Prognostic Value of Resection Margin Involvement After Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Updates From a French Prospective Multicenter Study

4 years ago

Prognostic Value of Resection Margin Involvement After Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Updates From a French Prospective Multicenter Study

Poizat, Flora, Autret, Aurelie, Sauvanet, Alain, Regenet, Nicolas, Adham, Mustapha, Bachellier, Philippe, Jeune, Florence, Boher, Jean Marie, Carrere, Nicolas, Delpero, Jean Robert, Paye, Francois, Le Treut, Yves Patrice, Turrini, Olivier

Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the relevance of resection margin status for survival after resection of pancreatic-head ductal adenocarcinoma. Summary Background Data: The definition and prognostic value of incomplete microscopic resection (R1) remain controversial. Methods: Prognostic factors were analyzed in 147 patients included in a prospective multicenter study on the impact of tumor clearance evaluated using a standardized pathology protocol. Results: Thirty patients received neoadjuvant treatment (NAT = 20%); 41 had venous resection (VR = 28%), and 70% received adjuvant chemotherapy. In-hospital mortality was 3% (5/147). Follow-up was 83 months. Tumor clearance was 0, <1.0, <1.5, and <2.0 mm in 35 (25%), 92 (65%), 95 (67%), and 109 (77%) patients, respectively. R0-resection rates decreased from 75% to 35% when changing the definition of R1 status from R1-direct invasion (0 mm) to R1 <1.0 mm. On univariate analysis, clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm, pT stage, pN stage, LNR ≥0.2, tumor grade 3, and lymphovascular invasion were significantly associated with 5-year survival. On multivariate analysis, pN was the most powerful independent predictor (P = 0.004). Clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm had borderline significance for the entire cohort, but was relevant in certain subgroups (upfront pancreatectomy (n = 117; P = 0.049); without VR or NAT (n = 87; P = 0.003); N+ without VR or NAT (n = 50; P = 0.004). No N0-patient had R1-0 mm. Additional independent risk predictors were (1) R1 <1.0 mm for the SMA-margin in specific subgroups (upfront pancreatectomy, N0 patients without NAT, N+ patients without NAT or VR; (2) R1-0 mm posterior-margin for the NAT group (P = 0.004). Conclusion: Tumor clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm was an independent determinants of postresection survival in certain subgroups. To avoid misinterpretation, future trials should specify the clearance margin in millimeter. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00918853.

Publisher URL: http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Fulltext/2017/11000/Prognostic_Value_of_Resection_Margin_Involvement.13.aspx

DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002432