Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Ductal Carcinoma HELP
Based on 6,136 articles published since 2010
||||

These are the 6136 published articles about Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal that originated from Worldwide during 2010-2020.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20
1 Guideline Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. 2019

Anonymous3391081 / Owens, Douglas K / Davidson, Karina W / Krist, Alex H / Barry, Michael J / Cabana, Michael / Caughey, Aaron B / Curry, Susan J / Doubeni, Chyke A / Epling, John W / Kubik, Martha / Landefeld, C Seth / Mangione, Carol M / Pbert, Lori / Silverstein, Michael / Simon, Melissa A / Tseng, Chien-Wen / Wong, John B. ·Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. · Stanford University, Stanford, California. · Feinstein Institute for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York. · Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia. · Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. · Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of California, San Francisco. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. · University of Iowa, Iowa City. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York. · Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke. · Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of Alabama at Birmingham. · University of California, Los Angeles. · University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. · Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. · Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. · University of Hawaii, Honolulu. · Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii. · Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. ·JAMA · Pubmed #31386141.

ABSTRACT: Importance: Pancreatic cancer is an uncommon cancer with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 12.9 cases per 100 000 person-years. However, the death rate is 11.0 deaths per 100 000 person-years because the prognosis of pancreatic cancer is poor. Although its incidence is low, pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Because of the increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer, along with improvements in early detection and treatment of other types of cancer, it is estimated that pancreatic cancer may soon become the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Objective: To update the 2004 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for pancreatic cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer. Findings: The USPSTF found no evidence that screening for pancreatic cancer or treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer improves disease-specific morbidity or mortality, or all-cause mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults can be bounded as no greater than small. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the harms of screening for pancreatic cancer and treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer can be bounded as at least moderate. The USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that the potential benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults do not outweigh the potential harms. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults. (D recommendation).

2 Guideline Evaluating Susceptibility to Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion. 2019

Stoffel, Elena M / McKernin, Shannon E / Brand, Randall / Canto, Marcia / Goggins, Michael / Moravek, Cassadie / Nagarajan, Arun / Petersen, Gloria M / Simeone, Diane M / Yurgelun, Matthew / Khorana, Alok A. ·1 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. · 2 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA. · 3 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. · 4 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. · 5 Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Los Angeles, CA. · 6 Taussig Cancer Institute and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. · 7 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. · 8 New York University Langone Health, New York, NY. · 9 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #30457921.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: An ASCO provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership and other health care providers. This PCO addresses identification and management of patients and family members with possible predisposition to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature published from January 1998 to June 2018. Results of the databases searched were supplemented with hand searching of the bibliographies of systematic reviews and selected seminal articles and contributions from Expert Panel members' curated files. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: All patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma should undergo assessment of risk for hereditary syndromes known to be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Assessment of risk should include a comprehensive review of family history of cancer. Individuals with a family history of pancreatic cancer affecting two first-degree relatives meet criteria for familial pancreatic cancer (FPC). Individuals (cancer affected or unaffected) with a family history of pancreatic cancer meeting criteria for FPC, those with three or more diagnoses of pancreatic cancer in same side of the family, and individuals meeting criteria for other genetic syndromes associated with increased risk for pancreatic cancer have an increased risk for pancreatic cancer and are candidates for genetic testing. Germline genetic testing for cancer susceptibility may be discussed with individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, even if family history is unremarkable. Benefits and limitations of pancreatic cancer screening should be discussed with individuals whose family history meets criteria for FPC and/or genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

3 Guideline Validation of the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines on management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: more than 5 years of follow-up. 2018

Imbe, Koh / Nagata, Naoyoshi / Hisada, Yuya / Takasaki, Yusuke / Sekine, Katsunori / Mishima, Saori / Kawazoe, Akihito / Tajima, Tsuyoshi / Shimbo, Takuro / Yanase, Mikio / Akiyama, Junichi / Fujimoto, Kazuma / Uemura, Naomi. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan. · Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan. nnagata_ncgm@yahoo.co.jp. · Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center East Hospital, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan. · Departments of Diagnostic Radiology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan. · Ohta Nishinouchi Hospital, 2-5-20 Nishinouchi, Koriyama city, Fukushima, 963-8558, Japan. · Department of Internal Medicine & Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, 1 Honjo-machi, 840-8502, Saga, Japan. · Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kohnodai Hospital, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-7-1 Kohnodai, Ichikawa, 272-8516, Chiba, Japan. ·Eur Radiol · Pubmed #28770404.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Recent guidelines suggest that imaging surveillance be conducted for 5 years for patients with at most one high-risk feature. If there were no significant changes, surveillance is stopped. We sought to validate this follow-up strategy. METHODS: In study 1, data were analysed for 392 patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) and at most one high-risk feature who were periodically followed up for more than 1 year with imaging tests. In study 2, data were analysed for 159 IPMN patients without worsening high-risk features after 5 years (stop surveillance group). RESULTS: In study 1, pancreatic cancer (PC) was identified in 12 patients (27.3%) in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) indication group and none in the non-EUS-FNA indication group (P < 0.01). In the EUS-FNA indication group, 11 patients (25%) died, whereas 29 (8.3%) died in the non EUS-FNA indication group (P < 0.01). In study 2 (stop surveillance group), PC was identified in three patients (1.9%) at 84, 103 and 145 months. CONCLUSIONS: PC risk and mortality for IPMNs not showing significant change for 5 years is likely to be low, and the non-EUS-FNA indication can provide reasonable decisions. However, three patients without worsening high-risk features for 5 years developed PC. The stop surveillance strategy should be reconsidered. KEY POINTS: • The AGA guidelines provide reasonable clinical decisions for the EUS-FNA indication. • In stop surveillance group, PC was identified in 3 patients (1.9%). • In stop surveillance group, 2 of 3 PC patients died from PC. • Risk of pancreatic cancer in "stop surveillance" group is not negligible.

4 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2017

Anonymous6400925 / Qayyum, Aliya / Tamm, Eric P / Kamel, Ihab R / Allen, Peter J / Arif-Tiwari, Hina / Chernyak, Victoria / Gonda, Tamas A / Grajo, Joseph R / Hindman, Nicole M / Horowitz, Jeanne M / Kaur, Harmeet / McNamara, Michelle M / Noto, Richard B / Srivastava, Pavan K / Lalani, Tasneem. ·Principal Author, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: aqayyum@mdanderson.org. · Research Author, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · Panel Chair, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; American College of Surgeons. · University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona. · Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. · Columbia University, New York, New York; American Gastroenterological Association. · University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. · New York University Medical Center, New York, New York. · Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. · University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · University of Alabama Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama. · The Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. · University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; American College of Physicians. · Specialty Chair, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #29101993.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is associated with poor overall prognosis. Complete surgical resection is the only possible option for cure. As such, increasingly complex surgical techniques including sophisticated vascular reconstruction are being used. Continued advances in surgical techniques, in conjunction with use of combination systemic therapies, and radiation therapy have been suggested to improve outcomes. A key aspect to surgical success is reporting of pivotal findings beyond absence of distant metastases, such as tumor size, location, and degree of tumor involvement of specific vessels associated with potential perineural tumor spread. Multiphase contrast-enhanced multidetector CT and MRI are the imaging modalities of choice for pretreatment staging and presurgical determination of resectability. Imaging modalities such as endoscopic ultrasound and fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging with PET/CT are indicated for specific scenarios such as biopsy guidance and confirmation of distant metastases, respectively. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

5 Guideline Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. 2016

Sohal, Davendra P S / Mangu, Pamela B / Khorana, Alok A / Shah, Manish A / Philip, Philip A / O'Reilly, Eileen M / Uronis, Hope E / Ramanathan, Ramesh K / Crane, Christopher H / Engebretson, Anitra / Ruggiero, Joseph T / Copur, Mehmet S / Lau, Michelle / Urba, Susan / Laheru, Daniel. ·Davendra P.S. Sohal and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH · Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA · Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center · Philip A. Philip, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit · Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI · Eileen M. O'Reilly, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · Joseph T. Ruggiero, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY · Hope E. Uronis, Duke University, Durham, NC · Ramesh K. Ramanathan, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale · Michelle Lau, Community Hospital Based Cancer Center, Tempe, AZ · Christopher H. Crane, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR · Mehmet S. Copur, St Francis Medical Center, Grand Island, NE · and Daniel Laheru, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #27247222.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

6 Guideline The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of cystic pancreatic neoplasms. 2016

Anonymous6000868 / Muthusamy, V Raman / Chandrasekhara, Vinay / Acosta, Ruben D / Bruining, David H / Chathadi, Krishnavel V / Eloubeidi, Mohamad A / Faulx, Ashley L / Fonkalsrud, Lisa / Gurudu, Suryakanth R / Khashab, Mouen A / Kothari, Shivangi / Lightdale, Jenifer R / Pasha, Shabana F / Saltzman, John R / Shaukat, Aasma / Wang, Amy / Yang, Julie / Cash, Brooks D / DeWitt, John M. · ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #27206409.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

7 Guideline The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of patients with solid pancreatic neoplasia. 2016

Anonymous1080853 / Eloubeidi, Mohamad A / Decker, G Anton / Chandrasekhara, Vinay / Chathadi, Krishnavel V / Early, Dayna S / Evans, John A / Fanelli, Robert D / Fisher, Deborah A / Foley, Kimberly / Hwang, Joo Ha / Jue, Terry L / Lightdale, Jenifer R / Pasha, Shabana F / Saltzman, John R / Sharaf, Ravi / Shergill, Amandeep K / Cash, Brooks D / DeWitt, John M. · ·Gastrointest Endosc · Pubmed #26706297.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

8 Guideline Validation of the 2012 International Consensus Guidelines Using Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Branch Duct and Main Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas. 2016

Seo, Nieun / Byun, Jae Ho / Kim, Jin Hee / Kim, Hyoung Jung / Lee, Seung Soo / Song, Ki Byung / Kim, Song-Cheol / Han, Duck Jong / Hong, Seung-Mo / Lee, Moon-Gyu. ·*Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea †Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea ‡Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #25822687.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To validate the 2012 guidelines for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas and to compare diagnostic performances of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating malignant from benign IPMN. BACKGROUND: As IPMN has variable risks of malignancy and management of this entity is closely related to its malignant potential, it is important to predict risks of IPMN malignancy. METHODS: This retrospective study included 158 patients with surgically confirmed IPMN of the pancreas who underwent both preoperative CT and MRI. Two radiologists evaluated the "high-risk stigmata" and "worrisome features" of the 2012 guidelines for branch duct (BD)-IPMN and main duct (MD)-IPMN. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify significant predictors of malignancy in IPMN. The diagnostic performance was compared between CT and MRI. RESULTS: Malignant IPMN was seen in 8 of 60 patients (13.3%) with BD-IPMN and 44 of 98 patients (44.9%) with MD-IPMN. Presence of mural nodule was the most important predictor in BD-IPMN and MD-IPMN (odds ratios, 9.2 and 7.6, respectively, P = 0.01 on CT; and odds ratios, 5.7 and 13.3, respectively, P ≤ 0.04 on MRI), whereas mural nodule size and lymphadenopathy were significant only in MD-IPMN (P < 0.05). The diagnostic performance of CT and MRI for significant findings was not statistically different in both types of IPMN (P > 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of mural nodule was the most important predictor of malignancy in both types of IPMN. Mural nodule size and lymphadenopathy were also significant predictors in MD-IPMN. Computed tomography and MRI showed similar diagnostic performances for differentiating malignant from benign IPMN.

9 Guideline Singapore Cancer Network (SCAN) Guidelines for Systemic Therapy of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. 2015

Anonymous6230854. · ·Ann Acad Med Singapore · Pubmed #26763056.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The SCAN pancreatic cancer workgroup aimed to develop Singapore Cancer Network (SCAN) clinical practice guidelines for systemic therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in Singapore. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workgroup utilised a modified ADAPTE process to calibrate high quality international evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to our local setting. RESULTS: Five international guidelines were evaluated- those developed by the National Cancer Comprehensive Network (2014), the European Society of Medical Oncology (2012), Cancer Care Ontario (2013), the Japan Pancreas Society (2013) and the British Society of Gastroenterology, Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (2005). Recommendations on the management of resected, borderline resectable, locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were developed. CONCLUSION: These adapted guidelines form the SCAN Guidelines for systemic therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in Singapore.

10 Guideline American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. 2015

Vege, Santhi Swaroop / Ziring, Barry / Jain, Rajeev / Moayyedi, Paul / Anonymous6050824 / Anonymous6060824. ·Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. · Division of Internal Medicine, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, Dallas, Texas. · Division of Gastroenterology, Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. ·Gastroenterology · Pubmed #25805375.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

11 Guideline Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Tol, Johanna A M G / Gouma, Dirk J / Bassi, Claudio / Dervenis, Christos / Montorsi, Marco / Adham, Mustapha / Andrén-Sandberg, Ake / Asbun, Horacio J / Bockhorn, Maximilian / Büchler, Markus W / Conlon, Kevin C / Fernández-Cruz, Laureano / Fingerhut, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Hartwig, Werner / Izbicki, Jakob R / Lillemoe, Keith D / Milicevic, Miroslav N / Neoptolemos, John P / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Vollmer, Charles M / Yeo, Charles J / Charnley, Richard M / Anonymous1761108. ·Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: D.J.Gouma@amc.nl. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of General-, Visceral- and Thoracic-Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · First Department of Digestive Surgery, Hippokrateon Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Section for Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgery, Penn Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. ·Surgery · Pubmed #25061003.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy is, however, disputed, and there is no true definition of the optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to formulate a definition for standard lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy. METHODS: During a consensus meeting of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, pancreatic surgeons formulated a consensus statement based on available literature and their experience. RESULTS: The nomenclature of the Japanese Pancreas Society was accepted by all participants. Extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of Ln's along the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and around the celiac trunk, splenic artery, or left gastric artery showed no survival benefit compared with a standard lymphadenectomy. No level I evidence was available on prognostic impact of positive para-aortic Ln's. Consensus was reached on selectively removing suspected Ln's outside the resection area for frozen section. No consensus was reached on continuing or terminating resection in cases where these nodes were positive. CONCLUSION: Extended lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended. Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy should strive to resect Ln stations no. 5, 6, 8a, 12b1, 12b2, 12c, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, and 17b. For cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas, removal of stations 10, 11, and 18 is standard. Furthermore, lymphadenectomy is important for adequate nodal staging. Both pancreatic resection in relatively fit patients or nonresectional palliative treatment were accepted as acceptable treatment in cases of positive Ln's outside the resection plane. This consensus statement could serve as a guide for surgeons and researchers in future directives and new clinical studies.

12 Guideline [Update of the S3 guidelines for pancreatic cancer. What is new for pathologists?]. 2014

Munding, J / Lüttges, J / Esposito, I / Tannapfel, A. ·Institut für Pathologie, Deutsches Mesotheliomregister, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, BG-Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bürkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Deutschland. ·Pathologe · Pubmed #24981895.

ABSTRACT: The S3 guidelines for pancreatic cancer were revised in 2013. Besides the oncological and palliative therapy modalities and surgical therapy, the guidelines for pathologists in topic 3 were updated. The modifications essentially concern the histopathological assessment of surgical specimens and in particular the circumferential resection margin and the R classification. In addition, the current recommendations were amended by recommendations concerning the pathohistological records, which should include the lymph node ratio in the future.

13 Guideline Ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. 2014

Seufferlein, Thomas / Porzner, Marc / Heinemann, Volker / Tannapfel, Andrea / Stuschke, Martin / Uhl, Waldemar. ·Ulm University Hospital Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical Clinic III, Department of Hematology & Oncology, Großhadern Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilian-¬Universität, Munich, Institute of Pathology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Radiation and Tumor Clinic, University Hospital of Duisburg-Essen, Surgical Clinic at the St. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum. ·Dtsch Arztebl Int · Pubmed #24980565.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is the fourth most common cause of death from cancer in men and women in Germany: about 15 000 persons die of this disease each year. METHOD: The S3 guideline on exocrine pancreatic carcinoma was updated with the aid of systematic literature reviews on the surgical, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant treatment of ductal pancreatic carcinoma, and on treatment in the metastatic stage. These reviews covered the periods 2002 to February 2012 (for radiotherapy) and 2006 to August 2011 (for all other topics). RESULTS: The criteria for borderline resectable pancreatic tumors are the same as those of the guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Preoperative biliary drainage with a stent is recommended only if cholangitis is present or if a planned operation cannot be performed soon after the diagnosis is made. When a pancreatic carcinoma is resected, at least 10 regional lymph nodes should be excised, and the ratio of affected to excised nodes should be documented in the pathology report. Gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil are recommended for adjuvant therapy. Neither of these drugs is preferred over the other; if the one initially given is poorly tolerated, the other one should be given instead. When gemcitabine and erlotinib are given for palliative treatment, erlotinib should be given for no longer than 8 weeks if no skin rash develops. In selected patients, the folfirinox protocol yields markedly better results than gemcitabin. Moreover, the new combination of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine can be used as first-line treatment. In the event of disease progression under first-line treatment, second-line treatment should be initiated. CONCLUSION: In recent years, new chemotherapeutic protocols have brought about marked improvement in palliative care. Further trials are needed to determine whether the perioperative or adjuvant use of these protocols might also improve the outcome of surgical treatment with curative intent.

14 Guideline Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Hartwig, Werner / Vollmer, Charles M / Fingerhut, Abe / Yeo, Charles J / Neoptolemos, John P / Adham, Mustapha / Andrén-Sandberg, Ake / Asbun, Horacio J / Bassi, Claudio / Bockhorn, Max / Charnley, Richard / Conlon, Kevin C / Dervenis, Christos / Fernandez-Cruz, Laureano / Friess, Helmut / Gouma, Dirk J / Imrie, Clem W / Lillemoe, Keith D / Milićević, Miroslav N / Montorsi, Marco / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Vashist, Yogesh K / Izbicki, Jakob R / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous1001108. ·Department of Surgery, Klinikum Großhadern, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Penn Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy, France. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of General-, Visceral- and Thoracic-Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: markus.buechler@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Surgery · Pubmed #24856668.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Complete macroscopic tumor resection is one of the most relevant predictors of long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Because locally advanced pancreatic tumors can involve adjacent organs, "extended" pancreatectomy that includes the resection of additional organs may be needed to achieve this goal. Our aim was to develop a common consistent terminology to be used in centers reporting results of pancreatic resections for cancer. METHODS: An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature on extended pancreatectomies and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and the role of extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Macroscopic (R1) and microscopic (R0) complete tumor resection can be achieved in patients with locally advanced disease by extended pancreatectomy. Operative time, blood loss, need for blood transfusions, duration of stay in the intensive care unit, and hospital morbidity, and possibly also perioperative mortality are increased with extended resections. Long-term survival is similar compared with standard resections but appears to be better compared with bypass surgery or nonsurgical palliative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. It was not possible to identify any clear prognostic criteria based on the specific additional organ resected. CONCLUSION: Despite increased perioperative morbidity, extended pancreatectomy is warranted in locally advanced disease to achieve long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma if macroscopic clearance can be achieved. Definitions of extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced disease (and not distant metastatic disease) are established that are crucial for comparison of results of future trials across different practices and countries, in particular for those using neoadjuvant therapy.

15 Guideline Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Bockhorn, Maximilian / Uzunoglu, Faik G / Adham, Mustapha / Imrie, Clem / Milicevic, Miroslav / Sandberg, Aken A / Asbun, Horacio J / Bassi, Claudio / Büchler, Markus / Charnley, Richard M / Conlon, Kevin / Cruz, Laureano Fernandez / Dervenis, Christos / Fingerhutt, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Gouma, Dirk J / Hartwig, Werner / Lillemoe, Keith D / Montorsi, Marco / Neoptolemos, John P / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Takaori, Kyoichi / Traverso, William / Vashist, Yogesh K / Vollmer, Charles / Yeo, Charles J / Izbicki, Jakob R / Anonymous991108. ·Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · First Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy, France. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. · St. Luke's Clinic - Center For Pancreatic and Liver Diseases, Boise, ID. · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Penn Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: izbicki@uke.de. ·Surgery · Pubmed #24856119.

ABSTRACT: 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.

16 Guideline European experts consensus statement on cystic tumours of the pancreas. 2013

Del Chiaro, Marco / Verbeke, Caroline / Salvia, Roberto / Klöppel, Gunter / Werner, Jens / McKay, Colin / Friess, Helmut / Manfredi, Riccardo / Van Cutsem, Eric / Löhr, Matthias / Segersvärd, Ralf / Anonymous3160750. ·Division of Surgery, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: marco.del-chiaro@karolinska.se. ·Dig Liver Dis · Pubmed #23415799.

ABSTRACT: Cystic lesions of the pancreas are increasingly recognized. While some lesions show benign behaviour (serous cystic neoplasm), others have an unequivocal malignant potential (mucinous cystic neoplasm, branch- and main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and solid pseudo-papillary neoplasm). European expert pancreatologists provide updated recommendations: diagnostic computerized tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging are indicated in all patients with cystic lesion of the pancreas. Endoscopic ultrasound with cyst fluid analysis may be used but there is no evidence to suggest this as a routine diagnostic method. The role of pancreatoscopy remains to be established. Resection should be considered in all symptomatic lesions, in mucinous cystic neoplasm, main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and solid pseudo-papillary neoplasm as well as in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with mural nodules, dilated main pancreatic duct >6mm and possibly if rapidly increasing in size. An oncological partial resection should be performed in main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and in lesions with a suspicion of malignancy, otherwise organ preserving procedures may be considered. Frozen section of the transection margin in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm is suggested. Follow up after resection is recommended for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, solid pseudo-papillary neoplasm and invasive cancer.

17 Guideline [New S3 guidelines on exocrine pancreatic cancer]. 2012

Tannapfel, A / Anonymous6230737. ·Institut für Pathologie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum am BG-Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Deutsches Mesotheliomregister, Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789 Bochum. Andrea.Tannapfel@rub.de ·Pathologe · Pubmed #23011018.

ABSTRACT: In order to guarantee a unified application of the R classification, the S3 guidelines were amended. With the introduction of the so-called CRM concept the special situation of ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas head can be taken into account. In contrast to the R classification, in the CRM concept lymph node metastases, lymph vessel and perineural sheath infiltration are taken into consideration. The distance of the tumor from the resection margins is particularly documented. Because of the prognostic significance of tumor-free lymph nodes, in future the lymph node ratio should be given. This is defined as the relationship of lymph node metastases to the total number of lymph nodes removed/examined.

18 Guideline Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: ESMO-ESDO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. 2012

Seufferlein, T / Bachet, J B / Van Cutsem, E / Rougier, P / Anonymous1891075. ·Department of Internal Medicine I, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #22997452.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

19 Guideline International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. 2012

Tanaka, Masao / Fernández-del Castillo, Carlos / Adsay, Volkan / Chari, Suresh / Falconi, Massimo / Jang, Jin-Young / Kimura, Wataru / Levy, Philippe / Pitman, Martha Bishop / Schmidt, C Max / Shimizu, Michio / Wolfgang, Christopher L / Yamaguchi, Koji / Yamao, Kenji / Anonymous6680728. ·Department of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan. masaotan@med.kyushu-u.ac.jp ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #22687371.

ABSTRACT: The international consensus guidelines for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas established in 2006 have increased awareness and improved the management of these entities. During the subsequent 5 years, a considerable amount of information has been added to the literature. Based on a consensus symposium held during the 14th meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology in Fukuoka, Japan, in 2010, the working group has generated new guidelines. Since the levels of evidence for all items addressed in these guidelines are low, being 4 or 5, we still have to designate them "consensus", rather than "evidence-based", guidelines. To simplify the entire guidelines, we have adopted a statement format that differs from the 2006 guidelines, although the headings are similar to the previous guidelines, i.e., classification, investigation, indications for and methods of resection and other treatments, histological aspects, and methods of follow-up. The present guidelines include recent information and recommendations based on our current understanding, and highlight issues that remain controversial and areas where further research is required.

20 Guideline New strategies and designs in pancreatic cancer research: consensus guidelines report from a European expert panel. 2012

Van Laethem, J-L / Verslype, C / Iovanna, J L / Michl, P / Conroy, T / Louvet, C / Hammel, P / Mitry, E / Ducreux, M / Maraculla, T / Uhl, W / Van Tienhoven, G / Bachet, J B / Maréchal, R / Hendlisz, A / Bali, M / Demetter, P / Ulrich, F / Aust, D / Luttges, J / Peeters, M / Mauer, M / Roth, A / Neoptolemos, J P / Lutz, M / Anonymous1151075. ·Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. jl.vanlaethem@erasme.ulb.ac.be ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #21810728.

ABSTRACT: Although the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a huge challenge, it is entering a new era with the development of new strategies and trial designs. Because there is an increasing number of novel therapeutic agents and potential combinations available to test in patients with PDAC, the identification of robust prognostic and predictive markers and of new targets and relevant pathways is a top priority as well as the design of adequate trials incorporating molecular-driven hypothesis. We presently report a consensus strategy for research in pancreatic cancer that was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from different European institutions and collaborative groups involved in pancreatic cancer. The expert panel embraces the concept of exploratory early proof of concept studies, based on the prediction of response to novel agents and combinations, and randomised phase II studies permitting the selection of the best therapeutic approach to go forward into phase III, where the recommended primary end point remains overall survival. Trials should contain as many translational components as possible, relying on standardised tissue and blood processing and robust biobanking, and including dynamic imaging. Attention should not only be paid to the pancreatic cancer cells but also to microenvironmental factors and stem/stellate cells.

21 Guideline Familial pancreatic cancer in Italy. Risk assessment, screening programs and clinical approach: a position paper from the Italian Registry. 2010

Del Chiaro, Marco / Zerbi, Alessandro / Capurso, Gabriele / Zamboni, Giuseppe / Maisonneuve, Patrick / Presciuttini, Silvano / Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio / Calculli, Lucia / Falconi, Massimo / Anonymous7420665. ·Division of General and Transplant Surgery, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Cisanello, Pisa, Italy. m.delchiaro@ao-pisa.toscana.it ·Dig Liver Dis · Pubmed #20627831.

ABSTRACT: In Italy, pancreatic cancer is the fifth leading cause of tumor related death with about 7000 new cases per year and a mortality rate of 95%. In a recent prospective epidemiological study on the Italian population, a family history was found in about 10% of patients suffering from a ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (PDAC). A position paper from the Italian Registry for Familial Pancreatic Cancer was made to manage these high-risk individuals. Even though in the majority of high-risk individuals a genetic test to identify familial predisposition is not available, a screening protocol seems to be reasonable for subjects who have a >10-fold greater risk for the development of PDAC. However this kind of screening should be included in clinical trials, performed in centers with high expertise in pancreatic disease, using the least aggressive diagnostic modalities.

22 Editorial A commentary on "Postoperative outcomes in elderly patients undergoing pancreatic resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis" [Int. J. Surg. 2019, 72:59-68]. 2020

Altoukhi, Khaled H / Morris, David L. ·Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: David.morris@unsw.edu.au. ·Int J Surg · Pubmed #31759117.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

23 Editorial Does Pancreatic Cyst Stability Justify Stopping Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm Surveillance? 2020

Farrell, James J. ·Yale Center for Pancreatic Disease, Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: james.j.farrell@yale.edu. ·Gastroenterology · Pubmed #31738923.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

24 Editorial A commentary on the article: "Intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma versus pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis", Int J Surg 2019;71:91-99. 2019

Karimian, Faramarz. ·Tehran University of Medical Science, Iran. Electronic address: faramarz.karimian@gmail.com. ·Int J Surg · Pubmed #31605757.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

25 Editorial Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms: Attack of the Clones. 2019

Jacob, Harrys K C / Banerjee, Sulagna. ·Department of Surgery and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. · Department of Surgery and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Electronic address: sulagna.banerjee@med.miami.edu. ·Gastroenterology · Pubmed #31400367.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

Next