Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Virchows Archiv

01-02-2009 | Review and Perspective

Retroperitoneal margin of the pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen: anatomic mapping for the surgical pathologist

Published in: Virchows Archiv | Issue 2/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Surgical margin status of the pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen is an independent predictor of survival in patients with pancreatic head cancer. Although most surgical pathologists are familiar with the protocols for grossing and evaluation of the various margins of the specimen, the currently prevailing definitions of the retroperitoneal surgical margin minimize the fact that this margin is actually a combination of surfaces of different anatomical structures. The unfamiliarity with its detailed anatomy often creates communication gaps when the pathologic findings are presented to other members of the multidisciplinary team. The following discussion is the collective opinion of hepato-pancreato-biliary pathologists in two tertiary care Canadian medical centers in this field. It describes the authors’ proposed nomenclature and landmarks for anatomic mapping of the retroperitoneal margin of the pancreaticoduodenectomy resected specimen. Increasing familiarity with the subtleties of the retroperitoneal margin is expected to improve communication and sets the stage for future quality improvement initiatives and translational research in the multidisciplinary setting.
Literature
1.
Allema JH, Reinders ME, vanGulik TM et al (1995) Prognostic factors for suvival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with carcinoma of the pancreatic region. Cancer 75:2069–2076PubMedCrossRef
2.
Fuhrman GM, Leach SD, Staley CA et al (1996) Rationale for en bloc resection in the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma adherent to the superior mesenteric-portal vein confluence. Pancreatic Tumor Study Group. Ann Surg 223(2):154–162PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Varadhachary GR, Tamm EP, Abbruzzese JL et al (2006) Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: definitions, management, and role of preoperative therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 13:1035–1046PubMedCrossRef
5.
Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F et al (2008) Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1651–1660PubMedCrossRef
6.
Verbeke CS, Menon KV (2008) Variability in reporting resection margin status in pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 247:716–717PubMedCrossRef
7.
Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM et al (2004) Pancreaticoduodenectomy with en block portal vein resection for pancreatic carcinoma with suspected portal vein involvement. World J Surg 28(6):602–608PubMedCrossRef
8.
Tseng JF, Raut CP, Lee JE et al (2004) Pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection; margin status and survival duration. J Gastrointest Surg 8(8):935–949PubMedCrossRef
9.
Verbeke CS (2007) Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer—are we there yet. Histopathology 52(7):787–796PubMedCrossRef
10.
Fuhrman GM, Charnsangavej C, Abbruzzese JL et al (1994) Thin-section contrast-enhanced computer tomography accurately predicts the resectability of malignant pancreatic neoplasms. Am J Surg 167:104–113PubMedCrossRef
11.
Staley CA, Cleary KR, Abbruzzese JL et al (1996) The need for standardized pathologic staging of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens. Pancreas 12:373–380PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zamboni G, Capelli P, Pesci A et al (2000) Pancreatic head mass; what can be done? Classification: the pathological point of view. JOP.J Pancreas (on line) 1(3suppl):77–84
13.
14.
Raut CP, Tseng JF, Sun CC et al (2007) Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 246(1):52–60PubMedCrossRef
15.
Khalifa MA (2007) Intraoperative assessment of the Whipple’s resection specimen. J Clin Pathol 60:975–980PubMedCrossRef
16.
Khalifa MA, Maksymov V, Rowsell CH et al (2007) A novel approach to the intraoperative assessment of the uncinate margin of the pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen. Hepato Pancreato Biliary (HPB) 9:146–149
17.
Rowsell CH, Hanna S, Hsieh E et al (2007) Improved lymph node retrieval in Whipple specimens as a result of implementation of a new uncinate margin protocol. Hepato Pancreato Biliary (HPB) 9:388–391
18.
Nato M, Miwa K, Kitagawa H et al (2005) Pancreas head carcinoma: frequency of invasion to soft tissue adherent to the superior mesenteric artery. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1056–1061
19.
Zhou GW, Wu WD, Xiao WD et al (2005) Pancreatectomy combined with superior mesenteric-portal vein resection: report of 32 cases. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 4:130–134PubMed
20.
Aramaki M, Matsumoto T, Etoh T et al (2003) Clinical significance of combined pancreas and portal vein resection in surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 50(49):263–266PubMed
21.
Luttges J, Vogel I, Menke M et al (1998) The retroperitoneal resection margin and vessel involvement are important factors determining survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Virchows Arch 433:237–242PubMedCrossRef
22.
Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV et al (2006) Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 93:1232–1237PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Retroperitoneal margin of the pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen: anatomic mapping for the surgical pathologist
Publication date
01-02-2009
Published in
Virchows Archiv / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-008-0711-9