Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BJS Open logoLink to BJS Open
. 2022 Mar 18;6(2):zrac010. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac010

Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis

Carl Stephan Leonhardt 1,2, Willem Niesen 3, Eva Kalkum 4, Rosa Klotz 5,6, Thomas Hank 7,8, Markus Wolfgang Büchler 9, Oliver Strobel 10,11, Pascal Probst 12,13,14,✉
PMCID: PMC8931487  PMID: 35301513

Abstract

Background

The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection margin (R0) 1 mm or more of tumour clearance, others have failed to show benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of margin definitions on median overall survival (OS).

Methods

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting associations between resection margins and OS between 2010 and 2021. Data regarding margin status (R0 circumferential resection margin (CRM) negative (CRM–), R0 CRM positive (CRM+), R0 direct, and R1 and OS were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled with a random-effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

Results

The full texts of 774 studies were screened. In total, 21 studies compromising 6056 patients were included in the final synthesis. In total, 188 (24 per cent) studies were excluded due to missing margin definitions. The R0 (CRM+) rate was 50 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.40 to 0.61) and the R0 (CRM−) rate was 38 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 0.47). R0 (CRM−) resection was independently associated with improved OS compared to combined R1 and R0 (CRM+; HR 1.36, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 1.56).

Conclusion

The revised R status was confirmed as an independent prognosticator compared to combined R0 (CRM+) and R1. The limited number of studies, non-standardized pathology protocols, and the varying number of margins assessed hamper comparability.

The prognostic significance of the revised R status in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This meta-analysis and systematic review provides evidence that the revised R status serves as an independent prognosticator in upfront resected pancreatic cancer.

Introduction

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is expected to become the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the USA by 20301, but approximately 20 per cent of patients are candidates for surgical resection (currently the only potential cure) at the time of diagnosis. Resection margins in PDAC have been traditionally considered an indicator of surgical quality for adequate oncological resections. However, the frequency of local recurrences seems to be at odds with the reported rates of R0 resections, which vary widely between 10 to 80 per cent, due to differences in definitions of what is included in the term R02,3. New protocols for pathological assessment of resection specimens and a revised definition for resection margins have been introduced. Initially introduced in 2002 by the UK Royal College of Pathologists, a wide resection margin with R0 of 1 mm or more from tumour cells to the margin was endorsed as a revised definition of R status by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery, as well as the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual4–9.

Although the importance of assessing circumferential resection margins (CRM) is now widely accepted, margins definition remains controversial3. The prognostic relevance of the revised R status10 has been confirmed in some studies, while others have failed to demonstrate such an association11. Similarly, recent meta-analyses have reported conflicting results, given the lack of strict criteria for margin definitions or the inclusion of patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy12,13. Owing to this heterogeneity, widespread adoption of the revised R0 definition is lacking, hampering comparability between studies and outcomes10,14.

This systematic review aimed to assess the prognostic role of the revised R status in patients with PDAC submitted to primary pancreatic resections undertaken with curative intent.

Methods

This study is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines15.

Systematic literature search

A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases on 14 January 202116. The following search strategy was used for MEDLINE with the search strategies for the other databases available upon request:

(((‘resection margin’[tiab] OR ‘resection margins’[tiab] OR R1[tiab] OR R0[tiab] OR ((negative[tiab] OR positive[tiab]) AND margin*[tiab]) OR (prognostic[tiab] AND factor*[tiab]) OR prognosis[tiab] OR survival[tiab] OR (((lymph[tiab] AND node*[tiab]) OR nodal[tiab]) AND metastasis[tiab]) OR Prognosis [Mesh] OR ‘Margins of Excision’[Mesh]))) AND ((((pancreas[tiab] OR pancreatic) AND (cancer*[tiab] OR neoplasm*[tiab] OR carcinoma[tiab] OR tumor*[tiab] OR tumour*[tiab] OR adenocarcinoma[tiab])) OR PDAC[tiab] OR ‘ductal adenocarcinoma’ [tiab] OR ‘Pancreatic Neoplasms’[Mesh])) AND ((pancreaticoduodenectom*[tiab] OR pancreatoduodenectom*[tiab] OR pancreatectom*[tiab] OR duodenopancreatectom*[tiab] OR ((left[tiab] OR distal[tiab]) AND resection*[tiab]) OR Whipple[tiab] OR ppWhipple[tiab] OR dpphr[tiab] OR PPPD[tiab] OR Kausch-Whipple[tiab]) OR (‘Pancreaticoduodenectomy’[Mesh] OR ‘Pancreatectomy’[Mesh]) OR ((pancreas [tiab] OR pancreatic[tiab] OR pancreato*[tiab]) AND (resection* [tiab] OR removal [tiab] OR enucleation* [tiab]))) AND (2010:2021 [dp]).

Study selection

All randomized trials, observational studies with or without controls, and case series, providing hazard ratios (HRs) for the association of resection margin status and median overall survival (OS) in patients with PDAC who underwent primary resection intent, were included. To limit heterogeneity and associated differences in pathology protocols, the year 2010 as the publication date was chosen as a cutoff for the earliest inclusion date12. Exclusion criteria included pancreatic tumours other than PDAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, R2 resections, studies not reporting separate HRs, and those not providing detailed information on resection margin definitions. Reviews, meta-analyses, meeting abstracts, letters, comments, editorials, and publications without available full texts were excluded.

Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed by two investigators. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Data extraction

The two reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized form, which included the following items: title; first author; country; year of publication; journal; study design and period; duration of follow-up; sample size; type of operation; adjuvant chemotherapy regimen; the applied definition of resection margin; examined margins; slicing technique; vascular resections; survival outcomes as median OS; and median time of follow-up.

To account for differences in terminology and to enable cross-comparison, data were extracted based on the distance of tumour cells to the margin. Subsequently, these data were grouped into four categories: R0 (CRM negative (CRM−)), corresponding to 1 mm or more tumour-free margin distance; R0 (CRM positive (CRM+)) with a tumour-free margin of less than 1 mm (classified as R1 in the revised definition)10; R1, with tumour cells directly at the resection margin; and R0 direct, with no tumour cells at the resection margin. Rates of margin status were pooled by meta-analysis of proportions.

Critical appraisal

The risk of bias and the quality of studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool17. The six respective domains, ‘participation’, ‘attrition’, ‘prognostic factor measurement’, ‘confounding measurement and account’, ‘outcome measurement’, and ‘analysis and reporting’ were graded as low risk, moderate risk, or high risk of bias for each study. Funnel plotting was performed to explore potential bias if more than 10 trials were available. Egger’s test was performed in the case of funnel plot asymmetry18.

Data handling and statistical analysis

The following comparisons between the four groups were performed:

  • R1 versus R0 direct from on uni- (UV) and multivariable (MV) data

  • R1 versus R0 (CRM+)

  • R1 versus R0 (CRM−)

  • R0 (CRM−) versus R0 (CRM+) from UV and MV data

  • Given the small number of studies reporting HRs comparing R0 (CRM−) and R0 (CRM+) separately, and that R0 (CRM+) and R1 are frequently considered together or not fully diversified in some studies, these latter categories were combined: R0 (CRM+) with R1 versus R0 (CRM−) from UV and MV data.

Additionally, R0 (CRM+) with R1 was compared to R0 (CRM−) from studies reporting only UV data or MV data, respectively. A subgroup analysis, including all studies reporting HR for pancreatic head tumours, was performed. Data handling was the same as for the whole cohort.

Meta-analyses were carried out with R programming language19. Forest plots were generated. A random-effects model was used to account for study heterogeneity. Statistical heterogeneity among the estimated effect of the included studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. An I2 of less than 25 per cent indicated low heterogeneity, while an I2 of more than 75 per cent a high heterogeneity, with 25 to 75 per cent indicating moderate heterogeneity. HRs were pooled using a random-effects model according to DerSimonian and Laird20.

Meta-regression was performed using a mixed-effects model with median follow-up time as a covariate to assess if follow-up time independently influenced results. Meta-regression was limited to group comparisons that included six or more studies.

Results

Study characteristics

A total of 10 459 articles were potentially eligible. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, the remaining 774 records were screened in full text. From these, 265 (34.2 per cent) studies were excluded because of other type of intervention or study design (n = 195; 25.2 per cent), no margin definitions (n = 188; 24.3 per cent), investigation of other tumours (n = 29; 3.7 per cent), and other reasons (n = 76; 9.8 per cent). A PRISMA flow chart is shown in Fig. 1. Finally, 21 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis, including 6056 patients (Table 1). Of these, 14 were single-centre, while seven were multicentre studies. The majority (n = 17) were retrospective series, with four being prospective, two of which were randomized controlled trial. The multicentre trial by Delpero et al. prospectively enrolled patients to evaluate the prognostic implications of different resection margin definitions without any randomization procedure14, while the study by Jamieson et al. mentions a prospective study design without further details25.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flow diagram for inclusion and exclusion of studies

Table 1.

Studies included in the final qualitative and quantitative synthesis

First author Publication year Number of patients Procedure Margin definition* Follow-up (months)
Gebauer11 2015 118 PD Wide 17
Delpero14 2017 117 PD Wide 83
Demir12 2018 254 PD, DP, TP Wide 47
Neoptolemos21 2017 730 PD, DP, TP Wide 43
Nitta22 2017 117 PD Wide 47
Strobel10 2017 561 PD Wide 29
van Roessel23 2018 531 PD Wide 50
Hank24 2018 455 DP, TP Wide 33
Jamieson25 2011 217 PD Wide 20
Ghaneh26 2019 1151 PD, DP, TP Wide 34
Serenari27 2019 99 n.s. Wide n.r.
Panaro28 2019 79 PD Wide 30
Vuarnesson29 2013 188 PD Wide 45
Kishi30 2019 500 PD Narrow n.r.
You31 2019 194 PD Wide 17
Tummers32 2019 322† PD, DP, TP Wide n.r.
Li33 2019 124 PD Narrow n.r.
Ocana34 2020 80 PD Wide n.r.
Di Martino35 2020 33 PD Wide n.r.
Pine36 2020 107 PD Wide 30
Prochazka37 2020 79 PD, TP Wide n.r.
Open in a new tab
*

Wide: 1 mm margin clearance; narrow: direct margin clearance. †Only PD used for association of overall survival and margin status. PD, pancreaticoduodenectomy; DP, distal pancreatic resection; TP, total pancreatectomy; n.s., not specified; n.r., not reported.

On proportional meta-analysis, the R0 (CRM−) rate was 38 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 29 to 47); the R0 (CRM+) rate was 50 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 40 to 61); the R1 rate was 30 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 20 to 43); and the R0 direct rate was 72 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 69 to 76) (Fig. S1).

In total, 4965 patients received either a Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or a pylorus-preserving PD. Of the remaining patients, 440 underwent a total pancreatectomy and 378 a distal pancreatic resection. One study of 99 patients did not specify the type of pancreatic resection performed27. The reported median OS in the entire cohort ranged from 12 months for patients with an R1 resection to 62.9 months for those with an R0 (CRM−) resection22. The median follow-up time varied between 17 and 83 months but was missing in seven studies (Table 1).

Risk of bias and study heterogeneity

The QUIPS tool showed a moderate risk of bias in most studies, as displayed in the funnel plots (Fig. S2). Egger’s test did not reveal significant asymmetry of either funnel plot (P = 0.22 and P = 0.11, respectively).

Resection margin and overall survival

R1 versus R0 direct

Six studies were included in the analysis. Using UV data, the pooled HR for OS comparing R1 with R0 direct resections was 1.97 (95 per cent c.i. 1.52 to 2.56; I2 = 53 per cent) (Fig. 2a). Five of the included studies showed that R0 direct resections were independently associated with an improved OS versus R1 resections (HR 1.77, 95 per cent c.i. 1.44 to 2.16; I2 = 24 per cent) (Fig. 2b).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the meta-analysis of median overall survival comparing R1 versus R0 direct margin status

a Univariable and b multivariable data. TE, estimated treatment effect; seTE, standard error of treatment estimate; n.r., not reported.

R1 versus R0 (CRM+) and R1 versus R0 (CRM−)

Seven studies reported HRs for survival differences between R1 and R0 (CRM+) resections (Fig. 3a). Tumour cells directly at the resection margin (R1) were associated with a worse OS than tumour cells less than 1 mm distance from the resection margin (R0 (CRM+); HR 1.50, 95 per cent c.i. 1.12 to 2.00 (I2 = 72 per cent)). This association was even more pronounced comparing R1 versus R0 (CRM−) resections in five eligible studies (HR 1.77, 95 per cent c.i. 1.31 to 2.37; I2 = 67 per cent) (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the meta-analysis of median overall survival

a Comparing R0 (CRM+) resections versus R1 resections and b R0 (CRM−) resections versus R1 resections. TE, estimated treatment effect; seTE, standard error of treatment estimate; n.r., not reported.

R0 (CRM−) versus R0 (CRM+)

Six studies reported separate HRs using UV data (Fig. 4a). The revised R0 definition with a margin clearance of 1 mm or more (R0 (CRM−) was associated with an improved OS versus R0 (CRM+) resections (HR 1.68, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 2.56). Using MV data (reported in three eligible studies), no significant association was confirmed (HR 1.27, 95 per cent c.i. 0.82 to 1.96) (Fig. 4b). Pooled HR from UV and MV data had moderate study heterogeneity(I2 = 71 per cent and I2 = 65 per cent, respectively).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the meta-analysis of median overall survival

Comparing R0 (CRM−) resections versus R0 (CRM+) resections using a univariable and b multivariable data. TE, estimated treatment effect; seTE, standard error of treatment estimate; n.r., not reported.

R0 (CRM−) versus R0 (CRM+) and R1

R0 (CRM−) resections showed a statistically significant survival benefit compared with the combined category: R0 (CRM+) with R1 resections (HR 1.49, 95 per cent c.i. 1.32 to 1.69; I2 = 30 per cent) (Fig. 5a). These results were confirmed when the UV (HR 1.68, 95 per cent c.i. 1.39 to 2.02; I2 = 14 per cent) (Fig. 5b) and MV data (HR 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.25 to 1.56; I2 = 14 per cent) were considered separately (Fig. 5c). Studies reporting HR exclusively from MV analysis confirmed that R0 (CRM−) was significantly associated with an improved median OS (HR 1.36, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 1.51; I2 = 0 per cent) (Fig. 5d). A summary chart comparing the two resection margin status definitions is provided in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the meta-analysis of median overall survival comparing R0 (CRM−) versus the combined category: R0 (CRM+) with R1 resections

a Studies reporting univariable hazard ratios and b studies reporting only univariable data. c Studies reporting hazard ratios from multivariable data and d studies reporting hazard ratios only from multivariable data. TE, estimated treatment effect; seTE, standard error of treatment estimate; n.r., not reported.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Summary chart comparing resection margin status definitions and associated hazard ratios using univariable data

Meta-regression analysis

Meta-regression analysis revealed that a median follow-up time of 83 months had an independent effect on results of R0 (CRM−) and R0 (CRM+) using MV data and between R0 direct and R1 using UV data (P = 0.03 and P = 0.04, respectively). In the meta-regression analyses of other subgroup analyses, follow-up time had no independent effect on median overall survival (Table 1).

Subgroup analysis of pancreatic head tumours

A subgroup analysis of studies reporting separate HRs for PDAC of the pancreatic head was performed. The association between margin status and OS mimicked the results obtained by including all types of resections (Figs S3 to S5).

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence that a circumferential margin of resection of 1 mm or more (according to the revised R0 definition) was associated with improved survival compared to less than 1 mm in patients with PDAC after primary pancreatic resections. This survival benefit was evident from UV but not MV analysis, probably reflecting the limited number of studies available.

Because of the small number of eligible studies, the groups with positive margins, namely R0 (CRM+; margin clearance less than 1 mm) and R1 indicating direct margin involvement, were combined. A significant and independent survival benefit for R0 (CRM−) resections (1 mm tumour-free margin) was identified, irrespective of the R1 definition used.

Variations in specimen processing could also explain the lack of R0 (CRM−) confirmation as an independent predictor for longer OS than R0 (CRM+) using MV data. Similarly, the relatively low pooled R0 (CRM+) rate of approximately 58 per cent compared to large single-centre studies with standardized pathology protocols has probably been affected by such variability2,10. Pathology protocol differences across various centres are reflected in this meta-analysis. While axial slicing techniques are commonly used in Europe, pathologists in the USA frequently opt for bivalving protocols5, and, in some studies, the pathology protocol was not reported22,30. Although it is accepted that standardized pathology protocols and resection margin definitions strongly influence positivity rates38, the Dutch APOLLO randomized trial, which compared axial slicing and bivalving protocols, failed to detect a significant difference in R1 rates39.

Microscopic tumour infiltration occurs mainly at the medial and posterior cut surface, and, in most cases, only one is involved3,12,13,40–42. A handful of studies have rigorously addressed which cut surface has the greatest implications for patient outcome, but the number of margins examined and the terminology has varied5. Data from the ESPAC-3 trial were analysed to assess the prognostic implications of each cut surface. Positivity of the posterior margin was associated with significantly shorter survival, while a positive anterior cut surface was not associated with reduced survival compared to an overall R0 of 1 mm or more on UV analysis26.

Other studies have not detected an association between affected margin locations and survival32. The 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual explicitly refers to the uncinate margin for the circumferential assessment, but the others remain unspecified5,9. Tummers et al. found no significant difference in local recurrence between R1 of less than 1 mm versus R0 of 1 mm or more. Once a subgroup analysis was performed, stratifying for lymph node involvement, the R1 groups (R1N0 and R1N1) showed local recurrence significantly earlier32.

A recent large institutional series showed that the revised R0 definition was also an independent prognostic determinant in these patients, and an R0 (CRM−) resection may identify a subset with a favourable prognosis and a median OS of 62.4 months24.

Recently, novel adjuvant chemotherapy regimens have significantly improved median OS in PDAC patients undergoing upfront surgery21,43. Although a separate and stratified analysis is desirable, few studies strictly defined margin status to analyse their prognostic significance given the regimen of adjuvant chemotherapy used. The importance of resection margins after neoadjuvant chemotherapy has recently been addressed, but the results are controversial44–47.

A wide R0 margin definition may also have a prognostic relevance as PDAC exhibits a diffuse infiltrative growth pattern40. Chang et al. identified a distance of 1.5 mm or more as a new cut-off for better outcomes in a cohort of 365 upfront resected patients with disease-specific survival as primary endpoint42. Delpero et al. showed that clearance of 1.0 mm or less and 1.5 mm or less for at least two positive margins were independent determinants of decreased survival14. Although with interesting implications, the limited number of studies addressing the prognostic implication of different tumour cell distances to resection margins prevented such an analysis in this study.

This systematic review has several strengths. The selection was limited to studies published after 2010 as earlier studies frequently did not apply standardized protocols for pathological assessment and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens varied significantly12. While this time frame reduced the number of included studies, it strengthened the validity of conclusions. Only studies that provided detailed information on resection margins were included, and all studies that did not report separate HRs for OS in primary resections were excluded.

This study has several limitations. Most of the included studies had a retrospective design, associated with inherent flaws, including selection bias. Owing to the strict inclusion criteria, the number of appropriate studies identified was relatively small, preventing subgroup analysis.

In summary, the revised R status definition is valid and shows a favourable prognosis compared to R0 (CRM+) and R1. A key limitation of a systematic review is the quality of the original studies contained within. This study used the QUIPS tool to assess study quality and risk fo bias. While the risk of bias was rated as moderate and Egger’s test did not reveal significant asymmetry, this systematic review highlights that most studies lack essential information on margin definitions and applied pathology protocols. Furthermore, most studies were of retrospective design and therefore of limited quality. This limits the conclusions of this systematic review and meta-analysis. Detailed information on pathological specimen processing and standardised reporting is necessary for further progress in PDAC treatments and facilitates comparisons between studies and institutions. The implications of the revised R status after neoadjuvant treatment and pancreatic resections other than PD require further investigation.

Supplementary Material

zrac010_Supplementary_Data
Click here for additional data file. (2.4MB, zip)

Acknowledgements

This study was not preregistered in an independent registry. No review protocol was prepared for this study.

Disclosure. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Carl Stephan Leonhardt, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Willem Niesen, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Eva Kalkum, Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Rosa Klotz, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Thomas Hank, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Markus Wolfgang Büchler, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Oliver Strobel, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Pascal Probst, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.

Data availability

Data relating to the results of this study, including search strategy, are available upon request by contacting the corresponding author. Search strategies for Web of Science and CENTRAL are available upon request.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at BJS Open online.

References

  • 1. Rahib  L, Smith  BD, Aizenberg  R, Rosenzweig  AB, Fleshman  JM, Matrisian  LM. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res  2014;74:2913–2921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Esposito  I, Kleeff  J, Bergmann  F, Reiser  C, Herpel  E, Friess  H  et al.  Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol  2008;15:1651–1660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Schlitter  AM, Esposito  I. Definition of microscopic tumor clearance (r0) in pancreatic cancer resections. Cancers  2010;2:2001–2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Bockhorn  M, Uzunoglu  FG, Adham  M, Imrie  C, Milicevic  M, Sandberg  AA  et al.  Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery  2014;155:977–988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Shi  J, Basturk  O. Whipple grossing in the era of new staging: should we standardise?  Diagnostics  2019;9:132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Campbell  F, Bennett  M, Foulis  A. Minimum Dataset for Histopathological Reporting of Pancreatic, Ampulla of Vater and Bile Duct Carcinoma. Vol. v3. London: Royal College of Pathologists, 2002, 1–63 [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Campbell  F, Smith  RA, Whelan  P, Sutton  R, Raraty  M, Neoptolemos  JP  et al.  Classification of R1 resections for pancreatic cancer: the prognostic relevance of tumour involvement within 1mm of a resection margin. Histopathology  2009;55:277–283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Verbeke  CS, Leitch  D, Menon  KV, McMahon  MJ, Guillou  PJ, Anthoney  A. Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg  2006;93:1232–1237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Amin  MB, American Joint Committee on Cancer, American Cancer Society . AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Chicago, IL: American Joint Committee on Cancer, Springer, 2017 [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Strobel  O, Hank  T, Hinz  U, Bergmann  F, Schneider  L, Springfeld  C  et al.  Pancreatic cancer surgery: the new R-status counts. Ann Surg  2017;265:565–573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Gebauer  F, Tachezy  M, Vashist  YK, Marx  AH, Yekebas  E, Izbicki  JR  et al.  Resection margin clearance in pancreatic cancer after implementation of the Leeds pathology protocol (LEEPP): clinically relevant or just academic?  World J Surg  2015;39:493–499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Demir  IE, Jäger  C, Schlitter  AM, Konukiewitz  B, Stecher  L, Schorn  S  et al.  R0 versus R1 resection matters after pancreaticoduodenectomy, and less after distal or total pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg  2018;268:1058–1068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Chandrasegaram  MD, Goldstein  D, Simes  J, Gebski  V, Kench  JG, Gill  AJ  et al.  Meta-analysis of radical resection rates and margin assessment in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg  2015;102:1459–1472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Delpero  JR, Jeune  F, Bachellier  P, Regenet  N, Le Treut  YP, Paye  F  et al.  Prognostic value of resection margin involvement after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: updates from a French prospective multicenter study. Ann Surg  2017;266:787–796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG, Group  P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med  2009;6:e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Goossen  K, Tenckhoff  S, Probst  P, Grummich  K, Mihaljevic  AL, Buchler  MW  et al.  Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg  2018;403:119–129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Hayden  JA, van der Windt  DA, Cartwright  JL, Cote  P, Bombardier  C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med  2013;158:280–286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Egger  M, Davey Smith  G, Schneider  M, Minder  C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ  1997;315:629–634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Ihaka  R, Gentleman  R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat  1996;5:299–314 [Google Scholar]
  • 20. DerSimonian  R, Laird  N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials  1986;7:177–188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Neoptolemos  JP, Palmer  DH, Ghaneh  P, Psarelli  EE, Valle  JW, Halloran  CM  et al.  Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet  2017;389:1011–1024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Nitta  T, Nakamura  T, Mitsuhashi  T, Asano  T, Okamura  K, Tsuchikawa  T  et al.  The impact of margin status determined by the one-millimeter rule on tumor recurrence and survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Surg Today  2017;47:490–497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. van Roessel  S, Kasumova  GG, Tabatabaie  O, Ng  SC, van Rijssen  LB, Verheij  J  et al.  Pathological margin clearance and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy in a US and European pancreatic center. Ann Surg Oncol  2018;25:1760–1767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Hank  T, Hinz  U, Tarantino  I, Kaiser  J, Niesen  W, Bergmann  F  et al.  Validation of at least 1 mm as cut-off for resection margins for pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail. Br J Surg  2018;105:1171–1181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Jamieson  NB, Denley  SM, Logue  J, MacKenzie  DJ, Foulis  AK, Dickson  EJ  et al.  A prospective comparison of the prognostic value of tumor- and patient-related factors in patients undergoing potentially curative surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol  2011;18:2318–2328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Ghaneh  P, Kleeff  J, Halloran  CM, Raraty  M, Jackson  R, Melling  J  et al.  The impact of positive resection margins on survival and recurrence following resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg  2019;269:520–529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Serenari  M, Ercolani  G, Cucchetti  A, Zanello  M, Prosperi  E, Fallani  G  et al.  The impact of extent of pancreatic and venous resection on survival for patients with pancreatic cancer. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int  2019;18:389–394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Panaro  F, Kellil  T, Vendrell  J, Sega  V, Souche  R, Piardi  T  et al.  Microvascular invasion is a major prognostic factor after pancreatico-duodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol  2019;120:483–493 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Vuarnesson  H, Lupinacci  RM, Semoun  O, Svrcek  M, Julié  C, Balladur  P  et al.  Number of examined lymph nodes and nodal status assessment in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol  2013;39:1116–1121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Kishi  Y, Nara  S, Esaki  M, Hiraoka  N, Shimada  K. Feasibility of resecting the portal vein only when necessary during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. BJS Open  2019;3:327–335 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. You  Y, Choi  DW, Heo  JS, Han  IW, Choi  SH, Jang  KT  et al.  Clinical significance of revised microscopic positive resection margin status in ductal adenocarcinoma of pancreatic head. Ann Surg Treat Res  2019;96:19–26 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Tummers  WS, Groen  JV, Sibinga Mulder  BG, Farina-Sarasqueta  A, Morreau  J, Putter  H  et al.  Impact of resection margin status on recurrence and survival in pancreatic cancer surgery. Br J Surg  2019;106:1055–1065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Li  CG, Zhou  ZP, Tan  XL, Gao  YX, Wang  ZZ, Liu  Q  et al.  Impact of resection margins on long-term survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head carcinoma. World J Clin Cases  2019;7:4186–4195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Ocaña  J, Sanjuanbenito  A, García  A, Molina  JM, Lisa  E, Mendía  E  et al.  Relevance of positive resection margins in ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma and prognostic factors. Cir Esp  2020;98:85–91 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Di Martino  M, Ielpo  B, de Nova  JLM, Muñoz  EA, Santamaria  C, Diago  V  et al.  Lymph node ratio, perineural invasion and R1 resection as independent prognostic factors in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Technol Int  2020;36:82–88 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Pine  JK, Haugk  B, Robinson  SM, Darne  A, Wilson  C, Sen  G  et al.  Prospective assessment of resection margin status following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after standardisation of margin definitions. Pancreatology  2020;20:537–544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Prochazka  V, Hlavsa  J, Kunovsky  L, Farkasova  M, Potrusil  M, Andrasina  T  et al.  Correlation of survival length after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma depending on tumor characteristics detected by means of computed tomography and resection margins status. Neoplasma  2020;67:1319–1328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Esposito  I, Konukiewitz  B, Schlitter  AM, Kloppel  G. Pathology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: facts, challenges and future developments. World J Gastroenterol  2014;20:13833–13841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. van Roessel  S, Soer  EC, van Dieren  S, Koens  L, van Velthuysen  MLF, Doukas  M, et al.  Axial slicing versus bivalving in the pathological examination of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens (APOLLO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. HPB (Oxford)  2021;23:1349–1359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Verbeke  CS. Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer–are we there yet?  Histopathology  2008;52:787–796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Takahashi  D, Kojima  M, Sugimoto  M, Kobayashi  S, Takahashi  S, Konishi  M  et al.  Pathologic evaluation of surgical margins in pancreatic cancer specimens using color coding with tissue marking dyes. Pancreas  2018;47:830–836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Chang  DK, Johns  AL, Merrett  ND, Gill  AJ, Colvin  EK, Scarlett  CJ  et al.  Margin clearance and outcome in resected pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol  2009;27:2855–2862 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Neoptolemos  JP, Stocken  DD, Friess  H, Bassi  C, Dunn  JA, Hickey  H  et al.  A randomised trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med  2004;350:1200–1210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Kaltenmeier  C, Nassour  I, Hoehn  RS, Khan  S, Althans  A, Geller  DA  et al.  Impact of resection margin status in patients with pancreatic cancer: a national cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg  2020;25:2307–2316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. de Geus  SWL, Kasumova  GG, Sachs  TE, Ng  SC, Kent  TS, Moser  AJ, et al.  Neoadjuvant therapy affects margins and margins affect all: perioperative and survival outcomes in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford)  2018;20:573–581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Lof  S, Korrel  M, van Hilst  J, Alseidi  A, Balzano  G, Boggi  U  et al.  Impact of neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic body or tail on surgical and oncological outcome: a propensity-score matched multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol  2020;27:1986–1996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Maeda  S, Moore  AM, Yohanathan  L, Hata  T, Truty  MJ, Smoot  RL  et al.  Impact of resection margin status on survival in pancreatic cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment and pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery  2020;167:803–811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

zrac010_Supplementary_Data
Click here for additional data file. (2.4MB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

Data relating to the results of this study, including search strategy, are available upon request by contacting the corresponding author. Search strategies for Web of Science and CENTRAL are available upon request.

Articles from BJS Open are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES