Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Dr. C Bassi
Based on 153 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, C. Bassi wrote the following 153 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7
1 Guideline Pathologic Evaluation and Reporting of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas and Other Tumoral Intraepithelial Neoplasms of Pancreatobiliary Tract: Recommendations of Verona Consensus Meeting. 2016

Adsay, Volkan / Mino-Kenudson, Mari / Furukawa, Toru / Basturk, Olca / Zamboni, Giuseppe / Marchegiani, Giovanni / Bassi, Claudio / Salvia, Roberto / Malleo, Giuseppe / Paiella, Salvatore / Wolfgang, Christopher L / Matthaei, Hanno / Offerhaus, G Johan / Adham, Mustapha / Bruno, Marco J / Reid, Michelle D / Krasinskas, Alyssa / Klöppel, Günter / Ohike, Nobuyuki / Tajiri, Takuma / Jang, Kee-Taek / Roa, Juan Carlos / Allen, Peter / Fernández-del Castillo, Carlos / Jang, Jin-Young / Klimstra, David S / Hruban, Ralph H / Anonymous6200823. ·*Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine and Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA †Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA ‡Department of Pathology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan §Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY ¶Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy ||Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA **Department of Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy ††Department of Surgery, Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD ‡‡Departments of Surgery, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany §§Departments of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands ¶¶Department of Surgery, Edouard Herriot Hospital, HCL, Lyon, France ||||Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands ***Departments of Pathology, Technical University, Munich, Germany †††Department of Pathology, Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, Yokohama, Japan ‡‡‡Department of Pathology, Tokai University Hachioji Hospital, Tokyo, Japan §§§Department of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea ¶¶¶Department of Pathology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile ||||||Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY ****Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA ††††Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea ‡‡‡‡Department of Pathology, Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #25775066.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There are no established guidelines for pathologic diagnosis/reporting of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). DESIGN: An international multidisciplinary group, brought together by the Verona Pancreas Group in Italy-2013, was tasked to devise recommendations. RESULTS: (1) Crucial to rule out invasive carcinoma with extensive (if not complete) sampling. (2) Invasive component is to be documented in a full synoptic report including its size, type, grade, and stage. (3) The term "minimally invasive" should be avoided; instead, invasion size with stage and substaging of T1 (1a, b, c; ≤ 0.5, > 0.5-≤ 1, > 1 cm) is to be documented. (4) Largest diameter of the invasion, not the distance from the nearest duct, is to be used. (5) A category of "indeterminate/(suspicious) for invasion" is acceptable for rare cases. (6) The term "malignant" IPMN should be avoided. (7) The highest grade of dysplasia in the non-invasive component is to be documented separately. (8) Lesion size is to be correlated with imaging findings in cysts with rupture. (9) The main duct diameter and, if possible, its involvement are to be documented; however, it is not required to provide main versus branch duct classification in the resected tumor. (10) Subtyping as gastric/intestinal/pancreatobiliary/oncocytic/mixed is of value. (11) Frozen section is to be performed highly selectively, with appreciation of its shortcomings. (12) These principles also apply to other similar tumoral intraepithelial neoplasms (mucinous cystic neoplasms, intra-ampullary, and intra-biliary/cholecystic). CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will ensure proper communication of salient tumor characteristics to the management teams, accurate comparison of data between analyses, and development of more effective management algorithms.

2 Guideline Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials). 2014

Bonnetain, Franck / Bonsing, Bert / Conroy, Thierry / Dousseau, Adelaide / Glimelius, Bengt / Haustermans, Karin / Lacaine, François / Van Laethem, Jean Luc / Aparicio, Thomas / Aust, Daniela / Bassi, Claudio / Berger, Virginie / Chamorey, Emmanuel / Chibaudel, Benoist / Dahan, Laeticia / De Gramont, Aimery / Delpero, Jean Robert / Dervenis, Christos / Ducreux, Michel / Gal, Jocelyn / Gerber, Erich / Ghaneh, Paula / Hammel, Pascal / Hendlisz, Alain / Jooste, Valérie / Labianca, Roberto / Latouche, Aurelien / Lutz, Manfred / Macarulla, Teresa / Malka, David / Mauer, Muriel / Mitry, Emmanuel / Neoptolemos, John / Pessaux, Patrick / Sauvanet, Alain / Tabernero, Josep / Taieb, Julien / van Tienhoven, Geertjan / Gourgou-Bourgade, Sophie / Bellera, Carine / Mathoulin-Pélissier, Simone / Collette, Laurence. ·Methodology and Quality of Life Unit in Cancer, EA 3181, University Hospital of Besançon and CTD-INCa Gercor, UNICNCER GERICO, Besançon, France. Electronic address: franck.bonnetain@univ-fcomte.fr. · Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France. · Bordeaux Segalen University & CHRU, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium. · Digestive Surgical Department, Tenon hospital, Paris, France. · Gastro Intestinal Cancer Unit Erasme Hospital Brussels, Belgium. · Gastroenterology Department, Avicenne Hospital, Paris 13, Bobigny, France. · Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav-Carus, Dresden, Germany. · Surgical and Gastroenterological Department, Endocrine and Pancreatic Unit, Hospital of 'G.B.Rossi', University of Verona, Italy. · Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest - Centre Paul Papin Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer (CLCC), Angers, France. · Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Oncology Department, Hôpital Saint-Antoine & CTD-INCa GERCOR, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, UPMC Paris VI, Paris, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Hopital la Timone, Assitance publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Gastroenterology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Biostatistician, Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Institut fuer Radioonkologie, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Royal Liverpool Hospital, United Kingdom. · Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Digestive Oncology and Gastro-enterology Department, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. · Digestive Cancer Registry, INSERM U866, Dijon, France. · Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Bergamo, Bergame, Italy. · Inserm, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Biostatistics Team, Villejuif, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Caritas Hospital, Saarbrücken, Germany. · Department of the Gastrointestinal Tumors and Phase I Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. · Statistics Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Hôpital René Huguenin, Saint-Cloud, France. · Division of Surgery and Oncology at the University of Liverpool and Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Universitu Hospital Strasbourg, France. · Department of Hepato-pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Department of Hepato-gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Georges Pompidou European hospital, Paris, France. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Institut Du Cancer de Montpellier, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, and Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Montpellier, France. · Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit, Institut Bergonie, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France; Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique - Épidémiologie Clinique CIC-EC 7, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #25256896.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 Guideline International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. 2013

Canto, Marcia Irene / Harinck, Femme / Hruban, Ralph H / Offerhaus, George Johan / Poley, Jan-Werner / Kamel, Ihab / Nio, Yung / Schulick, Richard S / Bassi, Claudio / Kluijt, Irma / Levy, Michael J / Chak, Amitabh / Fockens, Paul / Goggins, Michael / Bruno, Marco / Anonymous4730741. ·Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University, The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, 1830 E Monument Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. mcanto@jhmi.edu ·Gut · Pubmed #23135763.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Screening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia. OBJECTIVE: To develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC. METHODS: A 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥ 75% agreed or disagreed. RESULTS: There was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; and p16, BRCA2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥ 1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screening abnormalities were of sufficient concern to for surgery to be recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Screening is recommended for high-risk individuals, but more evidence is needed, particularly for how to manage patients with detected lesions. Screening and subsequent management should take place at high-volume centres with multidisciplinary teams, preferably within research protocols.

7 Editorial Percutaneous ablation of pancreatic cancer. 2016

D'Onofrio, Mirko / Ciaravino, Valentina / De Robertis, Riccardo / Barbi, Emilio / Salvia, Roberto / Girelli, Roberto / Paiella, Salvatore / Gasparini, Camilla / Cardobi, Nicolò / Bassi, Claudio. ·Mirko D'Onofrio, Valentina Ciaravino, Riccardo De Robertis, Camilla Gasparini, Nicolò Cardobi, Department of Radiology, G.B. Rossi Hospital, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. ·World J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #27956791.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a highly aggressive tumor with an overall 5-year survival rate of less than 5%. Prognosis and treatment depend on whether the tumor is resectable or not, which mostly depends on how quickly the diagnosis is made. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy can be both used in cases of non-resectable pancreatic cancer. In cases of pancreatic neoplasm that is locally advanced, non-resectable, but non-metastatic, it is possible to apply percutaneous treatments that are able to induce tumor cytoreduction. The aim of this article will be to describe the multiple currently available treatment techniques (radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, cryoablation, and irreversible electroporation), their results, and their possible complications, with the aid of a literature review.

8 Editorial Surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and the tertiary referral centers entitled to perform it : A proposal for esophageal, hepatic, pancreatic and colo-rectal surgery. 2016

Bassi, Claudio. ·Surgical and Oncological Department, The Pancreas Institute, Verona University Hospital Trust, Hospital GB Rossi, Piazza Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. claudio.bassi@univr.it. ·Updates Surg · Pubmed #27272757.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

9 Editorial Prognostication and response assessment in liver and pancreatic tumors: The new imaging. 2015

De Robertis, Riccardo / Tinazzi Martini, Paolo / Demozzi, Emanuele / Puntel, Gino / Ortolani, Silvia / Cingarlini, Sara / Ruzzenente, Andrea / Guglielmi, Alfredo / Tortora, Giampaolo / Bassi, Claudio / Pederzoli, Paolo / D'Onofrio, Mirko. ·Riccardo De Robertis, Emanuele Demozzi, Gino Puntel, Mirko D'Onofrio, Department of Radiology, Verona Comprehensive Cancer Network, G.B. Rossi Hospital, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. ·World J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #26078555.

ABSTRACT: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and perfusion computed tomography (CT) are technical improvements of morphologic imaging that can evaluate functional properties of hepato-bilio-pancreatic tumors during conventional MRI or CT examinations. Nevertheless, the term "functional imaging" is commonly used to describe molecular imaging techniques, as positron emission tomography (PET) CT/MRI, which still represent the most widely used methods for the evaluation of functional properties of solid neoplasms; unlike PET or single photon emission computed tomography, functional imaging techniques applied to conventional MRI/CT examinations do not require the administration of radiolabeled drugs or specific equipments. Moreover, DWI and DCE-MRI can be performed during the same session, thus providing a comprehensive "one-step" morphological and functional evaluation of hepato-bilio-pancreatic tumors. Literature data reveal that functional imaging techniques could be proposed for the evaluation of these tumors before treatment, given that they may improve staging and predict prognosis or clinical outcome. Microscopic changes within neoplastic tissues induced by treatments can be detected and quantified with functional imaging, therefore these techniques could be used also for post-treatment assessment, even at an early stage. The aim of this editorial is to describe possible applications of new functional imaging techniques apart from molecular imaging to hepatic and pancreatic tumors through a review of up-to-date literature data, with a particular emphasis on pathological correlations, prognostic stratification and post-treatment monitoring.

10 Editorial Radiofrequency ablation of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an overview. 2010

D'Onofrio, Mirko / Barbi, Emilio / Girelli, Roberto / Martone, Enrico / Gallotti, Anna / Salvia, Roberto / Martini, Paolo-Tinazzi / Bassi, Claudio / Pederzoli, Paolo / Pozzi Mucelli, Roberto. ·Department of Radiology, University Hospital G.B. Rossi, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, Verona 37134, Italy. mirko.donofrio@univr.it ·World J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #20653055.

ABSTRACT: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of pancreatic neoplasms is restricted to locally advanced, non-resectable but non-metastatic tumors. RFA of pancreatic tumors is nowadays an ultrasound-guided procedure performed during laparotomy in open surgery. Intraoperative ultrasound covers the mandatory role of staging, evaluation of feasibility, guidance and monitoring of the procedure. Different types of needle can be used. The first aim in the evaluation of RFA as a treatment for locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, in order of evaluation but not of importance, is to determine the feasibility of the procedure. The second aim is to establish the effect of RFA on tumoral mass in terms of necrosis and cytoreduction. The most important aim, third in order of evaluation, is the potential improvement of quality of life and survival rate. Nowadays, only a few studies assess the feasibility of the procedure. The present paper is an overview of RFA for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

11 Editorial [Pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer]. 2008

Bassi, C. · ·J Chir (Paris) · Pubmed #18438275.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

12 Review None 2019

Salvia, Roberto / Casciani, Fabio / Sereni, Elisabetta / Bassi, Claudio. ·University of Verona Hospital Trust, The Pancreas Institute, Unit of General and Pancreatic Surgery, Verona, Italy. · University of Verona Hospital Trust, The Pancreas Institute, Unit of General and Pancreatic Surgery, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: fabio.casciani01@gmail.com. ·Presse Med · Pubmed #30878338.

ABSTRACT: This chapter focuses on the most recent advantages in the medical treatment of localized pancreatic cancer.

13 Review Pancreatic Cancer in the Era of Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Narrative Overview. 2018

Casciani, Fabio / Marchegiani, Giovanni / Malleo, Giuseppe / Bassi, Claudio / Salvia, Roberto. · ·Chirurgia (Bucur) · Pubmed #29981662.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an aggressive systemic disease with around 30% of patient presenting locally advanced disease at diagnosis and being not candidate to surgical resection. Pioneering experiences with neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) were undertaken more than 25 years ago and this strategy kept on gaining consensus over time. In recent years two main breakthroughs have been done: first, clear definitions of resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced unresectable disease were released, and, soon after, two different chemotherapy regimens (namely, FOLFIRINOX and Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel) were introduced in the clinical practice for LAPC after their effectiveness in metastatic patients was demonstrated. This article reviews papers regarding the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with or without radiation therapy, published from 2011 through 2017 with particular significance been given to reported results in term of resection rates, complete resection (R0) rates and Overall Survival, and briefly summarizes recommendations provided by the most recent guidelines for the treatment of non-metastatic pancreatic cancer.

14 Review Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer in familial high-risk individuals: A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis of screening results. 2018

Paiella, Salvatore / Salvia, Roberto / De Pastena, Matteo / Pollini, Tommaso / Casetti, Luca / Landoni, Luca / Esposito, Alessandro / Marchegiani, Giovanni / Malleo, Giuseppe / De Marchi, Giulia / Scarpa, Aldo / D'Onofrio, Mirko / De Robertis, Riccardo / Pan, Teresa Lucia / Maggino, Laura / Andrianello, Stefano / Secchettin, Erica / Bonamini, Deborah / Melisi, Davide / Tuveri, Massimiliano / Bassi, Claudio. ·General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: salvatore.paiella@univr.it. · General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Gastroenterology B Unit, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy; ARC-NET Research Center, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Radiology, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Radiology, Casa di Cura Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Italy. · Oncology Unit, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #29709409.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer (PC) in familial high-risk individuals (FPC-HRI) have been widely reported, but their merits remain unclear. The data reported so far are heterogeneous-especially in terms of screening yield. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available data coming from screening/surveillance programs to evaluate the proportion of screening goal achievement (SGA), overall surgery and unnecessary surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library database from January 2000 to December 2016to identify studies reporting results of screening/surveillance programs including cohorts of FPC-HRI. The main outcome measures were weighted proportion of SGA, overall surgery, and unnecessary surgery among the FPC-HRI cohort, using a random effects model. SGA was defined as any diagnosis of resectable PC, PanIN3, or high-grade dysplasia intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (HGD-IPMN). Unnecessary surgery was defined as any other final pathology. RESULTS: In a meta-analysis of 16 studies reporting on 1551 FPC-HRI cases, 30 subjects (1.82%), received a diagnosis of PC, PanIN3 or HGD-IPMNs. The pooled proportion of SGA was 1.4%(95% CI 0.8-2, p < 0.001, I CONCLUSIONS: The weighted proportion of SGA of screening/surveillance programs published thus far is excellent. However, the probability of receiving surgery during the screening/surveillance program is non-negligible, and unnecessary surgery is a potential negative outcome.

15 Review Systematic review, meta-analysis, and a high-volume center experience supporting the new role of mural nodules proposed by the updated 2017 international guidelines on IPMN of the pancreas. 2018

Marchegiani, Giovanni / Andrianello, Stefano / Borin, Alex / Dal Borgo, Chiara / Perri, Giampaolo / Pollini, Tommaso / Romanò, Giorgia / D'Onofrio, Mirko / Gabbrielli, Armando / Scarpa, Aldo / Malleo, Giuseppe / Bassi, Claudio / Salvia, Roberto. ·General and Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · Radiology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · Pathology, ARCNet Research Center, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · General and Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: roberto.salvia@univr.it. ·Surgery · Pubmed #29454468.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Mural nodules (MNs) have a predominant role in the 2016 revision of the international guidelines on intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreas. The aim of this study was to evaluate MNs as predictors of invasive cancer (iCa) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in IPMNs and to investigate the role of MN size in risk prediction. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on selected studies were conducted. The random effect model was adopted, and the pooled SMD (standardized mean difference) obtained. The surgical series of IPMNs at a single high-volume institution was reviewed. RESULTS: This review included 70 studies and 2297 resected IPMNs. MNs have a positive predictive value for malignancy of 62.2%. The meta-analysis suggested that MN size has a considerable effect on predicting IPMNs with both iCa or HGD with a mean SMD of 0.79. All studies included in the meta-analysis used contrast-enhanced endosonography (CE-EUS) to assess MNs. Due to the heterogeneity of the proposed thresholds, no reliable MN size cut-off was identified. Of 317 IPMNs resected at our institution, 102 (32.1%) had a preoperative diagnosis of MN. Multivariate analysis showed that MN is the only independent predictor of iCa and HGD for all types of IPMNs. CONCLUSION: MNs are reliable predictors of iCa and HGD in IPMNs as proposed by the 2016 IAP guidelines. CE-EUS seems to be the best tool for characterizing size and has the best accuracy for predicting malignancy. Further studies should determine potential MN dimensional cut-offs.

16 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.

17 Review Role of local ablative techniques (Radiofrequency ablation and Irreversible Electroporation) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. 2016

Paiella, Salvatore / Salvia, Roberto / Girelli, Roberto / Frigerio, Isabella / Giardino, Alessandro / D'Onofrio, Mirko / De Marchi, Giulia / Bassi, Claudio. ·General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. · Pancreatic Surgical Unit, Casa di Cura Pederzoli, Peschiera Del Garda, Verona, Italy. · Radiology Department, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · Gastroenterology B Department, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. Claudio.bassi@univr.it. ·Updates Surg · Pubmed #27535401.

ABSTRACT: Thanks to continuous research and investment in technology, the ablation of tumors has become common. Through the application of different types of energy is possible to induce cellular injury of the neoplastic tissue, leading to cellular death. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and irreversible electroporation (IRE) represent the most applied ablative techniques on pancreatic cancer. RFA and IRE, causing necrosis and apoptosis of neoplastic cells, are able to destroy neoplastic tissue, to drastically modify the neoplastic microenvironment and, possibly, to stimulate both directly and indirectly the anti-tumor immune system. This article provides part of our experience with the application of RFA and IRE on pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

18 Review Pancreatic surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and the tertiary referral centers entitled to perform it. 2016

Bassi, Claudio / Balzano, Giampaolo / Zerbi, Alessandro / Ramera, Marco. ·Unit of General and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Pancreas Institute, P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. Claudio.Bassi@univr.it. · Pancreas Unit, Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy. · Section of Pancreatic Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milano, Rozzano, Italy. · Unit of General and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Pancreas Institute, P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. ·Updates Surg · Pubmed #27272682.

ABSTRACT: Indicators of effectiveness and quality of care are urgently needed to improve the surgical outcomes. This is particularly felt in the field of complex surgical fields, such as the HPB one. International and national studies have documented an association between the large number of pancreatic surgical procedures and the outcome quality. The aim of this paper is to suggest reliable structural requirements and surgical volume to support pancreatic surgical accreditation, preserving patient's safety. Moreover, an accreditation program is outlined.

19 Review The prognostic impact of para-aortic lymph node metastasis in pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016

Paiella, S / Sandini, M / Gianotti, L / Butturini, G / Salvia, R / Bassi, C. ·Unit of General Surgery B, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: salvatore.paiella@ospedaleuniverona.it. · Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Milano Bicocca University, Monza, Italy. · Unit of General Surgery B, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. ·Eur J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #26916137.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To evaluate by a meta-analytic approach the long-term prognostic impact of para-aortic lymph node (PALN) involvement in resected ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1990 to June 2015. Trials reporting Kaplan-Meier curves and comparing overall long-term survival of negative and metastatic PALN in patients who underwent resection for pancreatic cancer were included. Lymph nodes were classified according to the Japan Pancreatic Society rules and identified using hematoxylin and eosin staining. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%CI were estimated for each trial and pooled in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible studies including 2141 patients (364 positive PALN; 1777 negative PALN) were identified. Most of the studies were retrospective. Heterogeneity among trials was high (I(2) = 98.7%; p < .001). PALN metastasis was associated with increased mortality when compared with patients with negative PALN regardless regional nodal status [HR 1.85, 95%CI 1.48-2.31; p < .001]. Median survival was significantly decreased in patients with positive PALN (WMD = -4.92 months 95%CI -6.40; -3.43; p < .001). Moreover, metastatic PALN affected mortality also when regional lymph nodes were positive [HR 1.67, 95%CI 1.34-2.08; p < .001]. No publication bias was detected. CONCLUSIONS: PALN metastasis appears to correlate with poor prognosis in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The assessment of PALN status may be considered for a more accurate staging of the disease and appropriated subgroup survival reporting. However, the definitive avoidance of the resection in case of intraoperative metastatic PALN needs further investigation.

20 Review International Association of Pancreatology (IAP)/European Pancreatic Club (EPC) consensus review of guidelines for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. 2016

Takaori, Kyoichi / Bassi, Claudio / Biankin, Andrew / Brunner, Thomas B / Cataldo, Ivana / Campbell, Fiona / Cunningham, David / Falconi, Massimo / Frampton, Adam E / Furuse, Junji / Giovannini, Marc / Jackson, Richard / Nakamura, Akira / Nealon, William / Neoptolemos, John P / Real, Francisco X / Scarpa, Aldo / Sclafani, Francesco / Windsor, John A / Yamaguchi, Koji / Wolfgang, Christopher / Johnson, Colin D / Anonymous480853. ·Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. Electronic address: takaori@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Freiburg, Germany. · Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Pathology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, United Kingdom. · Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Università Vita e Salute, Milano, Italy. · HPB Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom. · Department of Medical Oncology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. · Endoscopic Unit, Paoli-Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France. · NIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan. · Division of General Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America. · Epithelial Carcinogenesis Group, CNIO-Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain. · Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, HBP/Upper GI Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. · Department of Advanced Treatment of Pancreatic Disease, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan. · Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. · University Surgical Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #26699808.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is one of the most devastating diseases with an extremely high mortality. Medical organizations and scientific societies have published a number of guidelines to address active treatment of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this consensus review was to identify where there is agreement or disagreement among the existing guidelines and to help define the gaps for future studies. METHODS: A panel of expert pancreatologists gathered at the 46th European Pancreatic Club Meeting combined with the 18th International Association of Pancreatology Meeting and collaborated on critical reviews of eight English language guidelines for the clinical management of pancreatic cancer. Clinical questions (CQs) of interest were proposed by specialists in each of nine areas. The recommendations for the CQs in existing guidelines, as well as the evidence on which these were based, were reviewed and compared. The evidence was graded as sufficient, mediocre or poor/absent. RESULTS: Only 4 of the 36 CQs, had sufficient evidence for agreement. There was also agreement in five additional CQs despite the lack of sufficient evidence. In 22 CQs, there was disagreement regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. There were five CQs that were not addressed adequately by existing guidelines. CONCLUSION: The existing guidelines provide both evidence- and consensus-based recommendations. There is also considerable disagreement about the recommendations in part due to the lack of high level evidence. Improving the clinical management of patients with pancreatic cancer, will require continuing efforts to undertake research that will provide sufficient evidence to allow agreement.

21 Review Uncommon presentations of common pancreatic neoplasms: a pictorial essay. 2015

D'Onofrio, Mirko / De Robertis, Riccardo / Capelli, Paola / Tinazzi Martini, Paolo / Crosara, Stefano / Gobbo, Stefano / Butturini, Giovanni / Salvia, Roberto / Barbi, Emilio / Girelli, Roberto / Bassi, Claudio / Pederzoli, Paolo. ·Department of Radiology, G.B. Rossi Hospital, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy, mirko.donofrio@univr.it. ·Abdom Imaging · Pubmed #25772002.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic neoplasms are a wide group of solid and cystic lesions with different and often characteristic imaging features, clinical presentations, and management. Among solid tumors, ductal adenocarcinoma is the most common: it arises from exocrine pancreas, comprises about 90% of all pancreatic neoplasms, and generally has a bad prognosis; its therapeutic management must be multidisciplinary, involving surgeons, oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, and radiotherapists. The second most common solid pancreatic neoplasms are neuroendocrine tumors: they can be divided into functioning or non-functioning and present different degrees of malignancy. Cystic pancreatic neoplasms comprise serous neoplasms, which are almost always benign, mucinous cystic neoplasms and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, which can vary from benign to frankly malignant lesions, and solid pseudopapillary tumors. Other pancreatic neoplasms, such as lymphoma, metastases, or pancreatoblastoma, are rarely seen in clinical practice and have different and sometimes controversial managements. Rare clinical presentations and imaging appearance of the most common pancreatic neoplasms, both solid and cystic, are more frequently seen and clinically relevant than rare pancreatic tumors; their pathologic and radiologic appearances must be known to improve their management. The purpose of this paper is to present some rare or uncommon clinical and radiological presentations of common pancreatic neoplasms providing examples of multi-modality imaging approach with pathologic correlations, thus describing the histopathological bases that can explain the peculiar imaging features, in order to avoid relevant misdiagnosis and to improve lesion management.

22 Review Pancreatic hepatoid carcinoma: a review of the literature. 2013

Marchegiani, Giovanni / Gareer, Haytham / Parisi, Alice / Capelli, Paola / Bassi, Claudio / Salvia, Roberto. ·Department of Surgery, Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy. ·Dig Surg · Pubmed #24281319.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Hepatoid carcinomas (HCs) are extrahepatic neoplasms exhibiting features of hepatocellular tumors in terms of morphology and immunohistochemistry. They have been described in several organs, most notably in the stomach and ovary. They can present in pure forms or in association with other morphological aspects, such as endocrine tumors or ductal adenocarcinomas. The aim of this review is to describe aspects of hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with regard to epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for publications addressing hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. We have searched for articles including the following keywords: 'pancreatic hepatoid carcinoma', 'ectopic liver cancer' and 'rare pancreas neoplasm' published to date. As references, we used case reports and review articles. RESULTS: Pancreatic forms of HCs are extremely uncommon: only 22 cases have been reported. CONCLUSIONS: The possibility of an HC of the pancreas should be considered in the differential diagnosis of an uncommon pathological mass of the pancreas. Treatment seems to be related to the association with other neoplasms, tumor extension at the time of diagnosis and the possibility to perform a radical resection. The common embryologic origin of the pancreas and liver, together with peculiar environmental factors, may explain the development of pancreatic HCs.

23 Review Clinical implications of biological markers in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. 2012

Giovinazzo, Francesco / Turri, Giulia / Zanini, Sara / Butturini, Giovanni / Scarpa, Aldo / Bassi, Claudio. ·Laboratory of Translational Surgery, University Laboratories of Medical Research (LURM), G.B. Rossi Hospital, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, Verona 37134, Italy. ·Surg Oncol · Pubmed #22981281.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a malignant neoplasm and is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in US with a 5-year survival rate less than 5%. Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment even though the result is a palliation in the majority of cases and the majority of lesions are lately diagnosed. Progression from normal pancreatic epithelium to metastatic disease is now a well-characterized sequence of events. Research has shown that pancreatic cancer is fundamentally a genetic disease with several biological pathway implied in apoptosis, cell proliferation and self-sufficiency in growth signaling, but how those findings could be applied in daily clinical practice remain unknown. Several studies tried to characterize diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in PDAC to make it possible an earlier diagnosis, guarantee a more effective treatment and reach a better prognosis even though the results remain contrasting. The main limit of the published researches is the small number of patients studied, but even the heterogeneity of the used methods of analysis. Examining critically the research of the last years future trials may be addressed toward a translational models integrating "the bench and the bed" with the clinical experience and drive the basic research toward the clinical applications.

24 Review Neoadjuvant/preoperative gemcitabine for patients with localized pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. 2012

Andriulli, Angelo / Festa, Virginia / Botteri, Edoardo / Valvano, Maria R / Koch, Maurizio / Bassi, Claudio / Maisonneuve, Patrick / Sebastiano, Pierluigi Di. ·Division of Gastroenterology, "Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza" Hospital, IRCCS, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy. ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #22012027.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Long-term prognosis for localized pancreatic cancer remains poor. We sought to assess the benefit of neoadjuvant/preoperative chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. METHODS: Prospective studies where gemcitabine with or without radiotherapy was provided before surgery in patients with initially resectable or unresectable disease were reviewed by meta-analysis. Primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes were tumor response after therapy, toxicity, surgical exploration, and resection rates. RESULTS: Twenty independent studies with 707 participants were included, 366 with resectable lesions and 341 with unresectable lesions. Seven studies were phase I/II trials, 10 phase II, and 3 prospective cohort studies. Estimated 1- and 2-year survival probabilities after resection were 91.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75-100) and 67.2% (95% CI 38-87) for initially resectable patients, and 86.3% (95% CI 78-100) and 54.2% (95% CI 25-100) for initially unresectable patients. The complete/partial response rate was 12% (95% CI 4-23) and 27% (95% CI 18-38) in resectable and unresectable lesions, respectively. The rate of treatment-related grade 3-4 toxicity was 31% (95% CI 21-42). Of resectable patients evaluable after restaging, 91% (95% CI 83-97) underwent surgery, and 82% (95% CI 65-95) of explored patients underwent resection. R0 resections amounted to 89% (95% CI 83-94). Of unresectable patients evaluable after restaging, 39% (95% CI 28-50) underwent surgery, and 68% (95% CI 53-82) of explored patients were resected, with 60% (95% CI 50-71) R0 resections. CONCLUSIONS: Current analysis provides marginal support to the assumed benefits of neoadjuvant therapies for patients with resectable cancer, and indicates a potential advantage only for a minority of those with unresectable lesions.

25 Review Drain management after pancreatic resection: state of the art. 2011

Giovinazzo, Francesco / Butturini, Giovanni / Salvia, Roberto / Mascetta, Giuseppe / Monsellato, Daniela / Marchegiani, Giovanni / Pederzoli, Paolo / Bassi, Claudio. ·Surgical Department, Pancreas Centre, Hospital of 'G.B.Rossi', University of Verona, Piazzale 'L.A. Scuro', 37134, Verona, Italy. · Surgical Department, Pancreas Centre, Hospital of 'G.B.Rossi', University of Verona, Piazzale 'L.A. Scuro', 37134, Verona, Italy. claudio.bassi@univr.it. · Department of Surgery, General Surgery B, P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. claudio.bassi@univr.it. ·J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci · Pubmed #21861143.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Placement of intraperitoneal drain (ID) after abdominal surgery is a common practice. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), incidence of which ranges from 2% to more than 30%, represents the most common major complication after pancreatic resection. The goal of this paper is to review the state of the art in ID management after pancreatic resection. METHODS: Data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) are reported together with data from our institution in the period before and after the start of the two reported RCTs. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred eighty patients underwent surgical resection for pancreatic lesions at our institution from 1990 to 2010. The overall rate of POPF was 23% before and 19.5% after (p = 0.24) the performance of the RCTs. Both postoperative morbidity and average in-hospital stay were higher in the period before the RCTs (13.6 ± 11.4 versus 13.4 ± 10.3 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: POPF is a complex and multifactorial complication after pancreatic surgery. On the basis of the present results and review of the RCTs, the value of ID and its management after pancreatic surgery remain unclear.

Next