Search

Background This position statement was developed to expedite a consensus on definition and treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BRPC) that would have worldwide acceptability. Methods An international panel of pancreatic surgeons from well-established, high-volume centers collaborated on a literature review and development of consensus on issues related to borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Results The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for the definition of BRPC. Current evidence supports operative exploration and resection in the case of involvement of the mesentericoportal venous axis; in addition, a new classification of extrahepatic mesentericoportal venous resections is proposed by the ISGPS. Suspicion of arterial involvement should lead to exploration to confirm the imaging-based findings. Formal arterial resections are not recommended; however, in exceptional circumstances, individual therapeutic approaches may be evaluated under experimental protocols. The ISGPS endorses the recommendations for specimen examination and the definition of an R1 resection (tumor within 1 mm from the margin) used by the British Royal College of Pathologists. Standard preoperative diagnostics for BRPC may include: (1) serum levels of CA19-9, because CA19-9 levels predict survival in large retrospective series; and also (2) the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio because of the prognostic relevance of the systemic inflammatory response. Various regimens of neoadjuvant therapy are recommended only in the setting of prospective trials at high-volume centers. Conclusion Current evidence justifies portomesenteric venous resection in patients with BRPC. Basic definitions were identified, that are currently lacking but that are needed to obtain further evidence and improvement for this important patient subgroup. A consensus for each topic is given.

Background Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) provides the best chance for cure in the treatment of patients with localized pancreatic head cancer. In patients with a suspected, clinically resectable pancreatic head malignancy, the need for histologic confirmation before proceeding with PD has not historically been required, but remains controversial. Methods An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature and worked together to establish a consensus on when to perform a PD in the absence of positive histology. Results The incidence of benign disease after PD for a presumed malignancy is 5–13%. Diagnosis by endoscopic cholangiopancreatography brushings and percutaneous fine-needle aspiration are highly specific, but poorly sensitive. Aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has greater sensitivity, but it is highly operator dependent and increases expense. The incidence of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) in the benign resected specimens is 30–43%. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy, serum levels of immunoglobulin G4, and HISORt (Histology, Imaging, Serology, Other organ involvement, and Response to therapy) are used for diagnosis. If AIP is suspected but not confirmed, the response to a short course of steroids is helpful for diagnosis. Conclusion In the presence of a solid mass suspicious for malignancy, consensus was reached that biopsy proof is not required before proceeding with resection. Confirmation of malignancy, however, is mandatory for patients with borderline resectable disease to be treated with neoadjuvant therapy before exploration for resection. When a diagnosis of AIP is highly suspected, a biopsy is recommended, and a short course of steroid treatment should be considered if the biopsy does not reveal features suspicious for malignancy.