Whipple Grossing in the Era of New Staging: Should We Standardize?

Prognostic value of margin clearance in total and distal pancreatectomy specimens with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in a Danish population-based nationwide study

BACKGROUND

The prognostic role of resection margin status following total (TP) and distal (DP) pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is insufficiently evaluated. In Denmark, pancreatic surgery, including the postoperative pathological examination of the resection specimens, is confined to four centres, all reporting to the Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database (DPCD). In this Danish population-based nationwide study on TP and DP for PDAC from 2015-2019, based on data from DPCD, we evaluated whether there is a prognostically relevant minimum margin clearance definition and whether certain margins hold independent prognostic information.

METHODS

Clinical and pathological data were retrieved from DPCD and supplemented by review of pathology reports and re-microscopy, if needed. One of the study pathologists performed all re-microscopy. The prognostic significance of margin status was evaluated by dichotomisation of the TP cohort (n = 101) and the DP cohort (n = 90) into involved and uninvolved groups, using different clearance definitions (0.5 - ≥3.0 mm).

RESULTS

Following TP, direct involvement of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) margin had independent prognostic value. When using a clearance definition of ≥ 0.5 or ≥ 1.5 mm for SMA, median survival for R0 versus R1 was 19 (95% CI 14-26) versus 10 (95% CI 5-20) months (p = 0.010), and 21 (95% CI 15-30) versus 10 (95% CI 8-19) months (p = 0.011), respectively. Overall margin status was not of significant prognostic importance following neither DP nor TP.

CONCLUSION

In this Danish population-based nationwide study, SMA margin involvement was a significant isolated prognostic factor following TP, whereas combined assessment of all circumferential margins did not hold statistically significant prognostic information. Following DP, resection margin status did not affect survival.

Prognostic impact of resection margin status on survival after neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A greater than 1 mm tumour-free resection margin (R0 >1 mm) is a prognostic factor in upfront-resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. After neoadjuvant treatment (NAT); however, the prognostic impact of resection margin (R) status remains controversial.

METHODS

Randomised and non-randomised studies assessing the association of R status and survival in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after NAT were sought by systematic searches of MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL. Hazard ratios (HR) and their corresponding 95% CI were collected to generate log HR using the inverse-variance method. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed and the results presented as weighted HR. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to account for different surgical procedures and varying length of follow-up, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with a total of 4929 patients were included. Based on univariable data, R0 greater than 1 mm was significantly associated with prolonged overall survival (OS) (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.57-1.97; P<0.00001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.39-1.97; P<0.00001). Using adjusted data, R0 greater than 1 mm was significantly associated with prolonged OS (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.39-1.97; P<0.00001) and DFS (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.30-2.39; P=0.0003). Results for R1 direct were comparable in the entire cohort; however, no prognostic impact was detected in sensitivity analysis including only partial pancreatoduodenectomies.

CONCLUSION

After NAT, a tumour-free margin greater than 1 mm is independently associated with improved OS as well as DFS in patients undergoing surgical resection for pancreatic cancer.

Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection margin (R0) 1 mm or more of tumour clearance, others have failed to show benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of margin definitions on median overall survival (OS).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting associations between resection margins and OS between 2010 and 2021. Data regarding margin status (R0 circumferential resection margin (CRM) negative (CRM-), R0 CRM positive (CRM+), R0 direct, and R1 and OS were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled with a random-effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS

The full texts of 774 studies were screened. In total, 21 studies compromising 6056 patients were included in the final synthesis. In total, 188 (24 per cent) studies were excluded due to missing margin definitions. The R0 (CRM+) rate was 50 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.40 to 0.61) and the R0 (CRM-) rate was 38 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 0.47). R0 (CRM-) resection was independently associated with improved OS compared to combined R1 and R0 (CRM+; HR 1.36, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 1.56).

CONCLUSION

The revised R status was confirmed as an independent prognosticator compared to combined R0 (CRM+) and R1. The limited number of studies, non-standardized pathology protocols, and the varying number of margins assessed hamper comparability.

Value of an Action Cam in Surgical Pathology

Grossing of surgical pathology specimens is a complex task, which may be challenging to master correctly. Despite the growing use of digital technology in other aspects of surgical pathology, little has been done so far to modernize the documentation of grossing. We used a portable video camera ("GoPro") to document different grossing procedures. The video material may be used for teaching purposes or might enhance the more commonplace macroscopic description by adding another dimension. Furthermore, video documentation may encourage the discussion of upcoming clinical questions or help rectify some possible initial impreciseness.

Towards a More Standardized Approach to Pathologic Reporting of Pancreatoduodenectomy Specimens for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Cross-continental and Cross-specialty Survey From the Pancreatobiliary Pathology Society Grossing Working Group

In recent literature and international meetings held, it has become clear that there are significant differences regarding the definition of what constitutes as margins and how best to document the pathologic findings in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. To capture the current practice, Pancreatobiliary Pathology Society (PBPS) Grossing Working Group conducted an international multispecialty survey encompassing 25 statements, regarding pathologic examination and reporting of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, particularly in pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. The survey results highlighted several discordances; however, consensus/high concordance was reached for the following: (1) the pancreatic neck margin should be entirely submitted en face, and if tumor on the slide, then it is considered equivalent to R1; (2) uncinate margin should be submitted entirely and perpendicularly sectioned, and tumor distance from the uncinate margin should be reported; (3) all other surfaces (including vascular groove, posterior surface, and anterior surface) should be examined and documented; (4) carcinoma involving separately submitted celiac axis specimen should be staged as pT4. Although no consensus was achieved regarding what constitutes R1 versus R0, most participants agreed that ink on tumor or at and within 1 mm to the tumor is equivalent to R1 only in areas designated as a margin, not surface. In conclusion, this survey raises the awareness of the discordances and serves as a starting point towards further standardization of the pancreatoduodenectomy grossing and reporting protocols.

Axial slicing versus bivalving in the pathological examination of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens (APOLLO): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In pancreatoduodenectomy specimens, dissection method may affect the assessment of primary tumour origin (i.e. pancreatic, distal bile duct or ampullary adenocarcinoma), which is primarily determined macroscopically. This is the first study to prospectively compare the two commonly used techniques, i.e. axial slicing and bivalving.

METHODS

In four centres, a randomized controlled trial was performed in specimens of patients with a suspected (pre)malignant tumour in the pancreatic head. Primary outcome measure was the level of certainty (scale 0-100) regarding tumour origin by four independent gastrointestinal pathologists based on macroscopic assessment. Secondary outcomes were inter-observer agreement and R1 rate.

RESULTS

In total, 128 pancreatoduodenectomy specimens were randomized. The level of certainty in determining the primary tumour origin did not differ between axial slicing and bivalving (mean score 72 [sd 13] vs. 68 [sd 16], p = 0.21), nor did inter-observer agreement, both being moderate (kappa 0.45 vs. 0.47). In pancreatic cancer specimens, R1 rate (60% vs. 55%, p = 0.71) and the number of harvested lymph nodes (median 16 vs. 17, p = 0.58) were similar.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated no differences in determining the tumour origin between axial slicing and bivalving. Both techniques performed similarly regarding inter-observer agreement, R1 rate, and lymph node harvest.

The 8th Edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging for Hepato-pancreato-biliary Cancer: A Review and Update

CONTEXT.—

Cancer staging provides critical information for patients and treating physicians to battle against cancer, predict prognosis, and guide treatment decisions. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system uses a tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) scoring algorithm and is the foremost classification system for adult cancers. This system is updated every 6 to 8 years to allow sufficient time for implementation of changes and for relevant examination and discussion of data validating those changes in staging.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review the updates in the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system on hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer.

DATA SOURCES.—

Literature review.

CONCLUSIONS.—

The 8th edition, published in 2016 and implemented on January 1, 2018, has been in use for approximately 3 years. Compared with the 7th edition, some of the changes are quite radical. This review aims to provide a summary of the changes/updates of the 8th edition with focus on hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers, and evaluate its performance through literature review.