understand the current status of evidences and suggest direction for further studies to establish more solid recommendations.

GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY

This surgical guideline primarily targets adult patients with suspected or newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This guideline is intended to provide useful surgical information and directions for all surgeons. It was developed by members of the Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. To complete this guideline, we established a development working group and a review panel for Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2022.
The process of new guideline development was as follows: (1) selecting clinical key questions (KQs), (2) determining development methods, (3) performing literature search and selection, (4) assessing the quality of the selected literature and synthesizing evidence, (5) determining the levels of evidence and strength of recommendations, and (6) providing statements for clinical questions.
Clinical KQs were specified by considering the population, intervention/index test, comparator, and outcome (PICO) elements. This guideline is the first Korean surgical practice guideline for pancreatic cancer. It was developed by de novo methods.
We systematically searched published literature using databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed through May 2021. For the adaptation method, additional databases including the Guideline International Network and Korean Clinical Practice Guideline Information Center were searched. Manual searches were also performed to complement and update the results. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined by panels composed of pairs of clinical experts. These inclusion and exclusion criteria were predefined and tailored to KQs. Articles were screened by title and abstract. Full texts were then retrieved for selection. In each step, two panels performed selections independently. Agreements were reached.
We critically appraised the quality of selected studies using risk-of-bias tools. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) for RCTs, risk of bias for nonrandomized studies (RoBANS), and a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic reviews/meta-analyses [6-9]. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and seeking the opinion of a third member. We extracted data using a predefined format and synthesized the data qualitatively or quantitatively. Evidence tables were summarized according to KQs. In the adaptation method, we assessed the quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument for evaluating the currency, acceptability, and applicability of medical guidelines [10,11].
Levels of evidence and grading of recommendations were modified based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology reviews [12,13]. The evidence was classified into four levels (Table 1). Main factors were the study design and quality. In addition, we considered outcome consistency. The grading of recommendations was performed according to the modified GRADE methodology. It had four levels (Table 2). Recommendation factors considered were evidence level, balance of benefit and harm, and clinical applicability (resource and cost). The Development Working Group reviewed the draft and discussed the consensus. The Review Panel examined the final version of the draft through careful expert review. The guideline developed through this process was then endorsed by an open meeting of the Korean Pancreas Surgery Club. Revisions were made in accordance with suggestions at the open meeting. This guideline will be revised every five years when there is solid evidence that can affect outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer.

RECOMMENDATIONS (Table 3)

Staging laparoscopy

KQ 1: Is staging laparoscopy routinely indicated in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC)?
Recommendation 1: Staging laparoscopy could be considered selectively before laparotomy in patients with RPC
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: In retrospective cohort studies, diagnostic laparoscopy was effective in terms of decreasing cost and reducing unnecessary laparotomy by detecting occult metastases [14-18]. In addition, patients with staging laparoscopy received chemotherapy earlier than those with occult metastasis found during laparotomy, leading to improved survival [14,19]. However, the false-negative rate of staging laparoscopy was higher than that of exploratory laparotomy [15]. Therefore, careful observation is required during staging laparoscopy. According to a meta-analysis, staging laparoscopy could detect occult metastases not found in preoperative images in 14%–38% of patients with RPCs and 36% of those with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) [20].
With improvement in preoperative imaging examinations such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET), selective staging laparoscopy has been suggested [21,22]. However, evidence for the potential criteria for selective staging laparoscopy is still limited. A well-designed prospective multicenter randomized study on the effectiveness of staging laparoscopy is needed.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS)

KQ 2: Is MIS applicable to patients with RPC?
Recommendation 2: MIS could be performed selectively for patients with RPC by highly experienced surgeons
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments:
1) Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)
There was no difference in postoperative complication rate between MIS and open surgery for PD [23-28]. Their reported 30-day mortality rates were also similar [24-29]. Median survival durations after MIS and open surgery of PD were comparable in six studies [23-28]. Zhou et al. [28] have reported better survival in open surgery. However, this difference did not persist after propensity-score matching (Table 4) [28]. Four meta-analyses have found no differences in complications, mortality, or survival between MIS and open surgery for PD [30-33]. However, selection bias requires cautious interpretation of these findings.
2) Distal pancreatectomy (DP)
Five studies have reported comparable or better complication rates and postoperative mortality rates of MIS versus open surgery for DP [25,34-37]. Long-term survival rates were comparable between MIS and open surgery for DP [25,36-39]. Survival benefit of MIS has been demonstrated in two studies (Table 5) [34,35]. In one meta-analysis, there were no differences in complication rates, severe complication rates, postoperative mortality rates, or long-term survival rates between MIS and open surgery for DP [40].
MIS PD and has comparable short- and long-term outcomes with open surgery and has the advantage of reducing pain, blood transfusion, and hospital stay. In particular, faster recovery after MIS may be a significant advantage for patients who require postoperative adjuvant treatment. However, since MIS is a complex and difficult surgical procedure, radical resection of the tumor and patient safety might not be guaranteed when this procedure is performed by under-experienced surgeons.
Although the literature indicated comparable or better results of MIS versus open surgery in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality as well as long-term survival, these findings were derived from retrospective data with possible selection bias. Therefore, the evidence for MIS remains low and MIS cannot be strongly recommended in general. MIS may be performed for well-selected patients with pancreatic cancer by highly experienced expert surgeons in MIS.

Extended lymph node dissection (LND)

KQ 3: Is extended LND and nerve plexus dissection necessary during PD for patients with resectable pancreatic head cancer (RPHC)?
Recommendation 3: Extended LND is not recommended for patients with RPHC
(Strength of recommendation: Not recommend; Level of evidence: High)
Comments: Five RCTs have reported increased postoperative complication and mortality rates after extended LND, albeit not statistically significant [41-45]. Moreover, extended LND did not result in improved survival outcomes. It even led to worse survival outcomes in some studies (Table 6) [43,44,46]. Three meta-analyses also demonstrated that extended LND did not have survival gain [46-48]. Two studies confirmed higher postoperative complication and mortality rates after extended LND, although differences were not statistically significant [47,48].
Extended LND demands a longer operative time and surgeons’ effort. It increases the risk of complications and mortality rate without offering any survival benefit. Therefore, an extended LND is not generally recommended. It may be performed in limited cases where widespread lymph node metastasis is highly suspected. However, unnecessary extended LND should be avoided by utilizing frozen biopsy of suspected lymph nodes in fields beyond the standard extent.

Vascular resection

KQ 4-1: Is combined portal vein (PV) or superior mesenteric vein (SMV) resection beneficial in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the PV or SMV?
Recommendation 4-1: PV or SMV resection could be considered if radical resection is possible in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the PV or SMV
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: Five meta-analyses have summarized findings for this question [49-53]. Patients who underwent PV/SMV resection tended to have a slightly higher postoperative mortality [49-51] and reoperation rate [49,50,52], lower curative resection rate and survival rate [49-52], longer operative time and hospital stay [49,50,52], and more complications such as pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, or bleeding than those who received standard pancreatectomy without PV/SMV resection [49,50,52]. Considering that more patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were included in the PV/SMV resection group, the survival rate in the PV/SMV resection group was similar to that in the non-PV/SMV resection group if R0 was achieved. In a study that included only the PV/SMV resection group, curatively resected patients showed better survival than non-curatively resected patients [52].
PV/SMV resection could be beneficial if performed by a highly skilled surgeon to obtain R0 resection and minimize mortality or postoperative complications.
KQ 4-2: Is superior mesenteric artery (SMA) resection beneficial in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the SMA?
Recommendation 4-2: SMA resection is not recommended in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the SMA
(Strength of recommendation: Not recommend; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: Since the SMA is surrounded by numerous lymph nodes and nerve plexuses, radical resection is technically more difficult than PV or SMV resection. Since all reviewed studies included heterogeneous patients who underwent PV, SMV, common hepatic artery, or SMA resection, it was difficult to select and analyze patients who underwent SMA resection [54-59]. Retrospective studies have demonstrated comparable survival rates in SMA resected patients to those in patients without SMA resection [54-56]. However, recently published meta-analyses have shown worse survival rates and higher rates of morbidity and mortality in the SMA resection group than in the non-SMA resection group [57-59]. Therefore, SMA resection should not be generally recommended. Although some surgeons may perform SMA resection in case of showing excellent response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, further studies focusing on patients who undergo combined SMA resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are needed.
KQ 4-3: Is distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) beneficial in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the celiac axis (CA)?
Recommendation 4-3: DP-CAR could be considered if radical resection is possible in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the CA
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: DP-CAR is a challenging procedure. It has yielded certain clinical efficacy in the treatment of LAPC invading the CA. However, the clinical efficacy and safety of DP-CAR remain controversial. Median survival rate of DP-CAR group was 17.5–20 months. The survival rate of the DP-CAR group was comparable to that of the DP without CA resection group [60-66], but significantly higher than that of the non-pancreatectomy group [60,62,65]. In meta-analyses, the R0 resection rate of DP-CAR group was 72.8%. The postoperative complication rate of the DP-CAR group was significantly higher than that of the DP group while the hospital mortality rate was comparable [64,65].
DP-CAR is complicated procedure with a high morbidity rate. However, since DP-CAR showed better survival than the non-resected group, DP-CAR could be performed to improve the R0 resection rate and survival rate by highly skilled surgeons for carefully selected patients.

Mesopancreas excision (MpE)

KQ 5: Is MpE beneficial during PD?
Recommendation 5: MpE could be considered to improve the rate of R0 resection for patients with RPHC
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: Mesopancreas is defined as a firm and well-vascularized structure extending from the posterior surface of the pancreatic head to behind the mesenteric vessels. The concept of MpE in pancreatic head cancer (PHC) was proposed in analogy to the concept of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer to better control locoregional recurrence by achieving a complete excision of the mesopancreas during PD and to increase R0 resection rate for PHC. In retrospective cohort studies, R0 resection rates of MpE were approximately 90%, significantly higher than those of conventional PD without increasing morbidity [67-69]. Recurrence rate after MpE was significantly lower than that after conventional PD (Table 7) [67,70]. However, MpE did not result in improved survival [68].
Because of low-level evidence derived from a small number of retrospective studies, MpE should not be generally recommended, although MpE is a feasible procedure. It might be performed in limited cases to achieve R0 resection. Further studies with long-term survival data are needed to confirm the benefits of MpE.

Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) vs. pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)

KQ 6: Is PPPD preferred to PD in RPHC?
Recommendation 6: PPPD is preferred to PD in RPHC
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: High)
Comments: To date, the debate continues as to whether PPPD or PD is better for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Three RCTs and three meta-analyses have compared PPPD and PD in terms of complications and nutritional status [71-76]. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity including pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, or hospital mortality between PPPD and PD groups, although there were controversial results on delayed gastric emptying. For long-term complications including weight loss, dumping syndrome, diarrhea and long-term nutritional status, there were no significant differences between PPPD and PD groups [73,77]. Therefore, both surgical procedures are acceptable for the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Surgeons can choose either operative method based on their preferences. If there are no differences in oncological or nutritional aspects, PPPD should be preferred in terms of organ preservation.

Intraoperative frozen biopsy for pancreatic resection margin

KQ 7: Is additional pancreas resection necessary in cases of positive pancreatic resection margin in intraoperative frozen biopsy?
Recommendation 7: Additional pancreas resection could be considered if pancreatic resection margin is positive in intraoperative frozen biopsy
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: Several reports have compared the survival of patients between those who have undergone an additional resection and finally have negative pancreatic resection margin and those who have not undergone additional resection in spite of positive resection margin or who have positive resection margin after additional pancreatic resection [78-85]. Except for two studies that failed to perform survival analysis due to the small number of included patients [79,82], the remaining retrospective studies showed controversial results in survival outcome [78,80,81,83]. Meta-analysis and systematic review did not demonstrate survival benefit after additional pancreatic resection in giving a negative margin [84,85].
The aggressive biology of pancreatic cancer might be associated with the unexpected result that revision of an R1 pancreatic resection margin based on intraoperative frozen biopsy could not improve overall survival. However, considering that obtaining negative resection margin is the principle of surgery in oncology, surgeons should try to perform additional pancreatic resection to achieve a negative resection margin.

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS)

KQ 8: Is RAMPS beneficial in pancreatic body or tail cancer?
Recommendation 8: RAMS could be considered in pancreatic body or tail cancer
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: In 2003, Strasberg et al. [86] introduced a novel approach to resect a pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the body and tail (RAMPS) to increase the rate of R0 resection and lymph node yield. In a meta-analysis (conventional DP group, n = 150; RAMPS group, n = 135), RAMPS showed a higher R0 resection rate (RR = 2.37, 95% CI [1.19–4.72]; p = 0.01) and more lymph nodes harvested (RR = 1.20, 95% CI [1.02–1.41]; p = 0.02) than conventional DP. The one-year survival rate of the RAMPS group was significantly better than that of the DP group (79.2% [99/125] vs. 64.3% [81/126]; p = 0.02), while the long-term survival benefit was not demonstrated [87]. However, among retrospective studies, Sham et al. [88] included the largest number of patients and showed controversial results that the R0 resection rate and the number of retrieved lymph nodes were higher in the conventional DP group than in the RAMPS group. Most retrospective studies showed a higher R0 resection rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes in the RAMPS group than in the conventional DP group, although the benefit of survival was not demonstrated (Table 8) [88-93].
RAMPS is a safe and effective procedure for pancreatic body or tail cancer. However, it does not lead to a better survival than conventional DP. Therefore, the technical approach to pancreatosplenectomy could be selected based on the surgeon’s experience and comfort. RAMPS could be considered for curative resection of selected patients.

Gastrojejunostomy as bypass surgery

KQ 9: Is prophylactic bypass gastrojejunostomy necessary in cases of unresectable pancreatic cancer without gastric outlet obstruction?
Recommendation 9: Bypass gastrojejunostomy is not recommended in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer without gastric outlet obstruction
(Strength of recommendation: Not recommend; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: A patient with unresectable pancreatic cancer found during laparotomy traditionally undergoes a prophylactic bypass gastrojejunostomy. Two old RCTs and meta-analysis showed that prophylactic gastric bypass surgery in cases of unresectable pancreatic cancer was effective in preventing gastric outlet obstruction without serious complications [94-96]. However, with recent advances in endoscopic techniques, surgical bypass has become questionable. In a recently published meta-analysis, endoscopic stent was found to have benefits of a quicker resumption of oral intake and a reduced inpatient hospital stay. However, this was balanced by an increase in the recurrence of symptoms and the need for further intervention [97]. Williamsson et al. [98] have introduced a wait-and-see strategy considering the higher morbidity and longer postoperative stay after surgical bypass. Patients without gastric outlet obstruction could not undergo prophylactic bypass.
For patients with pancreatic cancer without gastric outlet obstruction, the effect of prophylactic bypass is controversial. However, for patients with gastric outlet obstruction, endoscopic stent insertion could be performed as it is associated with lower morbidity and shorter hospital stay than surgical bypass.

Pancreatectomy in case of pathologically proven para-aortic lymph node metastasis

KQ 10: Is pancreatectomy beneficial in cases of pancreatic cancer with pathologically proven para-aortic lymph node metastasis in intraoperative frozen biopsy?
Recommendation 10: Recommendation to perform pancreatectomy in cases of pancreatic cancer with pathologically proven para-aortic lymph node metastasis in intraoperative frozen biopsy is withheld
(Strength of recommendation: Inconclusive; Level of evidence: Very low)
Comments: In general, para-aortic lymph node metastasis is considered a distant metastasis and contraindication for pancreatic resection. However, some pancreatic cancer patients with para-aortic lymph node metastasis have been reported to have longer survival than expected after pancreatectomy. However, no study has compared survival outcomes between pancreatectomy and non-pancreatectomy groups for patients with intraoperatively pathologically proven positive para-aortic lymph nodes and curatively resectable main pancreatic tumor. Previously published studies showed that the median survival of patient with intraoperatively pathologically proven para-aortic lymph node was 5–9 months, significantly worse than that of patients with negative para-aortic lymph node [99,100]. However, recently published studies showed improved median survival of patients with pathologically proven para-aortic lymph nodes in frozen biopsy. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that adjuvant chemotherapy, but not para-aortic lymph node metastasis, was a significant prognostic factor [101-103]. In meta-analyses, although para-aortic lymph node metastasis is associated with decreased survival in pancreatic cancer, based on the finding that those who underwent pancreatectomy had long-term survival, further study is needed to determine characteristics of long-term survivors and indication for pancreatectomy [104,105]. Asaoka et al. [106] recommend pancreatectomy for patients with a CA19-9 level less than 360 U/mL. Currently, when the para-aortic lymph node is pathologically confirmed as metastasis intraoperatively, pancreatectomy is deemed controversial. Although several long-term survivors who underwent pancreatectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, further studies comparing oncologic outcomes between pancreatectomy and non-pancreatectomy groups with positive para-aortic lymph nodes are needed.

Hepatic oligometastasis

KQ 11: Is hepatic resection beneficial in cases of pancreatic cancer with hepatic oligometastasis?
Recommendation 11: Recommendation to perform hepatic resection in cases of pancreatic cancer with hepatic oligometastasis is withheld
(Strength of recommendation: Inconclusive; Level of evidence: Very low)
Comments: The prognosis of patients with liver metastasis from pancreatic cancer is generally regarded as dismal and hepatic resection is not recommended. However, in highly selected patients, hepatectomy showed a survival benefit. Hackert et al. [107] showed that the median survival was 12.3 months and the 5-year survival rate was 8.1% after hepatectomy for oligometastasis. On the other hand, Zanini et al. [108] showed that the median survival of patients who underwent hepatectomy for oligohepatic metastasis was only 9.1 months. Dünschede et al. [109] reported that for patients with metachronous hepatic oligometastasis, hepatectomy showed significantly better median survival than chemotherapy (31 months vs. 11 months). A meta-analysis found that for patients with synchronous hepatic oligometastasis, hepatectomy showed significantly better 1- or 3-year survival than non-resection [110].
Considering the increased number of reports showing improved survival after hepatectomy for hepatic oligometastasis, it is worthwhile to perform curative intended hepatectomy. However, further RCTs are needed to investigate indications for hepatectomy and prognostic factors associated with hepatectomy.

Induction chemotherapy and conversion surgery for locally advanced pancreas cancer

KQ 12: Is conversion surgery beneficial in cases of LAPC?
Recommendation 12: Conversion surgery after induction chemotherapy could be considered in cases of LAPC
(Strength of recommendation: Conditional; Level of evidence: Low)
Comments: LAPC has been generally considered to be an unresectable disease. Historically, it was considered a continuum of metastatic disease due to rapid progression of occult metastasis. However, an increasing number of patients with LAPC who respond favorably to induction chemotherapy undergo surgical resection. Most published studies including two RCTs showed improvement of survival in conversion surgery after induction chemotherapy for LAPC [111-116]. Meta-analyses also showed significantly better survival in the conversion surgery group than in the non-surgery group [117,118]. However, evaluation of resectability of pancreatic cancer after induction chemotherapy is challenging. In addition, several indications do not have consensus, such as patients with complete or partial response according to RECIST classification (ver 1.1) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, after multidisciplinary discussion, after diagnostic laparoscopy, and so on.
Conversion surgery after induction chemotherapy for LAPC could be considered in highly selected patients and should be considered in individual cases. Further studies are needed to investigate indications for resection after induction chemotherapy and effective chemotherapy protocols.

Artery first approach

KQ 13: Is artery first approach in pancreaticoduodenectomy (AFA-PD) beneficial in cases of PHC?
Recommendation 13: Recommendation to perform AFA-PD in cases of PHC is withheld
(Strength of recommendation: Inconclusive; Level of evidence: Very low)
Comments: SMA, the most common site of a positive margin following PD, is often the last and the most challenging one to dissect, typically after division of the neck of the pancreas. AFA-PD aims to determine the resectability before the point of no return (transection of the pancreatic neck or bile duct division) to reduce intraoperative blood loss by early control of blood inflow into the pancreatic head and to increase the R0 resection rate and complete dissection of the connected tissues around the SMA. Despite the above theoretical benefits of this procedure, evidence for its clinical and oncological benefits is sparse. Most published reports of AFA-PD showed less bleeding [70,119,120] but no difference in operation time [70,120-122] or postoperative complications [70,119-122]. However, there was no significant difference in R0 resection rate and the 5-year survival rate could not be evaluated due to a short follow-up period (Table 9) [70,119-122]. Recently, Sabater et al. [123] have performed a RCT of patients with periampullary cancers and found no difference in R0 resection rate. Therefore, although AFA-PD is a feasible procedure, the benefit of this procedure such as improvement of resectability and survival has not been proven.

Notes

FUNDING

This guideline is supported by the Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: SSH, SWK. Data curation: SEL, SSH, CMK, WK, KWP, KBS, JDY, JCC, CYJ. Methodology: SEL, SSH, CMK, WK, KWP, KBS, JDY, JCC, CYJ. Visualization: CMK, WK, KWP, KBS, JDY, JCC, CYJ. Writing - original draft: SEL, SSH. Writing - review & editing: SEL, SSH, SWK.

REFERENCES

1. Hong S, Won YJ, Park YR, Jung KW, Kong HJ, Lee ES. 2020; Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2017. Cancer Res Treat. 52:335–350. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2020.206. PMID: 32178489. PMCID: PMC7176962.
crossref
2. Ducreux M, Cuhna AS, Caramella C, Hollebecque A, Burtin P, Goéré D, et al. 2015; Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 26 Suppl 5:v56–v68. Erratum in: Ann Oncol 2017;28 Suppl 4:iv167-iv168. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv295. PMID: 26314780.
crossref
3. Okusaka T, Nakamura M, Yoshida M, Kitano M, Uesaka K, Ito Y, et al. 2020; Clinical Practice Guidelines for pancreatic cancer 2019 from the Japan Pancreas Society: a synopsis. Pancreas. 49:326–335. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001513. PMID: 32132516. PMCID: PMC7077959.
crossref
4. Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, Behrman SW, Benson AB, Cardin DB, et al. 2021; Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 19:439–457. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0017. PMID: 33845462.
5. Committee of the Korean clinical practice guideline for pancreatic cancer and National Cancer Center, Korea. Korean clinical practice guideline for pancreatic cancer 2021: a summary of evidence-based, multi-disciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Pancreatology. 2021; 21:1326–1341. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2021.05.004. PMID: 34148794.
6. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. 2011; The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 343:d5928. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928. PMID: 22008217. PMCID: PMC3196245.
crossref
7. Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, et al. 2013; Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 66:408–414. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.016. PMID: 23337781.
crossref
8. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. 2009; AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 62:1013–1020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009. PMID: 19230606.
crossref
9. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. 2011; QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 155:529–536. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. PMID: 22007046.
crossref
10. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. 2010; Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvement. CMAJ. 182:1045–1052. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.091714. PMID: 20513780. PMCID: PMC2900328.
crossref
11. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. 2010; Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ. 182:E472–E478. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.091716. PMID: 20513779. PMCID: PMC2900368.
crossref
12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. 2008; GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 336:924–926. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. PMID: 18436948. PMCID: PMC2335261.
crossref
13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. 2008; What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 336:995–998. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE. PMID: 18456631. PMCID: PMC2364804.
crossref
14. Sell NM, Fong ZV, Del Castillo CF, Qadan M, Warshaw AL, Chang D, et al. 2018; Staging laparoscopy not only saves patients an incision, but may also help them live longer. Ann Surg Oncol. 25:1009–1016. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-6317-1. PMID: 29388123.
crossref
15. Schnelldorfer T, Gagnon AI, Birkett RT, Reynolds G, Murphy KM, Jenkins RL. 2014; Staging laparoscopy in pancreatic cancer: a potential role for advanced laparoscopic techniques. J Am Coll Surg. 218:1201–1206. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.02.018. PMID: 24698487.
crossref
16. Ahmed SI, Bochkarev V, Oleynikov D, Sasson AR. 2006; Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma benefit from staging laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 16:458–463. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2006.16.458. PMID: 17004868.
crossref
17. Contreras CM, Stanelle EJ, Mansour J, Hinshaw JL, Rikkers LF, Rettammel R, et al. 2009; Staging laparoscopy enhances the detection of occult metastases in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 100:663–669. DOI: 10.1002/jso.21402. PMID: 19780095.
crossref
18. Paracha M, Van Orden K, Patts G, Tseng J, McAneny D, Sachs T. 2019; Opportunity lost? Diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with pancreatic cancer in the national surgical quality improvement program database. World J Surg. 43:937–943. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4855-8. PMID: 30478680.
crossref
19. Yamamura K, Yamashita YI, Yamao T, Kuroda D, Eto T, Kitano Y, et al. 2020; Efficacy of staging laparoscopy for pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res. 40:1023–1027. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14037. PMID: 32014948.
crossref
20. Ta R, O'Connor DB, Sulistijo A, Chung B, Conlon KC. 2019; The role of staging laparoscopy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg. 36:251–260. DOI: 10.1159/000488372. PMID: 29649825.
crossref
21. De Rosa A, Cameron IC, Gomez D. 2016; Indications for staging laparoscopy in pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford). 18:13–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2015.10.004. PMID: 26776846. PMCID: PMC4750228.
crossref
22. Pisters PW, Lee JE, Vauthey JN, Charnsangavej C, Evans DB. 2001; Laparoscopy in the staging of pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 88:325–337. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01695.x. PMID: 11260096.
crossref
23. Choi M, Hwang HK, Rho SY, Lee WJ, Kang CM. 2020; Comparing laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic head cancer: oncologic outcomes and inflammatory scores. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 27:124–131. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.697. PMID: 31705719.
crossref
24. Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Truty MJ, Nagorney DM, et al. 2014; Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg. 260:633–638. discussion 638–640. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000937. PMID: 25203880.
25. Girgis MD, Zenati MS, King JC, Hamad A, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ, et al. 2021; Oncologic outcomes after robotic pancreatic resections are not inferior to open surgery. Ann Surg. 274:e262–e268. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003615. PMID: 31663967. PMCID: PMC8683907.
crossref
26. Kuesters S, Chikhladze S, Makowiec F, Sick O, Fichtner-Feigl S, Hopt UT, et al. 2018; Oncological outcome of laparoscopically assisted pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma in a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 55:162–166. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.026. PMID: 29807171.
crossref
27. Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, Mody K, Johnson E, Li Z, et al. 2017; Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc. 31:2233–2241. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5222-1. PMID: 27604369.
crossref
28. Zhou W, Jin W, Wang D, Lu C, Xu X, Zhang R, et al. 2019; Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis. Cancer Commun (Lond). 39:66. DOI: 10.1186/s40880-019-0410-8. PMID: 31661036. PMCID: PMC6819395.
crossref
29. Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, Reed SD, Scheri RP, Blazer DG 3rd, et al. 2015; Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg. 262:372–377. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001055. PMID: 26158612.
30. Jiang YL, Zhang RC, Zhou YC. 2019; Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 19:781. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6001-x. PMID: 31391085. PMCID: PMC6686510.
crossref
31. Peng L, Zhou Z, Cao Z, Wu W, Xiao W, Cao J. 2019; Long-term oncological outcomes in laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 29:759–769. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2018.0683. PMID: 30835156.
crossref
32. Yin Z, Jian Z, Hou B, Jin H. 2019; Surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 48:861–867. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001363. PMID: 31306305.
crossref
33. Chen K, Zhou Y, Jin W, Zhu Q, Lu C, Niu N, et al. 2020; Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic outcomes and long-term survival. Surg Endosc. 34:1948–1958. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06968-8. PMID: 31317331.
crossref
34. Lee SH, Kang CM, Hwang HK, Choi SH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. 2014; Minimally invasive RAMPS in well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer within Yonsei criteria: long-term (>median 3 years) oncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc. 28:2848–2855. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3537-3. PMID: 24853839.
crossref
35. Sulpice L, Farges O, Goutte N, Bendersky N, Dokmak S, Sauvanet A, et al. 2015; Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: time for a randomized controlled trial? Results of an all-inclusive national observational study. Ann Surg. 262:868–873. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001479. PMID: 26583678.
36. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, Rawashdeh M, Aleotti F, Al-Sarireh B, et al. 2019; Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg. 269:10–17. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002561. PMID: 29099399.
37. Zhang M, Fang R, Mou Y, Chen R, Xu X, Zhang R, et al. 2015; LDP vs ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a case matched study from a single-institution. BMC Gastroenterol. 15:182. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-015-0411-2. PMID: 26695506. PMCID: PMC4687064.
crossref
38. Anderson KL Jr, Adam MA, Thomas S, Roman SA, Sosa JA. 2017; Impact of minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy on use of adjuvant chemoradiation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg. 213:601–605. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.01.005. PMID: 28093119.
crossref
39. Kantor O, Bryan DS, Talamonti MS, Lutfi W, Sharpe S, Winchester DJ, et al. 2017; Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer provides oncologic outcomes and overall survival identical to open distal pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 21:1620–1625. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-017-3506-y. PMID: 28766272.
crossref
40. Riviere D, Gurusamy KS, Kooby DA, Vollmer CM, Besselink MG, Davidson BR, et al. 2016; Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4:CD011391. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011391.pub2. PMID: 27043078. PMCID: PMC7083263.
crossref
41. Farnell MB, Pearson RK, Sarr MG, DiMagno EP, Burgart LJ, Dahl TR, et al. 2005; A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery. 138:618–628. discussion 628–630. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.06.044. PMID: 16269290.
crossref
42. Nimura Y, Nagino M, Takao S, Takada T, Miyazaki K, Kawarada Y, et al. 2012; Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy in radical pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: long-term results of a Japanese multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 19:230–241. DOI: 10.1007/s00534-011-0466-6. PMID: 22038501.
crossref
43. Jang JY, Kang MJ, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW, Park SJ, et al. 2014; A prospective randomized controlled study comparing outcomes of standard resection and extended resection, including dissection of the nerve plexus and various lymph nodes, in patients with pancreatic head cancer. Ann Surg. 259:656–664. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000384. PMID: 24368638.
crossref
44. Jang JY, Kang JS, Han Y, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW, et al. 2017; Long-term outcomes and recurrence patterns of standard versus extended pancreatectomy for pancreatic head cancer: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 24:426–433. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.465. PMID: 28514000.
crossref
45. Ignjatovic I, Knezevic S, Knezevic D, Dugalic V, Micev M, Matic S, et al. 2017; Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy in radical surgical treatment for pancreatic head carcinoma. J BUON. 22:232–238. PMID: 28365959.
46. Svoronos C, Tsoulfas G, Katsourakis A, Noussios G, Chatzitheoklitos E, Marakis NG. 2014; Role of extended lymphadenectomy in the treatment of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 84:706–711. DOI: 10.1111/ans.12423. PMID: 24165093.
crossref
47. Wang W, He Y, Wu L, Ye L, Yao L, Tang Z. 2019; Efficacy of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. An update meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 19:1074–1080. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2019.10.003. PMID: 31668841.
crossref
48. Michalski CW, Kleeff J, Wente MN, Diener MK, Büchler MW, Friess H. 2007; Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 94:265–273. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5716. PMID: 17318801.
crossref
49. Giovinazzo F, Turri G, Katz MH, Heaton N, Ahmed I. 2016; Meta-analysis of benefits of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 103:179–191. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9969. PMID: 26663252.
crossref
50. Peng C, Zhou D, Meng L, Cao Y, Zhang H, Pan Z, et al. 2019; The value of combined vein resection in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head carcinoma: a meta-analysis. BMC Surg. 19:84. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0540-6. PMID: 31286916. PMCID: PMC6615269.
crossref
51. Bell R, Ao BT, Ironside N, Bartlett A, Windsor JA, Pandanaboyana S. 2017; Meta-analysis and cost effective analysis of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection during pancreatoduodenectomy: impact on margin status and survival. Surg Oncol. 26:53–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2016.12.007. PMID: 28317585.
crossref
52. Yu XZ, Li J, Fu DL, Di Y, Yang F, Hao SJ, et al. 2014; Benefit from synchronous portal-superior mesenteric vein resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 40:371–378. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.01.010. PMID: 24560302.
crossref
53. Zhou Y, Zhang Z, Liu Y, Li B, Xu D. 2012; Pancreatectomy combined with superior mesenteric vein-portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 36:884–891. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1461-z. PMID: 22350478.
crossref
54. Amano H, Miura F, Toyota N, Wada K, Katoh K, Hayano K, et al. 2009; Is pancreatectomy with arterial reconstruction a safe and useful procedure for locally advanced pancreatic cancer? J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 16:850–857. DOI: 10.1007/s00534-009-0190-7. PMID: 19844653.
crossref
55. Bockhorn M, Burdelski C, Bogoevski D, Sgourakis G, Yekebas EF, Izbicki JR. 2011; Arterial en bloc resection for pancreatic carcinoma. Br J Surg. 98:86–92. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7270. PMID: 21136564.
56. Bachellier P, Rosso E, Lucescu I, Oussoultzoglou E, Tracey J, Pessaux P, et al. 2011; Is the need for an arterial resection a contraindication to pancreatic resection for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma? A case-matched controlled study. J Surg Oncol. 103:75–84. DOI: 10.1002/jso.21769. PMID: 21105000.
crossref
57. Mollberg N, Rahbari NN, Koch M, Hartwig W, Hoeger Y, Büchler MW, et al. 2011; Arterial resection during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 254:882–893. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823ac299. PMID: 22064622.
58. Małczak P, Sierżęga M, Stefura T, Kacprzyk A, Droś J, Skomarovska O, et al. 2020; Arterial resections in pancreatic cancer - systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 22:961–968. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.005. PMID: 32360186.
crossref
59. Haines M, Chua TC, Jamieson NB, Mittal A, Gill AJ, Samra JS. 2020; Pancreatoduodenectomy with arterial resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer of the head: a systematic review. Pancreas. 49:621–628. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001551. PMID: 32433398.
crossref
60. Wu X, Tao R, Lei R, Han B, Cheng D, Shen B, et al. 2010; Distal pancreatectomy combined with celiac axis resection in treatment of carcinoma of the body/tail of the pancreas: a single-center experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 17:1359–1366. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0840-7. PMID: 20198445.
crossref
61. Beane JD, House MG, Pitt SC, Kilbane EM, Hall BL, Parmar AD, et al. 2015; Distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection: what are the added risks? HPB (Oxford). 17:777–784. DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12453. PMID: 26201994. PMCID: PMC4557651.
crossref
62. Yamamoto Y, Sakamoto Y, Ban D, Shimada K, Esaki M, Nara S, et al. 2012; Is celiac axis resection justified for T4 pancreatic body cancer? Surgery. 151:61–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.06.030. PMID: 22088810.
crossref
63. Peters NA, Javed AA, Cameron JL, Makary MA, Hirose K, Pawlik TM, et al. 2016; Modified Appleby procedure for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: does improved neoadjuvant therapy warrant such an aggressive approach? Ann Surg Oncol. 23:3757–3764. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5303-3. PMID: 27328946.
crossref
64. Gong H, Ma R, Gong J, Cai C, Song Z, Xu B. 2016; Distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 95:e3061. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003061. PMID: 26962836. PMCID: PMC4998917.
65. Nigri G, Petrucciani N, Belloni E, Lucarini A, Aurello P, D'Angelo F, et al. 2021; Distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 13:1967. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13081967. PMID: 33921838. PMCID: PMC8073522.
crossref
66. Storkholm JH, Burgdorf SK, Hansen CP. 2020; Distal pancreas-coeliac axis resection with preoperative selective embolization of the coeliac axis: a single high-volume centre experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 405:635–645. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-01919-7. PMID: 32683485.
crossref
67. Kawabata Y, Tanaka T, Nishi T, Monma H, Yano S, Tajima Y. 2012; Appraisal of a total meso-pancreatoduodenum excision with pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 38:574–579. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.04.007. PMID: 22575529.
crossref
68. Xu J, Tian X, Chen Y, Ma Y, Liu C, Tian L, et al. 2017; Total mesopancreas excision for the treatment of pancreatic head cancer. J Cancer. 8:3575–3584. DOI: 10.7150/jca.21341. PMID: 29151943. PMCID: PMC5687173.
crossref
69. Sugiyama M, Suzuki Y, Nakazato T, Yokoyama M, Kogure M, Abe N, et al. 2016; Intestinal derotation procedure for facilitating pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery. 159:1325–1332. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.11.014. PMID: 26767309.
crossref
70. Aimoto T, Mizutani S, Kawano Y, Matsushita A, Yamashita N, Suzuki H, et al. 2013; Left posterior approach pancreaticoduodenectomy with total mesopancreas excision and circumferential lymphadenectomy around the superior mesenteric artery for pancreatic head carcinoma. J Nippon Med Sch. 80:438–445. DOI: 10.1272/jnms.80.438. PMID: 24419715.
crossref
71. Srinarmwong C, Luechakiettisak P, Prasitvilai W. 2008; Standard whipple's operation versus pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial study. J Med Assoc Thai. 91:693–698.
72. Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Ina S, Miyazawa M, Fujita Y, et al. 2009; Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Surg Today. 39:219–224. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-008-3847-y. PMID: 19280281.
crossref
73. Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Okada K, Miyazawa M, Yamaue H. 2014; Pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy offers long-term outcomes similar to those of pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective study. World J Surg. 38:1476–1483. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2420-z. PMID: 24370543.
crossref
74. Iqbal N, Lovegrove RE, Tilney HS, Abraham AT, Bhattacharya S, Tekkis PP, et al. 2008; A comparison of pancreaticoduodenectomy with pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of 2822 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 34:1237–1245. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.12.004. PMID: 18242943.
crossref
75. Yang C, Wu HS, Chen XL, Wang CY, Gou SM, Xiao J, et al. 2014; Pylorus-preserving versus pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 9:e90316. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090316. PMID: 24603478. PMCID: PMC3946060.
crossref
76. Hüttner FJ, Fitzmaurice C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Büchler MW, et al. 2016; Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2:CD006053. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6. PMID: 26905229. PMCID: PMC8255094.
crossref
77. Klaiber U, Probst P, Hüttner FJ, Bruckner T, Strobel O, Diener MK, et al. 2020; Randomized trial of pylorus-preserving vs. pylorus-resecting pancreatoduodenectomy: long-term morbidity and quality of life. J Gastrointest Surg. 24:341–352. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-04102-y. PMID: 30671796.
crossref
78. Fatima J, Schnelldorfer T, Barton J, Wood CM, Wiste HJ, Smyrk TC, et al. 2010; Pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: implications of positive margin on survival. Arch Surg. 145:167–172. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.282. PMID: 20157085.
79. Pang TC, Wilson O, Argueta MA, Hugh TJ, Chou A, Samra JS, et al. 2014; Frozen section of the pancreatic neck margin in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is of limited utility. Pathology. 46:188–192. DOI: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000072. PMID: 24614707.
crossref
80. Mathur A, Ross SB, Luberice K, Kurian T, Vice M, Toomey P, et al. 2014; Margin status impacts survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy but negative margins should not be pursued. Am Surg. 80:353–360. DOI: 10.1177/000313481408000416. PMID: 24887665.
crossref
81. Nitschke P, Volk A, Welsch T, Hackl J, Reissfelder C, Rahbari M, et al. 2017; Impact of intraoperative re-resection to achieve R0 status on survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: a single-center experience with 483 patients. Ann Surg. 265:1219–1225. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001808. PMID: 27280512.
crossref
82. Dikmen K, Kerem M, Bostanci H, Sare M, Ekinci O. 2018; Intra-operative frozen section histology of the pancreatic resection margins and clinical outcome of patients with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Med Sci Monit. 24:4905–4913. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.910279. PMID: 30007990. PMCID: PMC6067030.
crossref
83. Crippa S, Guarneri G, Belfiori G, Partelli S, Pagnanelli M, Gasparini G, et al. 2020; Positive neck margin at frozen section analysis is a significant predictor of tumour recurrence and poor survival after pancreatodudenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 46:1524–1531. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.02.013. PMID: 32098733.
crossref
84. Barreto SG, Pandanaboyana S, Ironside N, Windsor JA. 2017; Does revision of resection margins based on frozen section improve overall survival following pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 19:573–579. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.03.006. PMID: 28420560.
crossref
85. Petrucciani N, Nigri G, Debs T, Giannini G, Sborlini E, Antolino L, et al. 2016; Frozen section analysis of the pancreatic margin during pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: Does extending the resection to obtain a secondary R0 provide a survival benefit? Results of a systematic review. Pancreatology. 16:1037–1043. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2016.09.004. PMID: 27697467.
crossref
86. Strasberg SM, Drebin JA, Linehan D. 2003; Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy. Surgery. 133:521–527. DOI: 10.1067/msy.2003.146. PMID: 12773980.
crossref
87. Zhou Q, Fengwei-Gao , Gong J, Xie Q, Liu Y, Wang Q, et al. 2019; Assessement of postoperative long-term survival quality and complications associated with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Surg. 19:12. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0476-x. PMID: 30691444. PMCID: PMC6348671.
crossref
88. Sham JG, Guo S, Ding D, Shao Z, Wright M, Jing W, et al. 2020; Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard distal pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer, a dual-institutional analysis. Chin Clin Oncol. 9:54. Erratum in: Chin Clin Oncol 2020;9:72. DOI: 10.21037/cco-20-6. PMID: 32576018.
crossref
89. Abe T, Ohuchida K, Miyasaka Y, Ohtsuka T, Oda Y, Nakamura M. 2016; Comparison of surgical outcomes between radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) and standard retrograde pancreatosplenectomy (SPRS) for left-sided pancreatic cancer. World J Surg. 40:2267–2275. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3526-x. PMID: 27138881.
crossref
90. Grossman JG, Fields RC, Hawkins WG, Strasberg SM. 2016; Single institution results of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of pancreas in 78 patients. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 23:432–441. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.362. PMID: 27207482.
crossref
91. Kim EY, You YK, Kim DG, Hong TH. 2016; Initial experience with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy in a single institution. Ann Surg Treat Res. 91:29–36. DOI: 10.4174/astr.2016.91.1.29. PMID: 27433462. PMCID: PMC4942536.
crossref
92. Kawabata Y, Hayashi H, Kaji S, Fujii Y, Nishi T, Tajima Y. 2020; Laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy with artery-first approach in pancreatic cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 405:647–656. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-01887-y. PMID: 32524466.
crossref
93. Kim HS, Hong TH, You YK, Park JS, Yoon DS. 2021; Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) versus conventional distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: findings of a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score matching study. Surg Today. 51:1775–1786. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02280-y. PMID: 33830293.
crossref
94. Lillemoe KD, Cameron JL, Hardacre JM, Sohn TA, Sauter PK, Coleman J, et al. 1999; Is prophylactic gastrojejunostomy indicated for unresectable periampullary cancer? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 230:322–328. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199909000-00005. PMID: 10493479. PMCID: PMC1420877.
crossref
95. Wong YT, Brams DM, Munson L, Sanders L, Heiss F, Chase M, et al. 2002; Gastric outlet obstruction secondary to pancreatic cancer: surgical vs endoscopic palliation. Surg Endosc. 16:310–312. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-9061-2. PMID: 11967685.
crossref
96. Gurusamy KS, Kumar S, Davidson BR. 2013; Prophylactic gastrojejunostomy for unresectable periampullary carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD008533. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008533.pub3. PMID: 23450583. PMCID: PMC7173743.
crossref
97. Upchurch E, Ragusa M, Cirocchi R. 2018; Stent placement versus surgical palliation for adults with malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 5:CD012506. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012506.pub2. PMID: 29845610. PMCID: PMC6494580.
crossref
98. Williamsson C, Wennerblom J, Tingstedt B, Jönsson C. 2016; A wait-and-see strategy with subsequent self-expanding metal stent on demand is superior to prophylactic bypass surgery for unresectable periampullary cancer. HPB (Oxford). 18:107–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2015.08.009. PMID: 26776858. PMCID: PMC4750237.
crossref
99. Doi R, Kami K, Ito D, Fujimoto K, Kawaguchi Y, Wada M, et al. 2007; Prognostic implication of para-aortic lymph node metastasis in resectable pancreatic cancer. World J Surg. 31:147–154. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-0730-5. PMID: 17171496.
crossref
100. Schwarz L, Lupinacci RM, Svrcek M, Lesurtel M, Bubenheim M, Vuarnesson H, et al. 2014; Para-aortic lymph node sampling in pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 101:530–538. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9444. PMID: 24633831.
crossref
101. Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, Hashimoto Y, Yuasa Y, Sueda T. 2010; Prognostic impact of para-aortic lymph node metastasis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. World J Surg. 34:1900–1907. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-010-0577-2. PMID: 20376442.
crossref
102. Sho M, Murakami Y, Motoi F, Satoi S, Matsumoto I, Kawai M, et al. 2015; Postoperative prognosis of pancreatic cancer with para-aortic lymph node metastasis: a multicenter study on 822 patients. J Gastroenterol. 50:694–702. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-014-1005-4. PMID: 25341657.
crossref
103. Hempel S, Plodeck V, Mierke F, Distler M, Aust DE, Saeger HD, et al. 2017; Para-aortic lymph node metastases in pancreatic cancer should not be considered a watershed for curative resection. Sci Rep. 7:7688. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08165-w. PMID: 28794500. PMCID: PMC5550512.
crossref
104. Agalianos C, Gouvas N, Papaparaskeva K, Dervenis C. 2016; Positive para-aortic lymph nodes following pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Systematic review and meta-analysis of impact on short term survival and association with clinicopathologic features. HPB (Oxford). 18:633–641. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.04.007. PMID: 27485057. PMCID: PMC4972380.
crossref
105. Paiella S, Sandini M, Gianotti L, Butturini G, Salvia R, Bassi C. 2016; The prognostic impact of para-aortic lymph node metastasis in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 42:616–624. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.003. PMID: 26916137.
crossref
106. Asaoka T, Miyamoto A, Maeda S, Hama N, Tsujie M, Ikeda M, et al. 2018; CA19-9 level determines therapeutic modality in pancreatic cancer patients with para-aortic lymph node metastasis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 17:75–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2018.01.004. PMID: 29428109.
crossref
107. Hackert T, Niesen W, Hinz U, Tjaden C, Strobel O, Ulrich A, et al. 2017; Radical surgery of oligometastatic pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 43:358–363. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.023. PMID: 27856064.
crossref
108. Zanini N, Lombardi R, Masetti M, Giordano M, Landolfo G, Jovine E. 2015; Surgery for isolated liver metastases from pancreatic cancer. Updates Surg. 67:19–25. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-015-0283-6. PMID: 25702263.
crossref
109. Dünschede F, Will L, von Langsdorf C, Möhler M, Galle PR, Otto G, et al. 2010; Treatment of metachronous and simultaneous liver metastases of pancreatic cancer. Eur Surg Res. 44:209–213. DOI: 10.1159/000313532. PMID: 20571276.
crossref
110. Yu X, Gu J, Fu D, Jin C. 2017; Dose surgical resection of hepatic metastases bring benefits to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 48:149–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.10.066. PMID: 29081375.
crossref
111. Marthey L, Sa-Cunha A, Blanc JF, Gauthier M, Cueff A, Francois E, et al. 2015; FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results of an AGEO multicenter prospective observational cohort. Ann Surg Oncol. 22:295–301. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3898-9. PMID: 25037971.
crossref
112. Habermehl D, Kessel K, Welzel T, Hof H, Abdollahi A, Bergmann F, et al. 2012; Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with Gemcitabine for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Radiat Oncol. 7:28. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-7-28. PMID: 22385572. PMCID: PMC3338091.
crossref
113. Polistina F, Di Natale G, Bonciarelli G, Ambrosino G, Frego M. 2014; Neoadjuvant strategies for pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 20:9374–9383. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i28.9374. PMID: 25071332. PMCID: PMC4110569.
114. Nanda RH, El-Rayes B, Maithel SK, Landry J. 2015; Neoadjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX and chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer improves resectability. J Surg Oncol. 111:1028–1034. DOI: 10.1002/jso.23921. PMID: 26073887.
crossref
115. Gemenetzis G, Groot VP, Blair AB, Laheru DA, Zheng L, Narang AK, et al. 2019; Survival in locally advanced pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection. Ann Surg. 270:340–347. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002753. PMID: 29596120. PMCID: PMC6985003.
crossref
116. Murphy JE, Wo JY, Ryan DP, Clark JW, Jiang W, Yeap BY, et al. 2019; Total neoadjuvant therapy With FOLFIRINOX in combination with losartan followed by chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase 2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 5:1020–1027. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0892. PMID: 31145418. PMCID: PMC6547247.
crossref
117. Doi R, Imamura M, Hosotani R, Imaizumi T, Hatori T, Takasaki K, et al. 2008; Surgery versus radiochemotherapy for resectable locally invasive pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomized multi-institutional trial. Surg Today. 38:1021–1028. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-007-3745-8. PMID: 18958561.
crossref
118. Gurusamy KS, Kumar S, Davidson BR, Fusai G. Resection versus other treatments for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 2:CD010244. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010244.pub2. PMID: 24578248.
crossref
119. Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada KI, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Kitahata Y, et al. 2017; Mesenteric approach during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 1:208–218. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12013. PMID: 29863125. PMCID: PMC5881370.
crossref
120. Wang M, Zhang H, Zhu F, Peng F, Wang X, Shen M, et al. 2017; Pancreaticoduodenectomy for borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer with a modified artery-first approach technique. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 16:215–221. DOI: 10.1016/S1499-3872(16)60171-6. PMID: 28381388.
crossref
121. Kurosaki I, Minagawa M, Takano K, Takizawa K, Hatakeyama K. 2011; Left posterior approach to the superior mesenteric vascular pedicle in pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer of the pancreatic head. JOP. 12:220–229. PMID: 21546696.
122. Pędziwiatr M, Pisarska M, Małczak P, Major P, Wierdak M, Radkowiak D, et al. 2017; Laparoscopic uncinate process first pancreatoduodenectomy-feasibility study of a modified 'artery first' approach to pancreatic head cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 402:917–923. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-017-1597-2. PMID: 28699023. PMCID: PMC5563330.
crossref
123. Sabater L, Cugat E, Serrablo A, Suarez-Artacho G, Diez-Valladares L, Santoyo-Santoyo J, et al. 2019; Does the artery-first approach improve the rate of R0 resection in pancreatoduodenectomy?: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 270:738–746. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003535. PMID: 31498183.
crossref

Table 1
Levels of evidence
Level Explanation
High Study design (Intervention) Results from randomized controlled trials or comparative designed observational studies. (Diagnosis) Results from randomized controlled trials or diagnostic accuracy tests with a cross-sectional cohort design. Considerations: There are no concerns regarding the methodological assessment or the consistency or precision of the results. The certainty of evidence ishigh for the synthesized result.
Moderate Study design (Intervention) Results from randomized controlled trials or comparative designed observational studies. (Diagnosis) Results from randomized controlled trials or diagnostic accuracy tests with a cross-sectional cohort design. Considerations: There are minor concerns regarding the methodological assessment or the consistency or precision of the results. The certainty of evidenceis moderate for the synthesized result.
Low Study design (Intervention) Results from observational studies with or without comparison groups. (Diagnosis) Results from diagnostic accuracy tests with a case-controlled design. Considerations: There are serious concerns regarding the methodological assessment or the consistency or precision of the results. The certainty of evidence is low for the synthesized result.
Very low Study design (Intervention) Results from observational studies without comparison groups or experts’ opinions. (Diagnosis) Results from diagnostic accuracy tests with a case-controlled design. Considerations: There are very serious concerns regarding the methodological assessment or the consistency or precision of the results. The certainty of evidence is very low for the synthesized result.
Table 2
Grading of recommendations
Strength of recommendations Explanation
Strong recommendation The intervention/diagnostic test can be strongly recommended in most clinical practice, considering greater benefit than harm, evidence level, value and preference, and resources.
Conditional recommendation The intervention/diagnostic test can be conditionally recommended in clinical practice considering the balance of benefit and harm, evidence level, value and preference, and resources.
Not recommended The harm caused by the intervention/diagnostic test may be greater than its benefits. Moreover, considering the evidence level, value and preference, and resources, the intervention should not be recommended.
Inconclusive It is not possible to determine the strength and direction of recommendation because of a very low or insufficient evidence level, uncertain or variable balance of benefit and harm, value and preference, and resources.
Table 3
Summary of key questions and recommendations
Key question and recommendation Strength of recommendation Level of evidence
KQ 1. Is staging laparoscopy routinely indicated in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC)? Recommendations: Staging laparoscopy could be considered selectively before laparotomy in patients with RPC. Conditional Low
KQ 2. Is minimally invasive surgery (MIS) applicable to the patients with RPC? Recommendations: MIS could be performed selectively for the patients with RPC by highly experienced surgeons. Conditional Low
KQ 3. Is extended lymph node dissection (LND) and nerve plexus dissection necessary during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for the patients with resectable pancreatic head cancer (RPHC)? Recommendations: Extended LND is not recommended for the patients with RPHC. Not recommend High
KQ 4-1. Is combined portal vein (PV) or superior mesenteric vein (SMV) resection beneficial in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the PV or SMV? Recommendations: PV or SMV resection could be considered if radical resection is possible in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the PV or SMV. Conditional Low
KQ 4-2. Is superior mesenteric artery (SMA) resection beneficial in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the SMA? Recommendations: SMA resection is not recommended in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the SMA. Not recommend Low
KQ 4-3. Is distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) beneficial in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the celiac axis (CA)? Recommendations: DP-CAR could be considered, if radical resection is possible in patients with pancreatic cancer invading the CA. Conditional Low
KQ 5. Is mesopancreas excision (MpE) beneficial during PD? Recommendations: MpE could be considered to improve the rate of R0 resection for the patients with RPHC Conditional Low
KQ 6. Is pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) preferred to PD in RPHC? Recommendations: PPPD is preferred to PD in RPHC. Conditional High
KQ 7. Is additional pancreas resection necessary in cases of positive pancreatic resection margin in intraoperative frozen biopsy? Recommendations: Additional pancreas resection could be considered if pancreatic resection margin is positive in intraoperative frozen biopsy. Conditional Low
KQ 8. Is radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) beneficial in pancreatic body or tail cancer? Recommendations: RAMS could be considered in pancreatic body or tail cancer. Conditional Low
KQ 9. Is bypass gastrojejunostomy necessary in cases of unresectable pancreatic cancer without gastric outlet obstruction? Recommendations: Bypass gastrojejunostomy is not recommended in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer without gastric outlet obstruction. Not recommend Low
KQ 10. Is pancreatectomy beneficial in cases of pancreatic cancer with pathologically proven para-aortic lymph node metastasis in intraoperative frozen biopsy? Recommendations: Recommendation to perform pancreatectomy in cases of pancreatic cancer with pathologically proven para-aortic lymph node metastasis in intraoperative frozen biopsy is withheld. Inconclusive Very low
KQ 11. Is hepatic resection beneficial in cases of pancreatic cancer with hepatic oligometastasis? Recommendations: Recommendation to perform hepatic resection in cases of pancreatic cancer with hepatic oligometastasis is withheld. Inconclusive Very low
KQ 12. Is conversion surgery beneficial in cases of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)? Recommendations: Conversion surgery after induction chemotherapy could be considered in cases of LAPC. Conditional Low
KQ13. Is artery first approach in pancreaticoduodenectomy (AFA-PD) beneficial in cases of pancreatic head cancer? Recommendations: Recommendation to perform AFA-PD in cases of pancreatic head cancer is withheld. Inconclusive Very low
Table 4
Summary of retrospective cohort studies of pancreaticoduodenectomy
Author Comparison group Number Morbidity rate (%) p-value 30-day mortality (%) p-value Median survival (mon) p-value
Adam et al. (2015) [29] Laparoscopy/robot
Open		 831
5,235		 N/A - 42 (5.1)
199 (3.8)		 0.10 N/A -
Choi et al. (2020) [23] Laparoscopy
Open		 27
34		 10 (37.0)a)
10 (29.4)		 0.700 N/A 44.62
45.29		 0.223
Croome et al. (2014) [24] Laparoscopy
Open		 108
214		 6 (5.6)
29 (13.6)		 0.17 1 (0.9)
4 (1.9)		 0.50 25.3
21.8		 0.12
Girgis et al. (2021) [25] Robot
Open		 163
198		 40 (24.5)
59 (29.8)		 0.265 3 (1.8)
3 (1.5)		 1.00 25.6b)
23.9b) 		0.055
Kuesters et al. (2018) [26] Laparoscopy
Open		 62
278		 25 (40.3)
107 (38.5)		 0.81 3 (4.8)
6 (2.2)		 0.23 20%c)
14%c) 		0.51
Stauffer et al. (2017) [27] Laparoscopy
Open		 58
193		 13 (22.4)
58 (30.1)		 0.170 2 (3.4)
10 (5.2)		 N/A 18.5
30.3		 0.25
Zhou et al. (2019) [28] Laparoscopy
Open		 79
230		 9 (11.4)
18 (7.8)		 0.333 1 (1.3)
2 (0.9)		 > 0.999 18.0
22.8		 0.032 (0.293)d)

N/A, not available.

a)Postoperative pancreatic fistula; b)includes distal pancreatectomies; c)5-year survival rate; d)after propensity score matching analysis.

Table 5
Summary of retrospective cohort studies of distal pancreatectomy
Author Comparison group Number Morbidity rate (%) p-value 90-day mortality (%) p-value Median survival (mon) p-value
Anderson et al. (2017) [38] Laparoscopy/robot
Open		 505
1,302		 N/A - 11 (2.2)
43 (3.3)		 0.10 55%a)
52%a) 		0.42
Girgis et al. (2021) [25] Robot
Open		 48
25		 8 (16.7)
5 (20.0)		 0.724 3 (6.25)
1 (4.0)		 1.00 25.6b)
23.9b) 		0.055
Kantor et al. (2017) [39] Laparoscopy
Open		 349
1,205		 N/A - 9 (3.7)
52 (5.6)		 0.26 29.9
24.0		 0.09
Lee et al. (2014) [34] Laparoscopy/robot
Open		 12
78		 3 (25.0)
29 (37.2)		 0.412 0 (0)c)
2 (2.6)c) 		0.484 60.0
30.7		 0.046
Sulpice et al. (2015) [35] Laparoscopy
Open		 347
2,406		 23 (6.6)
251 (10.4)		 0.0284 9 (2.6)
135 (5.6)		 0.0215 62.5
36.7		 < 0.0001
van Hilst et al. (2019) [36] Laparoscopy/robot
Open		 340
340		 61 (17.9)
70 (20.6)		 0.431 7 (2.1)
8 (2.4)		 > 0.999 28 31 0.774
Zhang et al. (2015) [37] Laparoscopy
Open		 17
34		 6 (35.3)
14 (41.2)		 0.754 0 (0)
1 (2.9)		 N/A 14.0
14.0		 0.802

N/A, not available.

a)Three-year overall survival; b)includes pancreatoduodenectomy; c)postoperative within 30-day mortality.

Table 6
Summary of randomized controlled trials comparing extended lymph node dissection (LND) and standard LND
Author Comparison group Number Morbidity rate (%)a) p-value Postoperative mortality rate (%) p-value Survival rate (%) p-value
Farnell et al. (2005) [41] Extended
Standard		 39
40		 N/A NSa) 1 (2.6)
0 (0)		 NS 17 (5-yr)
16 (5-yr)		 0.320
Nimura et al. (2012) [42] Extended
Standard		 50
51		 22.0
19.6		 NS 1 (2.0)
0 (0)		 NS 6.0 (5-yr)
15.7 (5-yr)		 0.119
Jang et al. (2014) [43] Extended
Standard		 86
83		 37 (43.0)
27 (32.5)		 0.160 2 (2.3)
0 (0)		 NS 35.7 (2-yr)
44.5 (2-yr)		 0.122
Jang et al. (2017) [44] Extended
Standard		 86
83		 N/A - N/A - 14.4 (5-yr)
18.4 (5-yr)		 0.388
Ignjatovic et al. (2017) [45] Extended
Standard		 30
30		 1 (3.3)b)
0 (0)		 > 0.05 2 (6.7)
1 (3.3)		 > 0.05 7.1 (5-yr)
6.9 (5-yr)		 0.057

N/A, not available; NS, not significant.

a)Complications were evaluated separately and not as a whole. There were no differences for all sub-specified complications. b)Postoperative bleeding.

Table 7
Summary of retrospective cohort studies of mesopancreas excision (MpE)
Author Comparison group Number Morbidity (%) p-value R0 (%) p-value Recurrence (%) p-value 1YSR (%) p-value
Kawabata et al. [67] C-PD
MpE		 25
14		 56
50		 0.546 60
93		 0.019 64
14		 0.036 48
76		 N/A
Aimoto et al. [70] C-PD
MpE		 19
19		 32
47		 NS 68
74		 NS 37
0		 < 0.01 70
60		 NS
Sugiyama et al. [69] C-PD
MpE		 45
58		 39
28		 0.078 78
90		 0.099 NA N/A
Xu et al. [68] C-PD
MpE		 43
58		 51
40		 0.250 77
91		 0.041 55
32		 0.054 20 moa)
23 mo		 0.176

1YSR, 1-year survival rate; C-PD, conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy; NA, not available; NS, not significant.

a)Median overall survival.

Table 8
Summary of retrospective studies comparing radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) and conventional distal pancreatectomy (C-DP)
Author Number Factors RAMPS C-DP p-value
Abe et al. [89] 53/40 R0 resection (%)
LN counts		 90.5
28.4 ± 11.6		 67.5
20.7 ± 10.1		 < 0.005
0.001
Grossman et al. [90] 78/0 R0 resection (%)
LN counts		 66
20.0 ± 12.2		 -
Kim et al. [91] 26/17 R0 resection (%)
LN counts		 96
21.5 ± 8.3		 64
13.7 ± 7.4		 0.15 0.03
Kawabata et al. [92] 66/0 R0 resection (%)
LN counts		 89
27 ± 15		 -
Sham et al. [88] 253/193 R0 resection (%)
LN counts		 89
12		 94
18		 0.01
< 0.001
Kim et al. [93] 53/53 R0 resection (%)
LN counts		 59
15.81 ± 10.25		 77
13.36 ± 9.8		 0.37
0.21

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

LN, lymph node.

Table 9
Summary of retrospective studies comparing artery first approach in pancreaticoduodenectomy (AFA-PD) and conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-PD)
Author Comparison group Number Op time (min) p-value Blood loss (mL) p-value R0 rate (%) p-value LN harvest (n) p-value Morbidity (%) p-value Survival (%) p-value
Kurosaki et al. [121] C-PD
AFA-PD		 35
40		 526
516		 0.651 1,352
1,307		 0.814 71.4
72.5		 1.00 N/A 42.9
30.0		 0.352 17.1a)
52.8		 0.016
Aimoto et al. [70] C-PD
AFA-PD		 19
19		 481
490		 NS 1,568
490		 < 0.05 68
74		 NS 3.4
7.9		 < 0.01 10
20		 NS 40b)
20		 NS
Hirono et al. [119] C-PDc)
AFA-PD		 30
28		 371
417		 0.007 502
313		 0.023 86.7
100		 0.045 23.5
23		 0.919 10
17.9		 0.386 N/A 0.021
C-PDd)
AFA-PD		 28
30		 452
459		 0.210 920
508		 0.003 85.7
80.0		 0.565 26
26.5		 0.668 17.9
13.3		 0.634 N/A 0.260
Pędziwiatr et al. [122] C-PD
AFA-PD		 19
12		 425
467		 0.13 392
408		 0.33 63.2
66.7		 0.84 139.
19.3		 0.03 63.2
66.7		 0.84 N/A N/A
Wang et al. [120] C-PD
AFA-PD		 39
78		 384
313		 0.014 756
534		 0.043 82.1
83.3		 0.534 N/A 46.2
41.0		 0.603 N/A N/A

OP, operation; LN, lymph node; N/A, not available; NS, not significant.

a)Three-year survival rate; b)2-year survival rate; c)resectable pancreas cancer; d)borderline resectable cancer.

TOOLS
Similar articles