Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Horacio J. Asbun
Based on 26 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, H. J. Asbun wrote the following 26 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Guideline Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2017

Tempero, Margaret A / Malafa, Mokenge P / Al-Hawary, Mahmoud / Asbun, Horacio / Bain, Andrew / Behrman, Stephen W / Benson, Al B / Binder, Ellen / Cardin, Dana B / Cha, Charles / Chiorean, E Gabriela / Chung, Vincent / Czito, Brian / Dillhoff, Mary / Dotan, Efrat / Ferrone, Cristina R / Hardacre, Jeffrey / Hawkins, William G / Herman, Joseph / Ko, Andrew H / Komanduri, Srinadh / Koong, Albert / LoConte, Noelle / Lowy, Andrew M / Moravek, Cassadie / Nakakura, Eric K / O'Reilly, Eileen M / Obando, Jorge / Reddy, Sushanth / Scaife, Courtney / Thayer, Sarah / Weekes, Colin D / Wolff, Robert A / Wolpin, Brian M / Burns, Jennifer / Darlow, Susan. · ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #28784865.

ABSTRACT: Ductal adenocarcinoma and its variants account for most pancreatic malignancies. High-quality multiphase imaging can help to preoperatively distinguish between patients eligible for resection with curative intent and those with unresectable disease. Systemic therapy is used in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant pancreatic cancer setting, as well as in the management of locally advanced unresectable and metastatic disease. Clinical trials are critical for making progress in treatment of pancreatic cancer. The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma focus on diagnosis and treatment with systemic therapy, radiation therapy, and surgical resection.

2 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 / Anonymous3050801. ·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.

3 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 / Anonymous1520795. ·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.

4 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 / Anonymous1510795. ·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.

5 Review Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer. 2019

Broucek, Joseph R / Sanford, Dominic / Stauffer, John A / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Avenue South, D5203 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232, USA; Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Davis 3N, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. Electronic address: joebroucek@gmail.com. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Davis 3N, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA; Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, 1 Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Davis 3N, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Davis 3N, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA; Miami Cancer Institute, 8900 North Kendall Drive, Miami, FL 33176, USA; Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Sciences, 200 First Street South West, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. ·Surg Oncol Clin N Am · Pubmed #30851827.

ABSTRACT: In pancreatic cancer, resection combined with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy remains the only chance for cure and/or prolonged survival. A minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer has gained increased acceptance and popularity. The aim of minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas includes limiting trauma, decreasing length of hospitalization, lessening cost, decreasing blood loss, and allowing for a more meticulous oncologic dissection. New advances and routine use in practice have helped progress the field making the minimally invasive approach more feasible. In this article, the minimally invasive surgical approaches to proximal, central, and distal pancreatic cancer are described and literature reviewed.

6 Review Rare Tumors and Lesions of the Pancreas. 2018

Stauffer, John A / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. · Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. Electronic address: asbun.horacio@mayo.edu. ·Surg Clin North Am · Pubmed #29191273.

ABSTRACT: There are a few entities that account for most solid and cystic masses of the pancreas. The pancreas harbors a wide array of diseases, including adenocarcinoma, and its variants, such as anaplastic and adenosquamous carcinoma. Other neoplasms include acinar cell carcinoma, solid pseudopapillary tumor, and sarcomas. Benign lesions include hamartomas, hemangiomas, lymphangioma, and plasmacytoma. Isolated metastases include renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and other carcinomas. Benign inflammatory conditions, such as autoimmune pancreatitis and groove pancreatitis can also mimic solid neoplasms of the pancreas.

7 Review Definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: A consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery. 2017

Besselink, Marc G / van Rijssen, L Bengt / Bassi, Claudio / Dervenis, Christos / Montorsi, Marco / Adham, Mustapha / Asbun, Horacio J / Bockhorn, Maximillian / Strobel, Oliver / Büchler, Markus W / Busch, Olivier R / Charnley, Richard M / Conlon, Kevin C / Fernández-Cruz, Laureano / Fingerhut, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Izbicki, Jakob R / Lillemoe, Keith D / Neoptolemos, John P / Sarr, Michael G / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Sitarz, Robert / Vollmer, Charles M / Yeo, Charles J / Hartwig, Werner / Wolfgang, Christopher L / Gouma, Dirk J / Anonymous2270883. ·Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.g.besselink@amc.nl. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital and University, Milan, Italy. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, HCL, UCBL1, Lyon, France. · Department of 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. · 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 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. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Division of Subspecialty General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. · Department of GI and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University in Lublin, Poland. · 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. · Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University, University of Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD. ·Surgery · Pubmed #27692778.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests that chyle leak may complicate up to 10% of pancreatic resections. Treatment depends on its severity, which may include chylous ascites. No international consensus definition or grading system of chyle leak currently is available. METHODS: The International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, an international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers, reviewed the literature and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation. RESULTS: Chyle leak was defined as output of milky-colored fluid from a drain, drain site, or wound on or after postoperative day 3, with a triglyceride content ≥110 mg/dL (≥1.2 mmol/L). Three different grades of severity were defined according to the management needed: grade A, no specific intervention other than oral dietary restrictions; grade B, prolongation of hospital stay, nasoenteral nutrition with dietary restriction, total parenteral nutrition, octreotide, maintenance of surgical drains, or placement of new percutaneous drains; and grade C, need for other more invasive in-hospital treatment, intensive care unit admission, or mortality. CONCLUSION: This classification and grading system for chyle leak after pancreatic resection allows for comparison of outcomes between series. As with the other the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery consensus statements, this classification should facilitate communication and evaluation of different approaches to the prevention and treatment of this complication.

8 Review Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. 2015

Stauffer, John A / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Mayo College of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Mayo College of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. Electronic address: Asbun.horacio@mayo.edu. ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #25726057.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic resection is a complex procedure that involves exposure of the retroperitoneal gland, dissection around major vascular structures, and management of an intricate organ, all of which results in a procedure associated with a high morbidity. The application of minimally invasive techniques to pancreatic resection have been studied only relatively recently. This analysis of the current concepts in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery focuses on a select look at currently published series or reviews from centers and groups that have the most experience with this procedure. We aim to present a comprehensive review gained from the experiences of those who are on the leading edge of the learning curve, with an emphasis on describing the similarities and differences between the minimally invasive and open pancreatic procedure. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy appears to be on the verge of widespread acceptance and shows clear benefits over its open counterpart. Minimally invasive proximal (right-sided) pancreatectomy, on the other hand, appears to be limited to select centers that have been able to demonstrate promising results despite its challenges. Additionally, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and enucleation appear feasible as experience is gained in laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic resection.

9 Review Minimally invasive surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer: ready for prime time? 2013

Mesleh, Marc G / Stauffer, John A / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Division of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. ·J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci · Pubmed #23591745.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer are being applied with increasing frequency. With support of the literature, the location of the tumor within the pancreas is the factor which determines if these techniques can be safely used routinely by pancreatic surgeons. METHODS: Literature supporting minimally invasive techniques for all types of resections for pancreatic cancer was reviewed. RESULTS: Multiple meta-analysis regarding laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy all support the routine use of laparoscopy for these lesions. There are several case series describing the safety and efficacious use of laparoscopy in pancreaticoduodenectomy, and results have been promising in these highly specialized centers. CONCLUSIONS: The location of the tumor within the pancreas remains the most critical factor in the use of laparoscopy as the standard of care. Lesions in the body and tail, which are readily resected with a distal or subtotal pancreatectomy should be performed laparoscopically unless there is a clear reason why not to do so. Lesions in the head of the pancreas have been shown to be removed safely and effectively with laparoscopy. However, the technical skills necessary and the ability to teach these to trainees are the limiting factors to widespread use. Further series are necessary to assess if the laparoscopic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy will play a similar role as the one it plays in the surgical treatment for distal lesions.

10 Review Current status of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. 2012

Rosales-Velderrain, A / Stauffer, J A / Bowers, S P / Asbun, H J. ·Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32225, USA. ·Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol · Pubmed #22971634.

ABSTRACT: Distal pancreatectomy is the therapeutic option of choice for patients with a benign or malignant lesion located in the body and/or tail of the pancreas when surgical intervention is indicated. With recent advances in and wide spread use of imaging studies, lesions of the pancreas are being diagnosed more commonly and it is likely that this will translate into an increased number of patients undergoing surgical resection. The laparoscopic approach to pancreatic resections has not been adopted as rapidly as it has for most other general surgical procedures. This is despite the fact that the current literature appears to validate laparoscopy as an acceptable and safe approach for distal pancreatectomy in patients with benign lesions, and has demonstrated the known benefits inherent to the laparoscopic technique. These benefits include lower intraoperative blood loss, less pain and analgesic requirements, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter recovery and hospital stay. Yet controversy still exists for the role of laparoscopy in the resection of malignant lesions. Recent reports however, have shown that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy can safely be performed in known malignancies and, most importantly, after a laparoscopic oncological resection, the oncological benchmarks that have been related to survival, (such as negative surgical margins and number of peripancreatic lymph nodes resected), can also be accomplished. We sought to review the current literature on distal pancreatectomy, specifically the indications, laparoscopic approaches, splenectomy and spleen-preserving techniques, intraoperative and short-term outcomes, morbidity, mortality and oncological outcomes.

11 Article Minimally invasive preservation versus splenectomy during distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2018

Nakata, Kohei / Shikata, Satoru / Ohtsuka, Takao / Ukai, Tomohiko / Miyasaka, Yoshihiro / Mori, Yasuhisa / Velasquez, Vittoria Vanessa D M / Gotoh, Yoshitaka / Ban, Daisuke / Nakamura, Yoshiharu / Nagakawa, Yuichi / Tanabe, Minoru / Sahara, Yatsuka / Takaori, Kyoichi / Honda, Goro / Misawa, Takeyuki / Kawai, Manabu / Yamaue, Hiroki / Morikawa, Takanori / Kuroki, Tamotsu / Mou, Yiping / Lee, Woo-Jung / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Tang, Chung Ngai / Conrad, Claudius / Han, Ho-Seong / Chinnusamy, Palanivelu / Asbun, Horacio J / Kooby, David A / Wakabayashi, Go / Takada, Tadahiro / Yamamoto, Masakazu / Nakamura, Masafumi. ·Department of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. · Mie Prefectural Ichishi Hospital, Tsu-Shi, Mie, Japan. · Department of Community Medicine, Mie University School of Medicine, Tsu, Mie, Japan. · Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan. · Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. · Department of Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Surgery, Tokyo Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. · Second Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan. · Department of Surgery, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. · Department of Surgery, National Hospital Nagasaki Medical Center, Nagasaki, Japan. · Department of Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Zhejiang, China. · Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. · Department of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong, China. · Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, Korea. · Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Minimal Access Surgery, GEM Hospital and Research Centre, Coimbatore, India. · Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. · Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. · Department of Surgery, Ageo Central General Hospital, Ageo, Japan. · Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan. ·J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci · Pubmed #29943909.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has gained in popularity recently. However, there is no consensus on whether to preserve the spleen or not. In this study, we compared MIDP outcomes between spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS); as well as outcomes between splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw's technique (WT). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library was conducted and the reference lists of review articles were hand-searched. RESULTS: Fifteen relevant studies with 769 patients were selected for meta-analyses of DPS and SPDP, while another 15 studies with 841 patients were used for the analysis between SVP and WT. Compared with the DPS group, SPDP patients had significantly lower incidences of infectious complications (P = 0.006) and pancreatic fistula (P = 0.002), shorter operative time (P < 0.001), and less blood loss (P = 0.01). Compared with WT, SVP patients had significantly lower incidences of splenic infarction (P < 0.001) and secondary splenectomy (P = 0.003). Subanalysis for laparoscopic surgery alone had similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, SPDP has significantly superior outcomes compared to DPS. When a spleen is preserved, SVP has better outcomes over WT for reducing splenic complications.

12 Article Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. 2017

Stauffer, John A / Coppola, Alessandro / Villacreses, Diego / Mody, Kabir / Johnson, Elizabeth / Li, Zhuo / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. stauffer.john@mayo.edu. · Department of Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. · Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. · Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. · Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. ·Surg Endosc · Pubmed #27604369.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy remains as the only treatment that offers a chance for cure in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the head of the pancreas. In recent years, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been introduced as a feasible alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) when performed by experienced surgeons. This study reviews and compares perioperative results and long-term survival of patients undergoing LPD versus OPD at a single institution over a 20-year time period. METHODS: From 1995 to 2014, 612 patients underwent PD and 251 patients were found to have PDAC. These latter patients were reviewed and divided into two groups: OPD (n = 193) and LPD (n = 58). LPD was introduced in November 2008 and performed simultaneous to OPD within the remaining time period. Ninety-day perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Patient demographics were well matched. Operative time was significantly longer with LPD, but blood loss and transfusion rate were lower. Postoperative complications, intensive care unit stay, and overall hospital stay was similar. OPD was associated with larger tumor size; LPD was associated with greater lymph node harvest and lower lymph node ratio. LPD was performed by hand-assist method in 3 (5.2 %) patients and converted to open in 14 (24.1 %). Neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 17 (8.8 %) patients for OPD and 4 (6.9 %) for LPD. The estimated median survival was 20.3 months for OPD and 18.5 months for LPD. Long-term survival was similar for 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year survival for OPD (68, 40, 24, 17 and 15 %) and for LPD (67, 43, 43, 38 and 32 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: LPD provides similar short-term outcomes and long-term survival to OPD in the treatment of PDAC.

13 Article Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. 2016

Stauffer, John A / Coppola, Alessandro / Mody, Kabir / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. · Department of Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. · Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. · Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road South, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. asbun.horacio@mayo.edu. ·World J Surg · Pubmed #26847665.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Its application for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. METHODS: From 1995 to 2014, 72 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for PDAC at a single institution and were included in the study. Postoperative and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing LDP (n = 44) or ODP (n = 28) were compared. RESULTS: LDP was associated with less blood loss (332 vs. 874 mL, p = 0.0012) and lower transfusion rates than ODP (18.2 vs. 50 %, p = 0.0495). Operative time was similar (254 vs. 266 min) for LDP and ODP; five patients (11.4 %) required conversion to ODP. Pancreatic fistulas (13.6 vs. 7.1 %) and major complications (13.6 vs. 25 %), were similar between LDP and ODP, respectively. Length of hospital stay (5.1 vs. 9.4 days, p = 0.0001) and time to initiate adjuvant therapy (69.4 vs. 95.6 days, p = 0.0441) was shorter for LDP than ODP. Tumor characteristics were similar but LDP was associated with more resected lymph nodes than ODP (25.9 vs. 12.7, p = 0.0001). One-, three-, and five-year survival rates were similar between LDP (69, 41, and 41 %, respectively) and ODP (78, 44, and 32 %, respectively). CONCLUSION: LDP is associated with less blood loss and need for blood transfusion, shorter hospital stay, and faster time to initiate adjuvant therapy than ODP for patients with PDAC. Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival are similar between the two groups. LDP appears to be safe in the treatment of patients with PDAC.

14 Article Risk-adjusted Outcomes of Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Model for Performance Evaluation. 2016

McMillan, Matthew T / Soi, Sameer / Asbun, Horacio J / Ball, Chad G / Bassi, Claudio / Beane, Joal D / Behrman, Stephen W / Berger, Adam C / Bloomston, Mark / Callery, Mark P / Christein, John D / Dixon, Elijah / Drebin, Jeffrey A / Castillo, Carlos Fernandez-Del / Fisher, William E / Fong, Zhi Ven / House, Michael G / Hughes, Steven J / Kent, Tara S / Kunstman, John W / Malleo, Giuseppe / Miller, Benjamin C / Salem, Ronald R / Soares, Kevin / Valero, Vicente / Wolfgang, Christopher L / Vollmer, Charles M. ·*Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania†Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida‡Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada§Department of Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy¶Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana||Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee**Department of Surgery, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania††Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio‡‡Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts§§Department of Surgery, University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama¶¶Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts||||Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas***Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida†††Department of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut‡‡‡Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #26727086.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgical performance in pancreatoduodenectomy using clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) occurrence as a quality indicator. BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of surgeon and institutional performance requires (1) standardized definitions for the outcome of interest and (2) a comprehensive risk-adjustment process to control for differences in patient risk. METHODS: This multinational, retrospective study of 4301 pancreatoduodenectomies involved 55 surgeons at 15 institutions. Risk for CR-POPF was assessed using the previously validated Fistula Risk Score, and pancreatic fistulas were stratified by International Study Group criteria. CR-POPF variability was evaluated and hierarchical regression analysis assessed individual surgeon and institutional performance. RESULTS: There was considerable variability in both CR-POPF risk and occurrence. Factors increasing the risk for CR-POPF development included increasing Fistula Risk Score (odds ratio 1.49 per point, P < 0.00001) and octreotide (odds ratio 3.30, P < 0.00001). When adjusting for risk, performance outliers were identified at the surgeon and institutional levels. Of the top 10 surgeons (≥15 cases) for nonrisk-adjusted performance, only 6 remained in this high-performing category following risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of pancreatic fistulas following pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrates considerable variability in both the risk and occurrence of CR-POPF among surgeons and institutions. Disparities in patient risk between providers reinforce the need for comprehensive, risk-adjusted modeling when assessing performance based on procedure-specific complications. Furthermore, beyond inherent patient risk factors, surgical decision-making influences fistula outcomes.

15 Article Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology, Carcinoembryonic Antigen, and Amylase in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm. 2016

Moris, Maria / Raimondo, Massimo / Woodward, Timothy A / Skinner, Verna / Arcidiacono, Paolo G / Petrone, Maria C / De Angelis, Claudio / Manfrè, Selene / Fusaroli, Pietro / Asbun, Horacio / Stauffer, John / Wallace, Michael B. ·From the *Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; †Programa de Doctorat en Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; ‡San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy; §Azienda Universitario-Ospedaliera San Giovanni Battista, Torino, Italy; ∥University of Bologna/Hospital of Imola, Imola, Italy; and ¶Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #26646270.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of cytology, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and amylase levels in the preoperative diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). METHODS: An international registry was started in 2005 and included patients with clinically suspected IPMNs. Those who underwent surgery and had preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration were selected for the study. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients were included. Cytological analysis for neoplastic cells in IPMNs showed high specificity (87.8%) but low sensitivity (39.4%). The median CEA level was 525.5 ng/mL (n = 78) in IPMNs versus 9.7 ng/mL in nonmucinous cysts (n = 6), showing an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.87. The optimal cutoff CEA value for distinguishing IPMN from nonmucinous cysts was 129 ng/mL. At this level, the sensitivity was 76.9%, and specificity was 83.3%, yielding a positive predictive value of 95.9% and a negative predictive value of 41.9%. Carcinoembryonic antigen was a poor predictor of neoplasia in IPMNs (AUC = 0.55). Amylase did not distinguish IPMNs from mucinous cystadenomas (MCAs) (median, 3759 U/L [n = 28 IPMNs] and 497 U/L [n = 3 MCAs], AUC = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Cytology has a limited role because of its lack of sensitivity. Carcinoembryonic antigen modestly differentiated between mucinous and nonmucinous lesions. Amylase did not distinguish IPMNs versus MCAs.

16 Article Pancreatic Resection for Side-Branch Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (SB-IPMN): a Contemporary Single-Institution Experience. 2015

Dortch, John D / Stauffer, John A / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. ·J Gastrointest Surg · Pubmed #26055134.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Given the malignant potential of main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (M-IPMN), surgical resection is generally indicated. With regard to side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (SB-IPMN), resection vs. observation is a topic of debate. Further review of SB-IPMN is necessary to clarify appropriate management. The primary focus of this project is to determine the incidence of malignant final pathology for patients undergoing surgery for isolated SB-IPMN with non-malignant fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. We also sought to describe the relationship between factors considered in the international consensus guidelines and final pathologic outcome. METHODS: The study is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgical resection for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) from 2002 to 2013 at our institution. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of isolated SB-IPMN and FNA results for non-malignant cytology were selected among this surgical cohort for further analysis of preoperative clinical characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients undergoing resection for IPMN were identified. Of these, 81 patients (59%) had a component of M-IPMN or invasive disease on FNA, leaving 66 (46%) patients with SB-IPMN and non-malignant cytology. Invasive adenocarcinoma was found in 8/66 (12%) patients and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in 4/66 (8%) patients. The mean [SD] diameter of benign SB-IPMN was 2.0 cm [1.1] (range 0.3-5.7) vs. that of HGD/invasive disease which was 3.1 cm [1.3] (range 1.5-6.0; P = 0.014). Of the 12 patients found to have HGD or invasive disease, symptoms, mural nodules, and septations were found in 7 (58%), 5 (42%), and 6 (50%), respectively. Tumor staging were as follows: IA (2), IB (2), 2A (4), and 2B (1). CONCLUSION: With proper selection criteria, SB-IPMN is associated with a low rate of invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at the time of resection. Nevertheless, given the demonstrated incidence of malignancy, appropriate operative candidates should undergo resection.

17 Article When to perform a pancreatoduodenectomy in the absence of positive histology? A consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. 2014

Asbun, Horacio J / Conlon, Kevin / Fernandez-Cruz, Laureano / Friess, Helmut / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Adham, Mustapha / Bassi, Claudio / Bockhorn, Maximilian / Büchler, Markus / Charnley, Richard M / Dervenis, Christos / Fingerhutt, Abe / Gouma, Dirk J / Hartwig, Werner / Imrie, Clem / Izbicki, Jakob R / Lillemoe, Keith D / Milicevic, Miroslav / Montorsi, Marco / Neoptolemos, John P / Sandberg, Aken A / Sarr, Michael / Vollmer, Charles / Yeo, Charles J / Traverso, L William / Anonymous680789. ·Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. Electronic address: Asbun.Horacio@mayo.edu. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · 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 Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · 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 General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy, France. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Acacdemic Unit of Surgery, Univesity 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 Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of Gastroenterologic and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. · 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. · St. Luke's Clinic - Center For Pancreatic and Liver Diseases, Boise, ID. ·Surgery · Pubmed #24661765.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) provides the best chance for cure in the treatment of patients with localized pancreatic head cancer. In patients with a suspected, clinically resectable pancreatic head malignancy, the need for histologic confirmation before proceeding with PD has not historically been required, but remains controversial. METHODS: An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature and worked together to establish a consensus on when to perform a PD in the absence of positive histology. RESULTS: The incidence of benign disease after PD for a presumed malignancy is 5-13%. Diagnosis by endoscopic cholangiopancreatography brushings and percutaneous fine-needle aspiration are highly specific, but poorly sensitive. Aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has greater sensitivity, but it is highly operator dependent and increases expense. The incidence of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) in the benign resected specimens is 30-43%. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy, serum levels of immunoglobulin G4, and HISORt (Histology, Imaging, Serology, Other organ involvement, and Response to therapy) are used for diagnosis. If AIP is suspected but not confirmed, the response to a short course of steroids is helpful for diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In the presence of a solid mass suspicious for malignancy, consensus was reached that biopsy proof is not required before proceeding with resection. Confirmation of malignancy, however, is mandatory for patients with borderline resectable disease to be treated with neoadjuvant therapy before exploration for resection. When a diagnosis of AIP is highly suspected, a biopsy is recommended, and a short course of steroid treatment should be considered if the biopsy does not reveal features suspicious for malignancy.

18 Article ZIP4 is a novel diagnostic and prognostic marker in human pancreatic cancer: a systemic comparison between EUS-FNA and surgical specimens. 2014

Xu, C / Wallace, M B / Yang, J / Jiang, L / Zhai, Q / Zhang, Y / Hong, C / Chen, Y / Frank, T S / Stauffer, J A / Asbun, H J / Raimondo, M / Woodward, T A / Li, Z / Guha, S / Zheng, L / Li, M. ·Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, MSE R131, Houston, TX 77030, USA. min.li@uth.tmc.edu. ·Curr Mol Med · Pubmed #24345208.

ABSTRACT: Aberrant expression of a zinc transporter ZIP4 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been shown to contribute to tumor progression and is a potential target for individualized therapy. The overall objective of this study was to determine whether ZIP4 could serve as a novel diagnostic and prognostic marker in human PDAC, and if it can be assessed by minimally invasive sampling using endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Immunohistochemistry was performed to compare ZIP4 expression in the PDAC samples obtained from EUS-FNA and matched surgical tumors (parallel control). Samples were reported by sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 23 cases with both FNA and surgical specimens were evaluated. We found that ZIP4 was significantly overexpressed in tumor cells from both sets of samples. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ZIP4 for the diagnosis of PDAC were 72.9%, 72.5%, 76.1%, and 69.0% in EUS-FNA samples, and were 97.9%, 65.4%, 83.9%, and 94.4% in surgical specimens, respectively. The association between the positive rate of ZIP4 expression in FNA and surgical samples is statistically significant (P=0.0216). Both the intensity and percentage of ZIP4 positive cells from the surgical samples correlated significantly with tumor stage (P=0.0025 and P=0.0002). ZIP4 intensity level in FNA samples was significantly associated with tumor differentiation and patient survival. These results indicate that EUS-FNA is capable of non-operative detection of ZIP4, thus offering the potential to direct pre-operative detection and targeted therapy of PDAC.

19 Article Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. 2013

Mesleh, Marc G / Stauffer, John A / Bowers, Steven P / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA, mgmesleh@gmail.com. ·Surg Endosc · Pubmed #23943116.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The laparoscopic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy has been recently more frequently reported and is now being performed at multiple centers across the US. While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has been shown to be safe and feasible, comparing its cost in relation to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) has not been examined. The aim of this study is to examine the cost of LPD compared with OPD at a single institution over a 3-year time period. METHODS: An institutional database was analyzed to compare patients who underwent OPD and LPD (including Whipple resections and total pancreatectomy) between May 2009 and June 2012. A cost analysis was performed, which included the use the hospital billing database to assess surgical costs, hospital admission costs, and overall cost of the patient's care during the index admission. The operative costs were further analyzed with respect to OR time and surgical supplies. Standard statistical analysis was performed to assess for significance. RESULTS: In the study time period, 123 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, including 48 OPD (39%) and 75 LPD (61%). The groups were similar with respect to age, gender, ASA, vein resection, and indication for surgery. In the LPD group, the use of hand assist or conversion to OPD occurred in 3 (4%) and 10 (13%) patients, respectively. Additionally, 10% of the OPD group underwent total pancreatectomy (n = 5), compared to 21% of the LPD (n = 16). Mean operative time for OPD and LPD was 355 min (range 199-681) and 551 min (range 390-819) respectively (p < 0.0001). Median hospital stay for OPD and LPD was 8 days (range 5-63), and 7 days (range 4-68) respectively (p = 0.5). Morbidity rates were equal at 31% for the two groups. The LPD group was associated with significantly higher surgical cost due to both increased time and supply cost. However, mean hospital admission cost associated with OPD was greater in comparison to the LPD group, though not significant. The overall total cost of care was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LPD is associated with equivalent overall cost compared with OPD. While operating time and supply costs were higher for LPD, this was balanced by decreased cost of the postoperative admission.

20 Article Risk of gastric or peritoneal recurrence, and long-term outcomes, following pancreatic cancer resection with preoperative endosonographically guided fine needle aspiration. 2013

Ngamruengphong, S / Xu, C / Woodward, T A / Raimondo, M / Stauffer, J A / Asbun, H J / Wallace, M B. ·Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. ·Endoscopy · Pubmed #23881804.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: There have been concerns regarding tumor cell seeding along the needle track or within the peritoneum caused by preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether preoperative EUS-FNA is associated with increased risk of stomach/peritoneal recurrence and whether the procedure affects long term survival. METHODS: The records of patients diagnosed with malignant solid and cystic pancreatic neoplasms who underwent surgery with curative intent between 1996 and 2012 were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients with similar baseline characteristics were included: 48 patients in the non-EUS-FNA group and 208 in the EUS-FNA group. Recurrence data were available for 207 patients. Median length of follow-up was 23 months (range 0 - 111 months). A total of 19 patients had gastric or peritoneal recurrence; 6 (15.4 %) in the non-EUS-FNA group vs. 13 (7.7 %) in the EUS-FNA group (P = 0.21). Three patients had recurrence in the stomach wall: one (2.6 %) patient in the non-EUS-FNA group vs. two patients (1.2 %) in EUS-FNA group (P = 0.46). A total of 16 patients had peritoneal recurrence: 5 patients (12.8 %) in the non-EUS-FNA group and 11 patients (6.5 %) in the EUS-FNA group (P = 0.19). In a multivariate analysis, undergoing EUS-FNA was not associated with increased cancer recurrence or decreased overall survival. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative EUS-FNA was not associated with an increased rate of gastric or peritoneal cancer recurrence in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Two patients had gastric wall recurrence following the procedure, but this may be explained by direct tumor extension. This suggests that EUS-FNA is not associated with an increased risk of needle track seeding.

21 Article Proton therapy with concomitant capecitabine for pancreatic and ampullary cancers is associated with a low incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity. 2013

Nichols, R Charles / George, Thomas J / Zaiden, Robert A / Awad, Ziad T / Asbun, Horacio J / Huh, Soon / Ho, Meng Wei / Mendenhall, Nancy P / Morris, Christopher G / Hoppe, Bradford S. ·University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida 32206, USA. rnichols@floridaproton.org ·Acta Oncol · Pubmed #23477361.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To review treatment toxicity for patients with pancreatic and ampullary cancer treated with proton therapy at our institution. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2009 through April 2012, 22 patients were treated with proton therapy and concomitant capecitabine (1000 mg PO twice daily) for resected (n = 5); marginally resectable (n = 5); and unresectable/inoperable (n = 12) biopsy-proven pancreatic and ampullary adenocarcinoma. Two patients with unresectable disease were excluded from the analysis for reasons unrelated to treatment. Proton doses ranged from 50.40 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) to 59.40 CGE. RESULTS: Median follow-up for all patients was 11 (range 5-36) months. No patient demonstrated any grade 3 toxicity during treatment or during the follow-up period. Grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities occurred in three patients, consisting of vomiting (n = 3); and diarrhea (n = 2). Median weight loss during treatment was 1.3 kg (1.75% of body weight). Chemotherapy was well-tolerated with a median 99% of the prescribed doses delivered. Percentage weight loss was reduced (p = 0.0390) and grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was eliminated (p = 0.0009) in patients treated with plans that avoided anterior and left lateral fields which were associated with reduced small bowel and gastric exposure. DISCUSSION: Proton therapy may allow for significant sparing of the small bowel and stomach and is associated with a low rate of gastrointestinal toxicity. Although long-term follow-up will be needed to assess efficacy, we believe that the favorable toxicity profile associated with proton therapy may allow for radiotherapy dose escalation, chemotherapy intensification, and possibly increased acceptance of preoperative radiotherapy for patients with resectable or marginally resectable disease.

22 Article Comparison of open with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's transition over a 7-year period. 2013

Stauffer, John A / Rosales-Velderrain, Armando / Goldberg, Ross F / Bowers, Steven P / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. stauffer.john@mayo.edu ·HPB (Oxford) · Pubmed #23297726.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Many studies have shown laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to have benefits over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). This institution made a unique abrupt transition from an exclusively open approach to a preference for the laparoscopic technique. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing LDP and ODP, respectively, over the period of transition. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing LDP (n = 82) or ODP (n = 90) was performed. Surrogate oncologic markers for the subgroup of patients with malignant disease were also studied. RESULTS: The ODP and LDP groups were well matched with regard to demographics, comorbidities and tumour characteristics. Significant differences were noted in favour of the LDP group in which decreases were seen in estimated blood loss (<0.001), need for packed red blood cell transfusions (<0.001), length of hospital stay (<0.001) and intensive care unit stay (<0.001). No other significant differences in the occurrence of complications or oncologic outcomes were seen. Rates of Grade B and C fistulae were 10% and 6% in the ODP and LDP groups, respectively. Grade III-V complications occurred in 20% and 13% of the ODP and LDP groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy continues to compare favourably with ODP when well-matched patient series are reviewed. The results show a decreased need for blood transfusions and hospital resources in LDP. Additionally, there may be oncologic advantages associated with LDP compared with ODP in pancreatic malignancies.

23 Article National trends in resection of the distal pancreas. 2012

Rosales-Velderrain, Armando / Bowers, Steven P / Goldberg, Ross F / Clarke, Tatyan M / Buchanan, Mauricia A / Stauffer, John A / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32225, United States. ·World J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #22969197.

ABSTRACT: AIM: To investigate national trends in distal pancreatectomy (DP) through query of three national patient care databases. METHODS: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS, 2003-2009), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP, 2005-2010), and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER, 2003-2009) databases using appropriate diagnostic and procedural codes we identified all patients with a diagnosis of a benign or malignant lesion of the body and/or tail of the pancreas that had undergone a partial or distal pancreatectomy. Utilization of laparoscopy was defined in NIS by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision correspondent procedure code; and in NSQIP by the exploratory laparoscopy or unlisted procedure current procedural terminology codes. In SEER, patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition diagnosis codes and the SEER Program Code Manual, third edition procedure codes. We analyzed the databases with respect to trends of inpatient outcome metrics, oncologic outcomes, and hospital volumes in patients with lesions of the neck and body of the pancreas that underwent operative resection. RESULTS: NIS, NSQIP and SEER identified 4242, 2681 and 11,082 DP resections, respectively. Overall, laparoscopy was utilized in 15% (NIS) and 27% (NSQIP). No significant increase was seen over the course of the study. Resection was performed for malignancy in 59% (NIS) and 66% (NSQIP). Neither patient Body mass index nor comorbidities were associated with operative approach (P = 0.95 and P = 0.96, respectively). Mortality (3% vs 2%, P = 0.05) and reoperation (4% vs 4%, P = 1.0) was not different between laparoscopy and open groups. Overall complications (10% vs 15%, P < 0.001), hospital costs [44,741 dollars, interquartile range (IQR) 28 347-74 114 dollars vs 49 792 dollars, IQR 13 299-73 463, P = 0.02] and hospital length of stay (7 d, IQR 4-11 d vs 7 d, IQR 6-10, P < 0.001) were less when laparoscopy was utilized. One and two year survival after resection for malignancy were unchanged over the course of the study (ductal adenocarinoma 1-year 63.6% and 2-year 35.1%, P = 0.53; intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and nueroendocrine 1-year 90% and 2-year 84%, P = 0.25). The majority of resections were performed in teaching hospitals (77% NIS and 85% NSQIP), but minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was not more likely to be used in teaching hospitals (15% vs 14%, P = 0.26). Hospitals in the top decile for volume were more likely to be teaching hospitals than lower volume deciles (88% vs 43%, P < 0.001), but were no more likely to utilize MIS at resection. Complication rate in teaching and the top decile hospitals was not significantly decreased when compared to non-teaching (15% vs 14%, P = 0.72) and lower volume hospitals (14% vs 15%, P = 0.99). No difference was seen in the median number of lymph nodes and lymph node ratio in N1 disease when compared by year (P = 0.17 and P = 0.96, respectively). CONCLUSION: There appears to be an overall underutilization of laparoscopy for DP. Centralization does not appear to be occurring. Survival and lymph node harvest have not changed.

24 Article What extent of pancreatic resection do patients with MEN-1 require? 2012

Adkisson, Cameron D / Stauffer, John A / Bowers, Steven P / Raimondo, Massimo / Wallace, Michael B / Riegert-Johnson, Douglas L / Asbun, Horacio J. ·Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. ·JOP · Pubmed #22797396.

ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: The surgical management of pancreatic endocrine tumors in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1) is controversial and complicated by the fact that these tumors are frequently multifocal. The degree of tumor resection is determined by weighing the risk of malignancy or tumor recurrence against the risks of endocrine/exocrine insufficiency with complete gland removal. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed identifying 4 patients with MEN-1 and pancreatic endocrine tumors treated with pancreatic resection over a 2-year period at our institution. RESULTS: Mean age at operation was 35 years. Surgical approach was determined by size of tumor(s) and presence of multifocality. MRI and EUS were performed in all patients. While EUS identified a greater number of tumors when compared to MRI (median 5 versus 1), both studies grossly underestimated the total number of tumors found on final pathology. Three patients underwent laparoscopic total pancreatectomy for multifocal disease with diffuse pancreatic involvement, finding a median of 12 tumors. One patient underwent laparoscopic subtotal pancreatectomy for a presumed single pancreatic tail mass, but was found to have multifocal disease on final pathology consisting of 7 tumors. The average number of tumors found on final pathology was 13.5 with an average size of 2.6 cm. The median number of lymph nodes analyzed was 14. Diffuse, multifocal disease was present in all 4 patients. No major postoperative complications were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with MEN-1 and pancreatic endocrine tumors, preoperative workup underestimates extent of disease and total pancreatectomy should be considered for complete tumor removal.

25 Article Carcino Embryonic Antigen and long-term follow-up of mucinous pancreatic cysts including intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. 2012

Othman, Mohamed O / Patel, Mihir / Dabizzi, Emanuele / Asbun, Horacio J / Stauffer, John / Wallace, Michael B / Woodward, Timothy A / Raimondo, Massimo. ·Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States. ·Dig Liver Dis · Pubmed #22789399.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The utility of Carcino Embryonic Antigen (CEA) in differentiating malignant from benign pancreatic cysts is controversial. We sought to examine the role of CEA in differentiating benign from malignant cysts and its utility in progression of cyst size in follow-up. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent Endoscopic Ultrasound with Fine Needle Aspiration for mucinous cysts between 1998 and 2010. CEA was measured in benign and malignant mucinous cysts. Coefficient of determination (R(2)) was used to measure the association between change in cyst size and CEA. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the median values of CEA. RESULTS: 143 patients (38.4% males) were included (mean age 68.9 ± 0.8 years). 105 patients had intra-cystic CEA measured. 63 patients underwent surgery while 80 patients were in the follow-up group. In the surgical group, median CEA value for benign and malignant mucinous neoplasms was 796 and 438 ng/ml, respectively (p=0.79). The median follow-up was 21 months. There was no correlation between CEA level and progression in cyst size in patients who had >6 months of follow-up, R(2)=0.0002. Malignant transformation was observed in 5 (5.9%) patients. CONCLUSION: CEA level was not predictive of malignant cyst nor cyst size progression over follow-up.

Next