Too Much Water Drowned the Miller—Does Extended Pancreaticoduodenectomy Benefit the Long-term Survival Outcomes in the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer?

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

Extent of lymphadenectomy to associate with pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic head cancer for better tumor staging

OBJECTIVES

To define the extent of lymphadenectomy to associate with surgery for pancreatic head cancer.

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy fails to prolong patient survival.

METHODS

Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NRCTs), meta-analyses, retrospective reviews, consensus conferences and pre- and intraoperative diagnoses of lymph node (LN) metastases were retrieved. Standard and extended lymphadenectomies were reviewed, including their effects on postoperative complications, mortality rate and long-term survival. The minimum total number of LN examined (TNLE) for adequate tumor staging, and the incidence of metastasis to each LN station were also considered. A pros and cons analysis was performed on the removal of each LN station.

RESULTS

Eleven retrospective studies (2514 patients), five prospective NRCTs (545 patients), and five prospective RCTs (586 patients) described different lymphadenectomies, which obtained similar long-term results. Five meta-analyses showed they did not influence long-term survival. However, N status is an important component of tumor staging. The recommended minimum TNLE is 15. The percent incidence of metastasis to each LN station was calculated considering at least 385 and up to 3725 patients. Preoperative imaging and intraoperative exploration frequently fail to identify metastatic nodes. A pros and cons analysis suggests that lymph node status is better established removing the following LN stations: 6, 8a-p, 12a-b-c, 13a-b, 14a-b-c-d, 16b1, 17a-b. Metastasis to 16b1 LNs significantly worsens prognosis. Their removal and frozen section examination, before proceeding with resection, may contraindicate resection.

CONCLUSION

A standard lymphadenectomy demands an adequate TNLE and removal of the LN stations metastasizing more frequently, without increasing the surgical risk.