TY - JOUR
T1 - Global survey on surgeon preference and current practice for pancreatic neck and body cancer with portomesenteric venous involvement
AU - Ishida, Hiroyuki
AU - Stoop, Thomas F.
AU - Oba, Atsushi
AU - Bachellier, Philippe
AU - Ban, Daisuke
AU - Endo, Itaru
AU - Franklin, Oskar
AU - Fujii, Tsutomu
AU - Gulla, Aiste
AU - Hackert, Thilo
AU - Halimi, Asif
AU - Hirano, Satoshi
AU - Jang, Jin Young
AU - Katz, Matthew H.G.
AU - Maekawa, Aya
AU - Nealon, William H.
AU - Perri, Giampaolo
AU - Ramia, Jose M.
AU - Rompen, Ingmar F.
AU - Satoi, Sohei
AU - Schulick, Richard D.
AU - Shrikhande, Shailesh V.
AU - Tsung, Allan
AU - Wolfgang, Christopher L.
AU - Besselink, Marc G.
AU - Del Chiaro, Marco
AU - Akahoshi, Keiichi
AU - Choi, Dongho
AU - De Pastena, Matteo
AU - Rodoriguez Franco, Salvador
AU - Zyromski, Nicholas J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Background: Evidence regarding the optimal surgical approach for pancreatic neck/body cancer with portomesenteric vein (PV) involvement is scarce. We aimed to clarify the current practice using an international survey. Methods: An online survey was distributed to members of nine international associations and study groups. Surgeons who performed pancreatectomy with PV resection (PVR) in the last 12 months were asked about three clinical scenarios with different PV involvement: scenarios A (<90°; length 1 cm), B (<90°; length 3 cm), and C (90–180°; length 3 cm), with or without common hepatic artery (CHA) involvement. PVR was defined according to the ISGPS definition. Results: Overall, 222 surgeons from 49 countries in 6 continents completed the survey. The most selected procedures were left pancreatectomy with PVR ISGPS-type 1 for scenario A (52.3 %), PVR ISGPS-type 2 for B (28.8 %), and pancreatoduodenectomy with PVR ISGPS-type 3 for C (28.4 %). In patients with CHA involvement, the most selected procedures were left pancreatectomy without arterial reconstruction for A (57.7 %) and B (50.0 %), and total pancreatectomy for C (29.7 %). Conclusions: The survey illustrates the heterogeneity in surgical management of pancreatic neck/body cancer with PV involvement, indicating the need for prospective studies and guidelines.
AB - Background: Evidence regarding the optimal surgical approach for pancreatic neck/body cancer with portomesenteric vein (PV) involvement is scarce. We aimed to clarify the current practice using an international survey. Methods: An online survey was distributed to members of nine international associations and study groups. Surgeons who performed pancreatectomy with PV resection (PVR) in the last 12 months were asked about three clinical scenarios with different PV involvement: scenarios A (<90°; length 1 cm), B (<90°; length 3 cm), and C (90–180°; length 3 cm), with or without common hepatic artery (CHA) involvement. PVR was defined according to the ISGPS definition. Results: Overall, 222 surgeons from 49 countries in 6 continents completed the survey. The most selected procedures were left pancreatectomy with PVR ISGPS-type 1 for scenario A (52.3 %), PVR ISGPS-type 2 for B (28.8 %), and pancreatoduodenectomy with PVR ISGPS-type 3 for C (28.4 %). In patients with CHA involvement, the most selected procedures were left pancreatectomy without arterial reconstruction for A (57.7 %) and B (50.0 %), and total pancreatectomy for C (29.7 %). Conclusions: The survey illustrates the heterogeneity in surgical management of pancreatic neck/body cancer with PV involvement, indicating the need for prospective studies and guidelines.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105002332496&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hpb.2025.03.005
DO - 10.1016/j.hpb.2025.03.005
M3 - 学術論文
AN - SCOPUS:105002332496
SN - 1365-182X
JO - HPB
JF - HPB
ER -