Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

Preoperative prediction of peripancreatic vein invasion by pancreatic head cancer

  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2,
  • 2, 3,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2,
  • 4,
  • 5,
  • 6,
  • 7,
  • 1, 2Email author and
  • 1, 2
Cancer Imaging201818:49

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-018-0179-z

  • Received: 26 June 2018
  • Accepted: 12 November 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is often diagnosed at an advanced stage when adjacent vascular invasion is present. Accurate evaluation of presence of vascular invasion can help guide therapy. The aim of this study was to construct a nomogram for preoperative prediction of peripancreatic vein invasion in patients with pancreatic head cancer.

Study design

Data of patients with carcinoma head of pancreas and suspected peripancreatic invasion (n = 247) who underwent pancreatic resection with venous reconstruction between January 2012 and January 2017 at four academic institutions were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for vein invasion from among demographic, biological, conditional host-related, and anatomical data. A predictive nomogram was constructed based on the identified independent risk factors.

Results

The nomogram was constructed using data from 181 patients while the validation cohort consisted of 66 patients. Length of tumor contact (P = 0.031), circumferential vein involvement (P = 0.048), and venous contour abnormalities (P = 0.001) were independent predictors of venous invasion. The C-index of the model in predicting venous invasion was 0.963 for the external validation cohort. Patients could be assigned into low- (< 50%), intermediate- (50–90%), and high-risk (> 90%) groups based on the nomogram to facilitate personalized management.

Conclusions

Vein invasion by pancreatic head cancer is mainly associated with anatomical factors. The nomogram for prediction of vein invasion was found to be practicable.

Keywords

  • Pancreatic neoplasms
  • Pancreaticoduodenectomy
  • Risk factors

Introduction

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease with high morbidity and dismal prognosis [1, 2]. In contrast to the steady improvement in survival rates in other cancers, the survival rate in pancreatic cancer remains low at 8%. This poor survival rate is partly because more than one-half of cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when the 5-year survival is only 3% [2]. Although a meta-analysis as reported that 20% of pancreatic cancer patients are eligible for one-stage resection by imaging [3], in fact 14–30% of these patients will be found to be unsuitable for resection during surgery [4]. Peripancreatic vascular invasion, which has major impact on prognosis, is an important criterion to consider when assessing resectability [57]. For patients with peripancreatic venous involvement—i.e., of the portal vein (PV) or superior mesenteric vein (SMV)—pancreaticoduodenectomy with PV/SMV resection and reconstruction (PSRR) substantially increases the probability of achieving R0 resection [810]. However, according to some reports 35–60% of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing PSRR have no histological evidence of PV/SMV invasion [1114]. In addition, a meta-analysis has shown increased postoperative mortality, high percentage of patients couldn’t get R0 resection, and worse survival after pancreatic resection with PSRR [15]. Accurate preoperative evaluation of the presence of vein invasion is therefore essential, as it can help avoid unnecessary PSRR. In addition, patients without vein invasion also need to be correctly identified so that neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is not administered. Unnecessary NAT could lead to resistance to treatment and tumor progression and, in some cases, dangerously delay surgical resection.

Several models have been proposed for predicting prognosis in individual patients and for guiding therapy [1622], but none have found wide acceptance. For instance, with Klauss’s criteria, which are based on computed tomography (CT) findings, it is difficult to tell whether vessel compression is by a benign or malignant lesion [21, 23]. Another model that was proposed by Teramura et al. has good sensitivity and negative predictive value (97.6 and 97.5%, respectively) but is limited by poor specificity and positive predictive value (60 and 61.2%, respectively) [20]. Furthermore, some of the proposed models were based on relatively small cohorts [22].

Nomograms have proved to be useful tools for predicting risk of adverse events and likelihood of survival in various clinical scenarios [2426], and are an effective substitute for the traditional TNM staging system for predicting survival in many cancers [27]. Compared to other decision aids such as risk groupings, probability tables, artificial neural networks, and classification and regression tree analyses, nomograms can provide evidence-based and highly accurate risk estimates for individualized decision-making [28]. Furthermore, nomograms are visual tools and easily applied in the clinic.

The aim of this retrospective study was to construct a nomogram for preoperative prediction of peripancreatic vein invasion in patients with pancreatic head cancer.

Materials and methods

Patients

Patients with adenocarcinoma of the head of pancreas and suspected peripancreatic vein invasion who underwent attempted curative pancreatic resection and venous reconstruction between January 2012 and January 2017 at one of four academic institutions in China (Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou; Tongji Hospital, Wuhan; Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai; and Changhai Hospital, Shanghai) were eligible for inclusion in this study. These four institutions are high-volume centers for pancreatic cancer surgery. Only patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (R0 or R1 resection) [29] and had histopathologically confirmed pancreatic head cancer were included. Patients were excluded if they 1) had history of any other malignant tumor; 2) had received NAT; 3) had undergone any surgical procedure other than complete resection of macroscopic pancreatic tumor and venous reconstruction; 4) had died within 90 days of surgery; or 5) preoperative radiological imaging revealed arterial invasion by tumor. Since all our patients were classified as T3 [30], with no distant metastasis (with the possible exception of lymph node metastasis), only lymph node staging on preoperative radiological imaging was included in the analysis.

All patients were followed-up, first, at the end of the first month after surgery, then once every 3 months for the first 2 years, and thereafter once every 6 months. At each follow-up visit, detailed clinical history was recorded and a complete physical examination performed. CT scans were carried out once every 6 months (or more often if clinically indicated). This study was approved by the ethics committees of all involved hospitals. Written informed consent was obtained from patients for use of their clinical data for research.

Included factors

The included parameters were selected from three distinct dimensions (anatomical, biological, and conditional) according to an international consensus borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) [31]:
  • Anatomical factors: length of tumor contact, circumferential vein involvement, venous contour abnormalities and type of vessels involvement;

  • Biological factors: CA19–9, total bilirubin (TB) and Albumin

  • Conditional factors: activities of daily living (ADL), jaundice, pain, weight loss, lymph node staging and tumor size

Imaging analysis and examination techniques

All images were retrospectively and independently analyzed by two radiologists (with 5 and 8 years of experience, respectively, in abdominal radiology). In case of discordance between the two radiologists, the images were evaluated by a third radiologist (with 25 years of experience in hepatobilliary and pancreatic radiology). The reviewers were only informed that the patients had pancreatic head cancer; they were blinded to all clinical data and outcomes. Tumor-associated venous contour abnormalities are difficult to describe. To standardize the radiologists’ reports, we classified the abnormalities into the following six types: absent, tear drop, mild deformity, stenosis > 50%, tethering, and obstruction (Fig. 1). The information of CT-equipment, imaging protocols and contrast injection protocols of the 4 institutions were listed in Additional file 1: Table S1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Venous contour abnormalities on CT. a, absent; b, tear drop; c, mild deformity; d, stenosis > 50%; e, tethering; f, obstruction

Pathological analysis

Histopathology slides of all resected specimens were reviewed by pathologists with experience in pancreatic cancer, and venous wall involvement was graded as follows: grade 0 = no invasion; grade 1 = tunica adventitia invasion; grade 2 = tunica media invasion; or grade 3 = tunica intima invasion [11] (Fig. 2). Grade 1 or above was considered as pathologic vein invasion.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Pathological degree of carcinoma invasion of venous wall. a, Grade 0, no invasion (× 40); b, grade 1, tunica adventitia invasion (× 100); c, grade 2, tunica media invasion (× 100); d, grade 3, tunica intima invasion (× 100). Black arrow indicates cancer cells

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS 22.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Prism 7 for Windows, version 7.00 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Categorical variables were evaluated by using either the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were compared using the Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test (for variables with non-normal distributions). All variables were incorporated into a univariate analysis and only those variables showing statistical significance (P less than 0.05) were evaluated by multivariate logistic analyses to identify the independent risk factors for peripancreatic vein invasion in patients with pancreatic head cancer. Survival analysis was with the Kaplan–Meier method; the log-rank test was used for comparisons between groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess how the predictive model performed on the test data.

The nomogram was formulated based on the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis, using the rms package of R, version 3.1.1 (http://www.r-project.org/). For constructing the nomogram, each of the independent predictors of venous invasion were assigned points proportionate to the value of its regression coefficient, the variable with the highest β coefficient being assigned 100 points. The total points were used to derive the predicted probability of venous involvement. The predictive performance of the nomogram was measured by calculating the concordance index (C-index) and by calibration with 500 bootstrap samples to decrease the overfit bias. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests.

Results

Patient characteristics

The study included 247 patients (144 male and 103 female) with mean age of 65 years. Patients from 3 centers were used as the training cohort (n = 181) while patients from the remaining center were used as the external validation cohort (n = 66). The proportion of the patients in these 2 groups was almost 3 to 1. The baseline characteristics of the patients did not differ significantly between these 2 groups (Table 1). At operation, tumor was adherent to the walls of the superior mesenteric and hepatic arteries in 9 patients, and so removal of the arterial sheaths was performed instead of arterial resection and reconstruction. This study did not include patients in whom preoperative radiological imaging revealed arterial invasion by tumor.
Table 1

Patient baseline characteristics by cohort

 

Training cohort (n = 181)

Validation cohort (n = 66)

 

No. of patients

%

No. of patients

%

Gender

    

0.657

 Male

104

57.5

40

60.6

 

 Female

77

42.5

26

39.4

 

Age, years

    

0.986

 Median

65.0

64.0

 

 IQR

59.0–68.0

57.8–69.0

 

ADL

    

0.781

 Grade I

120

66.3

45

69.2

 

 > Grade I

61

33.7

21

31.8

 

Jaundice

    

0.210

 Yes

70

38.7

31

47.0

 

 No

111

61.3

35

53.0

 

Pain

    

0.481

 Yes

109

60.2

43

65.2

 

 No

72

39.8

23

34.8

 

Weight loss

    

0.730

 Yes

84

46.4

29

43.9

 

 No

97

53.6

37

56.1

 

CA 19–9, U/mL

    

0.313

 Median

280.4

439.1

 

 IQR

24.4–1614.1

53.9–2298.6

 

TB, μmol/mL

    

0.956

 Median

49.4

21.1

 

 IQR

11.2–151.1

11.1–182.9

 

Albumin, g/L

    

0.349

 Median

39.2

39.2

 

 IQR

36.1–41.8

36.6–43.7

 

Tumor staging on CT

    

/

 T1/T2

0

0

0

0

 

 T3

181

100

66

100

 

 T4

0

0

0

0

 

Lymph node staging on CT

    

0.698

 N0

80

44.2

31

47.0

 

 N1

101

55.8

35

53.0

 

M staging on CT

    

/

 M0

181

100

66

100

 

 M1

0

0

0

0

 

TNM staging on CT

    

0.698

 IA/IB

0

0

0

0

 

 IIA

80

44.2

31

47.0

 

 IIB

101

55.8

35

53.0

 

 III/IV

0

0

0

0

 

Tumor size on CT, cm

    

0.701

 Median

3.5

3.6

 

 IQR

2.8–4.6

2.8–4.44

 

Length of tumor contact on CT, cm

    

0.849

 Median

2.5

2.5

 

 IQR

2.0–3.0

2.0–3.0

 

Pathologic venous wall invasion

    

0.868

 Yes

152

84.0

56

84.8

 

 No

29

16.0

10

15.2

 

Surgical margin

    

0.146

 R0

163

90.1

55

83.3

 

 R1

18

9.9

11

16.7

 

ADL activities of daily living, CA 19–9 carbohydrate antigen 19–9, TB total bilirubin, PV portal vein, SMV superior mesenteric vein

Survival analysis and risk factors for vein invasion

Figure 3 shows the cumulative survival rates in the entire cohort with different grades of histological vein invasion. Survival was significantly better in grade 0 than in grades 1, 2, and 3 (P <  0.001 for all). No significant difference in survival was noted between grades 1, 2, and 3.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Cumulative survival rates according to pathological depth of vein invasion in the entire cohort

In the training cohort, the univariate analysis showed that five factors—age, weight loss, length of tumor contact, circumferential vein involvement, and venous contour abnormalities — were significantly associated with vein invasion (Table 2). On multivariate analysis, however, only length of tumor contact (P = 0.031), circumferential vein involvement (P = 0.048), and venous contour abnormalities (P = 0.001) were independently associated with vein invasion (Table 2).
Table 2

Univariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors for histological venous invasion in the training cohort

Variables

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

OR

95% CI

P value

OR

95% CI

P value

Gender (male/female)

1.836

0.825–4.088

0.137

   

Age, years

1.076

1.028–1.125

0.002

1.046

0.983–1.113

0.156

ADL (grade I/>grade I)

1.732

0.695–4.316

0.238

   

Jaundice (present/absent)

1.010

0.445–2.289

0.982

   

Pain (present/absence)

1.281

0.575–2.854

0.545

   

Weight loss (present/absent)

2.625

1.095–6.292

0.030

1.788

0.606–5.279

0.293

CA19–9, U/mL

1.000

1.000–1.000

0.272

   

TB, μmol/L

0.998

0.994–1.002

0.242

   

Albumin, g/L

1.014

0.924–1.114

0.763

   

Lymph node staging on CT (N1/N0)

1.216

0.549–2.695

0.630

   

Tumor size on CT, cm

1.010

0.790–1.293

0.934

   

Length of tumor contact on CT, cm

3.425

1.940–6.047

< 0.001

2.067

1.070–3.995

0.031

Circumferential vein involvement on CT (>180°/90–180/≤ 90°)

4.443

2.297–8.595

< 0.001

2.207

1.008–4.832

0.048

Venous contour abnormalities on CT

3.004

0.022–4.463

<  0.001

2.121

1.368–3.289

0.001

Type of vessels involvement on CT (PV/SMV/PV + SMV)

1.132

0.671–1.910

0.641

   

ADL activities of daily living, CA 19–9 carbohydrate antigen 19–9, TB total bilirubin, PV portal vein, SMV superior mesenteric vein

Predictive Nomogram construction and validation

The nomogram for predicting probability of vein invasion was constructed using the three identified independent risk factors for vein invasion (Fig. 4). The points assigned to each factor were weighted by the ORs. The total score was used to calculate the probability of vein invasion. For example, a patient with suspected vein invasion had 2.5 cm tumor contact (41.5 points), with tear drop tumor-associated venous contour abnormalities (19 points) and > 180° circumferential vein involvement (35 points). Thus, the total score was 95.5, indicating 81% probability of vein invasion.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Predictive nomogram for assessing probability of peripancreatic vein invasion in patients with pancreatic head cancer. Points are assigned for each risk factor by drawing a line upward from the corresponding values to the “points” line. The total sum of points for the three risk factors is plotted on the “total sum points” line. A line is drawn down to read the corresponding predictions of vein invasion probabilities. For example, a patient with “dear drop” tumor-associated vascular abnormalities (18.5 points), with 5.5-cm tumor contact (92 points) and <90° circumferential vein involvement (0 point) will have a total score of 110.5, which corresponds to vein invasion probabilities of 89%

The C-index of the nomogram for prediction of vein invasion was 0.896 for training cohort and 0.963 for validation cohort (Fig. 5a and c). In addition, the calibration curve revealed good agreement between estimation of vein invasion using our nomogram and the actual observation in both cohorts (Fig. 5b and d).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

a Receiver operating characteristics curve for vein invasion in training cohort (using the nomogram values). The C-index is 0.896; b Calibration curves for comparison between predicted probability of vein invasion and observed vein invasion in training cohort (using the nomogram values); c Receiver operating characteristics curve for vein invasion in external validation cohort (using the nomogram values). The C-index is 0.963; d Calibration curves for comparison between predicted probability of vein invasion and observed vein invasion in training cohort (using the nomogram values)

Risk groups

Based on the risk estimated by the nomogram, the patients could be separated into three risk groups (Table 3): 1) a low-risk group (total points < 60 and predicted vein invasion rate < 50%), with a predicted mean risk of vein invasion of 32.69% (95% CI, 28.19–37.34); 2) an intermediate-risk group (total points 60–110.4 and predicted vein invasion rate 50–90%), with predicted mean risk of vein invasion of 76.15% (95% CI, 73.58–78.80); and 3) a high-risk group (total points > 110.4 and predicted vein invasion rate > 90%), with predicted mean risk of 92.56% vein invasion of (95% CI, 92.61–93.17). The observed vein invasion rates were slightly higher than the predicted mean risks. Significant differences in survival were noted between the risk groups (P <  0.001). Figure 6 shows the cumulative survival rates of patients in the three groups. Survival was significantly better in the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups than in the high-risk group (both P <  0.001). The difference between the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups was also significant (P = 0.027).
Table 3

Risk groups based on the predicted nomogram

Group

Total Points

Predicted Risk

Predicted Mean Risk (95% CI)

Observed Rate

Low-risk

< 60

< 50%

32.69% (28.19–37.34)

28.57% (8/28)

Intermediate-risk

60–110.4

50–90%

76.15% (73.58–78.80)

76.12% (51/67)

High-risk

> 110.4

> 90%

92.89% (92.61–93.17)

98.03% (149/152)

CI confidential interval

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Cumulative survival rates in the different risk groups (the entire cohort)

Discussion

This study was performed to identify the risk factors of venous involvement in carcinoma head of pancreas patients and to use these to construct a nomogram for preoperative prediction of venous involvement. In general, our results were consistent with previous studies [1622] showing that CT images can be used to assess the resectability of pancreatic cancer, although some possibility of misdiagnoses exists.

A positive surgical margin is a known poor prognostic factor [11]. Resection of invaded peripancreatic veins may be necessary to achieve a negative surgical margin during pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic head cancer [32]. However, efficient tools are still not available for reliable preoperative prediction of vein invasion. Nomograms, commonly used for decision-making in surgical oncology [27], can often provide accurate predictions of certain specified endpoints. To be practicable, however, the parameters included in the nomogram should be easily available and measurable [33].

Recently, in a consensus statement on the definition of BR-PDAC, in addition to arriving at an agreement on the anatomical factors to be included, the researchers also added biological and conditional host-related factors [31]. Accordingly, we attempted to include biological factors (e.g., CA-199, lymph node staging) and conditional host-related factors (e.g., activities of daily living) [34] —which were chosen to replace the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status—into our nomogram model. However, on univariate analysis none of these factors were significantly associated with venous invasion (Table 2). Further, in our review of relevant studies we found that previous authors have mainly focused on disease stage and prognosis of patients [3539]. In our own previous unpublished research, also we found that factors like ages (P = 0.001) and lymph node metastasis (P = 0.001) are mainly associated with patients’ survival. Hence, we hold the opinion that peripancreatic vein invasion by pancreatic head cancer is mainly associated with anatomical factors. But biological and conditional host-related factors are more closely associated with disease progression.

In the latest National Comprehensive Center Network (NCCN) guidelines (version 2016/2017), only NAT is recommended for patients with BR-PDAC before tumor resection. However, imaging findings can be anamorphic after NAT, as viable tumor may be replaced by scar tissue. After NAT, the sensitivity and specificity of CT/MRI for detecting viable tumor are only 71 and 58%, respectively [40]. This discrepancy can affect the radiographic–histopathologic correlation and the performance of our nomogram. Therefore, only patients with pancreatic head cancer and suspected vein invasion who had undergone surgery but not received NAT in the past 5 years were included in the current study.

In this study some types of tumor-associated venous contour abnormalities, were found to be important indicators of venous invasion by tumor. In 2012, Nakao et al. [11] presented a radiographic typing using unilateral and bilateral narrowing of vessels as radiological evaluation indices; they suggested four types: type A (normal), type B (unilateral narrowing), type C (bilateral narrowing), and type D (complete obstruction, with collateral veins). Unfortunately, such this typing has weak ability to predict prognosis. But it was under debate whether venous walls with narrowing of > 180° should be considered unilateral narrowing or bilateral narrowing. Therefore, we included only the common vascular abnormalities such as absent, tear drop, mild deformity, stenosis > 50%, tethering and obstruction were included into current study.

Circumferential vein involvement has always been regarded as an important indicator of vein invasion [1622]. However, in a recent study, Teramura et al. [20] reported that circumferential vein involvement has low diagnostic value and removed it from their proposed criteria. In an earlier unpublished study, we too failed to observe any significant effect of circumferential vein involvement on prognosis of patients with pancreatic head cancer after resectional surgery (P = 0.421), whereas anatomical factors were clearly associated with vein invasion. In the current study circumferential vein involvement was an independent risk factor for vein invasion (P = 0.048). In addition, length of tumor contact was also an independent risk factor for venous involvement. Tumor diameter on CT was also considered as a possible risk factor but was eliminated by univariate analysis (P = 0.934), once again confirming that vein invasion is not associated with disease progression.

The satisfactory performance of our nomogram in predicting vein invasion is reflected by the C-index of 0.896 and 0.963 in both cohorts, as well as by the calibration curves. By using the nomogram, we were able to classify pancreatic head cancer patients into three distinct risk groups. With the accumulation of clinical experience, specific management strategies can be provided according to the risks in the future. In the current study, survival analysis showed that prognosis is associated with the presence of pathological vein invasion but not with the depth of invasion (Fig. 3). This result also indicates that the accurate evaluation of vein invasion is important. Interestingly, survival varied between the three risk groups, being significantly higher in the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups than in the high-risk group (both P <  0.001). A significant difference in survival was also seen between the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups (P = 0.027).

This study has some limitations. First, although we included nearly 247 patients, the study sample is relatively small compared to some previous studies [11]. Second, in constructing the present nomogram, we did not consider the effect of tumor invasion of arterial structures such as the superior mesenteric artery, common hepatic artery, and celiac axis.

Conclusion

Peripancreatic vein invasion in pancreatic head cancer patients is mainly associated with anatomical factors. Depth of wall invasion is not associated with prognosis. The proposed nomogram for preoperative prediction of vein invasion in patients with pancreatic head cancer showed satisfactory performance, with a C-index of 0.963 for external validation. The nomogram can be a convenient tool for facilitating decisions regarding the surgical approach.

Abbreviations

AJCC: 

American Joint Committee on Cancer

BR-PDAC: 

Borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

CI: 

Confidential interval

C-index: 

Concordance index

CT: 

Computed tomography

ECOG: 

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

NAT: 

Neoadjuvant therapy

NCCN: 

National Comprehensive Center Network

OR: 

Odds ratio

PSRR: 

Pancreaticoduodenectomy with PV/SMV resection and reconstruction

PV: 

Portal vein

SMV: 

Superior mesenteric vein

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (grant number 2015AA020405), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81672337), the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81530079), the Key research and development Project of Zhejiang Province (grant number 2015C03044), the Zhejiang Provincial Program for the Cultivation of High-level Innovative Health Talents, and China Scholarship Council (grant number 201706320169).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

Shen Y, Guo CX and Pan Y contributed equally to this work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All the authors have consented for publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors who have taken part in this study declared that they do not have any conflict of interest with respect to this manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang Province, China
(2)
Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Pancreatic Disease, Hangzhou, China
(3)
Department of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
(4)
The 5th Department of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
(5)
Department of General Surgery, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
(6)
Department of Pancreatic-Biliary Surgery, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
(7)
Department of General Surgery, The People’s Hospital of Changxing County, Huzhou, China

References

  1. Kamisawa T, Wood LD, Itoi T, Takaori K. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2016;388:73–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Gillen S, Schuster T, Meyer ZBC, et al. Preoperative/neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000267.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. White R, Winston C, Gonen M, et al. Current utility of staging laparoscopy for pancreatic and peripancreatic neoplasms. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:445–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Nakagohri T, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, et al. Survival benefits of portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg. 2003;186:149–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. House MG, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, et al. Predicting resectability of periampullary cancer with three-dimensional computed tomography. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:280–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Banz VM, Croagh D, Coldham C, et al. Factors influencing outcome in patients undergoing portal vein resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:72–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chun YS, Milestone BN, Watson JC, et al. Defining venous involvement in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2832–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Zhao WY, Luo M, Sun YW, et al. Computed tomography in diagnosing vascular invasion in pancreatic and periampullary cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2009;8:457–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchs NC, Chilcott M, Poletti PA, et al. Vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer: imaging modalities, preoperative diagnosis and surgical management. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:818–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Nakao A, Kanzaki A, Fujii T, et al. Correlation between radiographic classification and pathological grade of portal vein wall invasion in pancreatic head cancer. Ann Surg. 2012;255:103–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Okabayashi T, Shima Y, Iwata J, et al. Reconsideration about the aggressive surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer: a focus on real pathological portosplenomesenteric venous invasion. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2015;400(4):487–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Wang J, Estrella JS, Peng L, et al. Histologic tumor involvement of superior mesenteric vein/portal vein predicts poor prognosis in patients with stage II pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Cancer. 2012;118(15):3801–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeong J, Choi DW, Choi SH, et al. Long-term outcome of portomesenteric vein invasion and prognostic factors in pancreas head adenocarcinoma. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85(4):264–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Giovinazzo F, Turri G, Katz MH, et al. Meta-analysis of benefits of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2016;103(3):179–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Loyer EM, David CL, Dubrow RA, et al. Vascular involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: reassessment by thin-section CT. Abdom Imaging. 1996;21:202–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Li H, Zeng MS, Zhou KR, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the different CT criteria for peripancreatic major arterial and venous invasion. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29:170–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Li H, Zeng MS, Zhou KR, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: signs of vascular invasion determined by multi-detector row CT. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:880–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Marinelli T, Filippone A, Tavano F, et al. A tumour score with multidetector spiral CT for venous infiltration in pancreatic cancer: influence on borderline resectable. Radiol Med. 2014;119:334–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Teramura K, Noji T, Nakamura T, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of portal vein invasion in pancreatic head cancer: appropriate indications for concomitant portal vein resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016;23:643–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Klauss M, Mohr A, von TH, et al. A new invasion score for determining the resectability of pancreatic carcinomas with contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography. Pancreatology. 2008;8:204–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu DS, Reber HA, Krasny RM, et al. Local staging of pancreatic cancer: criteria for unresectability of major vessels as revealed by pancreatic-phase, thin-section helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:1439–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Shen YN, Bai XL, Li GG, et al. Review of radiological classifications of pancreatic cancer with peripancreatic vessel invasion: are new grading criteria required. Cancer Imaging. 2017;17:14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Gemenetzis G, Bagante F, Griffin JF, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a predictive marker for invasive malignancy in Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 2017;266:339–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jang JY, Park T, Lee S, et al. Proposed Nomogram predicting the individual risk of malignancy in the patients with branch duct type Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 2017;266:1062–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. de Castro SM, Biere SS, Lagarde SM, et al. Validation of a nomogram for predicting survival after resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Br J Surg. 2009;96:417–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Balachandran VP, Gonen M, Smith JJ, et al. Nomograms in oncology: more than meets the eye. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e173–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Shariat SF, Capitanio U, Jeldres C, et al. Can nomograms be superior to other prediction tools. BJU Int. 2009;103:492–5 discussion 495-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Campbell F, Smith RA, Whelan P, et al. Classification of R1 resections for pancreatic cancer: the prognostic relevance of tumour involvement within 1 mm of a resection margin. Histopathology. 2009;55:277–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American joint committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Isaji S, Mizuno S, Windsor JA, et al. International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017. Pancreatology. 2018;18:2–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurihara C, Yoshimi F, Sasaki K, et al. Impact of portal vein invasion and resection length in pancreatoduodenectomy on the survival rate of pancreatic head cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2013;60(127):1759–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Vernerey D, Huguet F, Vienot A, et al. Prognostic nomogram and score to predict overall survival in locally advanced untreated pancreatic cancer (PROLAP). Br J Cancer. 2016;115(3):281–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179–86.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Hartwig W, Strobel O, Hinz U, et al. CA19-9 in potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: perspective to adjust surgical and perioperative therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(7):2188–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Barton JG, Bois JP, Sarr MG, et al. Predictive and prognostic value of CA 19-9 in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(11):2050–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferrone CR, Finkelstein DM, Thayer SP, et al. Perioperative CA19-9 levels can predict stage and survival in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2897–902.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Allen PJ, Kuk D, Castillo CF, et al. Multi-institutional validation study of the American joint commission on Cancer (8th edition) changes for T and N staging in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):185–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Tas F, Sen F, Odabas H, et al. Performance status of patients is the major prognostic factor at all stages of pancreatic cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18(5):839–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Donahue TR, Isacoff WH, Hines OJ, et al. Downstaging chemotherapy and alteration in the classic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging signs of vascular involvement in patients with pancreaticobiliary malignant tumors: influence on patient selection for surgery. Arch Surg. 2011;146(7):836–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement