Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Marco Montorsi
Based on 18 articles published since 2010
(Why 18 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, M. Montorsi wrote the following 18 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This position statement was developed to expedite a consensus on definition and treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BRPC) that would have worldwide acceptability. METHODS: An international panel of pancreatic surgeons from well-established, high-volume centers collaborated on a literature review and development of consensus on issues related to borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for the definition of BRPC. Current evidence supports operative exploration and resection in the case of involvement of the mesentericoportal venous axis; in addition, a new classification of extrahepatic mesentericoportal venous resections is proposed by the ISGPS. Suspicion of arterial involvement should lead to exploration to confirm the imaging-based findings. Formal arterial resections are not recommended; however, in exceptional circumstances, individual therapeutic approaches may be evaluated under experimental protocols. The ISGPS endorses the recommendations for specimen examination and the definition of an R1 resection (tumor within 1 mm from the margin) used by the British Royal College of Pathologists. Standard preoperative diagnostics for BRPC may include: (1) serum levels of CA19-9, because CA19-9 levels predict survival in large retrospective series; and also (2) the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio because of the prognostic relevance of the systemic inflammatory response. Various regimens of neoadjuvant therapy are recommended only in the setting of prospective trials at high-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Current evidence justifies portomesenteric venous resection in patients with BRPC. Basic definitions were identified, that are currently lacking but that are needed to obtain further evidence and improvement for this important patient subgroup. A consensus for each topic is given.

4 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 / Anonymous1010883. ·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.

5 Clinical Trial Intraoperative ultrasound with contrast medium in resective pancreatic surgery: a pilot study. 2011

Spinelli, Antonino / Del Fabbro, Daniele / Sacchi, Matteo / Zerbi, Alessandro / Torzilli, Guido / Lutman, Fabio R / Laghi, Luigi / Malesci, Alberto / Montorsi, Marco. ·Unità Operativa e Cattedra di Chirurgia Generale, Università degli Studi di Milano, Istituto Clinico Humanitas-IRCCS, Via Alessandro Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. antonino.spinelli@humanitas.it ·World J Surg · Pubmed #21882034.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The introduction of contrast-enhanced ultrasound has been a major innovation in liver and pancreatic imaging. Previous studies have validated its intraoperative use during liver surgery, while there is a lack of data regarding its use during pancreatic surgery. The purpose of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the possible role of contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasound (CEIOUS) during resective pancreatic surgery for primary lesion characterization and intraoperative staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (70% males, mean age 67.9 years) were selected for pancreatic surgery between October 2006 and July 2009. All patients underwent intraoperative ultrasound with intravenous injection of 4.8 mL sulfur-hexafluoride microbubbles. Location of the primary tumor, relation to the main vessels, contrast medium uptake modalities, presence of liver metastases, and multifocal pancreatic involvement were evaluated. The majority of operations were pancreatoduodenectomies (70.6%) performed for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (64.7%). RESULTS: Additional lesions were detected by ultrasound in six patients (17.6%: liver metastases in four patients, a hemangioma in one patient, and a further pancreatic lesion in one patient). In five of these patients (5/34, 14.7%) surgical management was modified by these findings. All these new findings were diagnosed before injection of contrast medium, except for a metastasis from a neuroendocrine tumor; the characterization of the hemangioma was possible only after contrast injection. Intraoperative findings regarding location of primary tumor, relation to the main vessels, and lesion characterization did not differ from those obtained with preoperative imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience intraoperative ultrasound is a valid technique for intraoperative staging prior to pancreatic resection; it is unclear whether, in pancreatic surgery, the addition of contrast enhancement adds any benefit to traditional intraoperative ultrasound.

6 Article Perioperative Interstitial Fluid Expansion Predicts Major Morbidity Following Pancreatic Surgery: Appraisal by Bioimpedance Vector Analysis. 2019

Sandini, Marta / Paiella, Salvatore / Cereda, Marco / Angrisani, Marco / Capretti, Giovanni / Casciani, Fabio / Famularo, Simone / Giani, Alessandro / Roccamatisi, Linda / Viviani, Elena / Caccialanza, Riccardo / Montorsi, Marco / Zerbi, Alessandro / Bassi, Claudio / Gianotti, Luca. ·School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy. · Department of Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. · Unit of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, Policlinico GB Rossi, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · Pancreatic Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. · Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy. · Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #31592889.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether perioperative bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA) predicts the occurrence of surgery-related morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: BIVA is a reliable tool to assess hydration status and compartimentalized fluid distribution. METHODS: The BIVA of patients undergoing resection for pancreatic malignancies was prospectively measured on the day prior to surgery and on postoperative day (POD)1. Postoperative morbidity was scored per the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC), and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). RESULTS: Out of 249 patients, the overall and major complication rates were 61% and 16.5% respectively. The median CCI was 24 (IQR 0.0-24.2), and 24 patients (9.6%) had a complication burden with CCI≥40. At baseline the impedance vectors of severe complicated patients were shorter compared to the vectors of uncomplicated patients only for the female subgroup (P=0.016). The preoperative extracellular water (ECW) was significantly higher in patients who experienced severe morbidity according to the CDC or not [19.4L (17.5-22.0) vs. 18.2L (15.6-20.6), P=0.009, respectively] and CCI≥40, or not [20.3L (18.5-22.7) vs. 18.3L (15.6-20.6), P=0.002, respectively]. The hydration index on POD1 was significantly higher in patients who experienced major complications than in uncomplicated patients (P=0.020 and P=0.025 for CDC and CCI, respectively).At a linear regression model, age (β=0.14, P=0.035), sex female (β=0.40, P<0.001), BMI (β=0.30, P<0.001), and malnutrition (β=0.14, P=0.037) were independent predictors of postoperative ECW. CONCLUSION: The amount of extracellular fluid accumulation predicts major morbidity after pancreatic surgery. Female, obese and malnourished patients were at high risk of extracellular fluid accumulation.

7 Article Evaluation of the MDACC clinical classification system for pancreatic cancer patients in an European multicenter cohort. 2019

Uzunoglu, F G / Welte, M-N / Gavazzi, F / Maggino, L / Perinel, J / Salvia, R / Janot, M / Reeh, M / Perez, D / Montorsi, M / Zerbi, A / Adham, M / Uhl, W / Bassi, C / Izbicki, J R / Malleo, G / Bockhorn, M. ·Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of General Surgery, Humanitas Research Hosptital and University, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Milan, Italy. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Unit of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, G.B. Rossi Hospital, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · Hospices Civils de Lyon & Lyon Sud Faculty of Medicine, UCBL1, E. Herriot Hospital, Department of Digestive Surgery, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, St. Josef-Hospital Bochum, Hospital of the Ruhr- University, Bochum, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: m.bockhorn@uke.de. ·Eur J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #30585172.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The MDACC group recommends to extend the current borderline classification for pancreatic cancer into three groups: type A patients with resectable/borderline tumor anatomy, type B with resectable/borderline resectable tumor anatomy and clinical findings suspicious for extrapancreatic disease and type C with borderline resectable and marginal performance status/severe pre-existing comorbidity profile or age>80. This study intents to evaluate the proposed borderline classification system in a multicenter patient cohort without neoadjuvant treatment. METHODS: Evaluation was based on a multicenter database of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing surgery from 2005 to 2016 (n = 1020). Complications were classified based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. χ RESULTS: Most patients (55.1%) were assigned as type A patients, followed by type C (35.8%) and type B patients (9.1%). Neither the complication rate, nor the mortality rate revealed a correlation to any subgroup. Type B patients had a significant worse progression free (p < 0.001) and overall survival (p = 0.005). Type B classification was identified as an independent prognostic marker for progression free survival (p = 0.005, HR 1.47). CONCLUSION: The evaluation of the proposed classification in a cohort without neoadjuvant treatment did not justify an additional medical borderline subgroup. A new subgroup based on prognostic borderline patients might be the main target group for neoadjuvant protocols in future.

8 Article Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study. 2019

van Hilst, Jony / de Rooij, Thijs / Klompmaker, Sjors / Rawashdeh, Majd / Aleotti, Francesca / Al-Sarireh, Bilal / Alseidi, Adnan / Ateeb, Zeeshan / Balzano, Gianpaolo / Berrevoet, Frederik / Björnsson, Bergthor / Boggi, Ugo / Busch, Olivier R / Butturini, Giovanni / Casadei, Riccardo / Del Chiaro, Marco / Chikhladze, Sophia / Cipriani, Federica / van Dam, Ronald / Damoli, Isacco / van Dieren, Susan / Dokmak, Safi / Edwin, Bjørn / van Eijck, Casper / Fabre, Jean-Marie / Falconi, Massimo / Farges, Olivier / Fernández-Cruz, Laureano / Forgione, Antonello / Frigerio, Isabella / Fuks, David / Gavazzi, Francesca / Gayet, Brice / Giardino, Alessandro / Groot Koerkamp, Bas / Hackert, Thilo / Hassenpflug, Matthias / Kabir, Irfan / Keck, Tobias / Khatkov, Igor / Kusar, Masa / Lombardo, Carlo / Marchegiani, Giovanni / Marshall, Ryne / Menon, Krish V / Montorsi, Marco / Orville, Marion / de Pastena, Matteo / Pietrabissa, Andrea / Poves, Ignaci / Primrose, John / Pugliese, Raffaele / Ricci, Claudio / Roberts, Keith / Røsok, Bård / Sahakyan, Mushegh A / Sánchez-Cabús, Santiago / Sandström, Per / Scovel, Lauren / Solaini, Leonardo / Soonawalla, Zahir / Souche, F Régis / Sutcliffe, Robert P / Tiberio, Guido A / Tomazic, Aleš / Troisi, Roberto / Wellner, Ulrich / White, Steven / Wittel, Uwe A / Zerbi, Alessandro / Bassi, Claudio / Besselink, Marc G / Abu Hilal, Mohammed / Anonymous5620925. ·Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom. · Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, United Kingdom. · Department of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, United States. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General and HPB surgery and liver transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. · Department of Surgery, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. · Department of Surgery, Universitá di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera, Italy. · Department of Surgery, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Pancreas Institute, Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Hospital of Beaujon, Clichy, France. · Department of Surgery, Oslo University Hospital and Institute for Clinical Medicine, Oslo, Norway. · Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Hopital Saint Eloi, Montpellier, France. · Department of Surgery, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Surgery, Niguarda Ca' Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France. · Department of Surgery, Humanitas University Hospital, Milan, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. · Clinic for Surgery, UKSH Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russian Federation. · Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. · Department of Surgery, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. · Department of Surgery, University hospital Pavia, Pavia, Italy. · Department of Surgery, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Surgery, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. · Surgical Clinic, Department of clinical and experimental sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. · Department of Surgery, The Freeman Hospital Newcastle Upon Tyne, Newcastle, United Kingdom. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #29099399.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. METHODS: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

9 Article Parenchyma-sparing surgery for pancreatic endocrine tumors. 2016

Uccelli, Fara / Gavazzi, F / Capretti, G / Virdis, M / Montorsi, M / Zerbi, A. ·Pancreatic Surgery Unit-Hospital Health Direction, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, MI, Italy. fara.uccelli@humanitas.it. · Pancreatic Surgery Unit-Hospital Health Direction, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, MI, Italy. · Chancellor of Humanitas University, Chief of Department of Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. ·Updates Surg · Pubmed #27709476.

ABSTRACT: Enucleation (EN) and middle pancreatectomy (MP) have been proposed as a treatment for G1 and G2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET). The aim of this study is to analyze the outcomes of parenchyma-sparing surgery (PSS) for PNET in an Italian high-volume center. All patients with a histological diagnosis of PNET who underwent surgical resection in our center between January 2010 and January 2016 were included in the study. Demographic, perioperative, and discharge data were collected in a prospective database. Follow-up was considered until March 31, 2016. 99 patients were included. PSS was performed in 22 cases (22.2 %), 18 EN (82 %), and 4 MP (18 %). 89.8 % patients were staged with CT scan, 69.6 % with endoscopic ultrasonography, 48.4 % with MRI, and 47.4 % with 68Ga-PET. Pre-operative histological diagnosis was obtained in 68.6 %. Most of PSS tumors were G1 (n = 15; 68 %) and there were no G3. Nodal sampling was performed in every PSS. Only two patients showed nodal metastatic disease. The median post-operative length of stay was 7 days after PSS. Eleven (50 %) of these patients developed a complication; two (18.2 %) were major complications. Pancreatic fistula developed in ten patients (45.5 %); two (20 %) were type B. There were no type C fistula and no re-operations after PSS. Readmission rate was 9 %. All patients submitted to PSS are alive and free of recurrence. PSS is a safe technique for G1 and G2 PNETs, but it has to be conducted in experienced centers and an extensive nodal sampling and a long follow-up are required for the best oncologic outcome.

10 Article Synchronous resections of hepatic oligometastatic pancreatic cancer: Disputing a principle in a time of safe pancreatic operations in a retrospective multicenter analysis. 2016

Tachezy, Michael / Gebauer, Florian / Janot, Monika / Uhl, Waldemar / Zerbi, Alessandro / Montorsi, Marco / Perinel, Julie / Adham, Mustapha / Dervenis, Christos / Agalianos, Christos / Malleo, Giuseppe / Maggino, Laura / Stein, Alexander / Izbicki, Jakob R / Bockhorn, Maximilian. ·Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: fgebauer@uke.de. · Department of General and Visceral Surgery, St. Josef-Hospital Bochum, Hospital of the Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany. · Department of General Surgery, University of Milan, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Milan, Italy. · Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Edouard Herriot Hospital, HCL, Lyon Faculty of Medicine - UCBL1, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Surgery, Unit of Surgery B, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy. · Department of Oncology, Hematology, BMT with section Pneumology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. ·Surgery · Pubmed #27048934.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with liver metastasis is generally considered dismal, and combined resections of the primary tumor and metastasectomies are not recommended. In highly selected patients, however, resections are performed. The evidence for this indication is limited. The aim of the current study was to assess the operative and oncologic outcomes of patients with combined pancreatic and liver resections of synchronous liver metastases. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 6 European pancreas centers, we identified 69 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and synchronous liver metastasis who underwent simultaneous pancreas and liver metastasis resections. Patients receiving exploration without tumor resection served as the control group. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) appeared to be prolonged in the group of resected patients (median 14 vs 8 months, P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the survival benefit of the resected patients was driven by pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas localized in the pancreatic head (median OS 13.6 vs 7 months, P < .001). Body/tail pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas showed no benefit of resection (median OS 14 vs 15 months, P = .312). In the multivariate analysis, tumor resection was the only independent prognosticator for OS (hazard ratio 2.044, 95% confidence interval 1.342-3.114). CONCLUSION: The data of this retrospective and selective patient cohort suggested a clear survival benefit for patients undergoing synchronous pancreas and liver resections for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, but due to the limitations of this retrospective study and very strong potential for selection bias, a strong conclusion for resection cannot be drawn. Prospective trials must validate these data and investigate the use of combined operative and systemic treatments in case of resectable metastatic pancreatic cancer. Is it time for a multicenter, prospective trial?

11 Article Role of preoperative biliary stents, bile contamination and antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical site infections after pancreaticoduodenectomy. 2016

Gavazzi, Francesca / Ridolfi, Cristina / Capretti, Giovanni / Angiolini, Maria Rachele / Morelli, Paola / Casari, Erminia / Montorsi, Marco / Zerbi, Alessandro. ·Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. francesca.gavazzi@humanitas.it. · Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. · Infectious Diseases Unit, Hospital Health Direction, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. · Microbiology Unit, Analysis Laboratory, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. · Chancellor of Humanitas University, Chief of Department of Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. ·BMC Gastroenterol · Pubmed #27036376.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The routine use of preoperative biliary drainage before pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains controversial. This observational retrospective study compared stented and non-stented patients undergoing PD to assess any differences in post-operative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: A total of 180 consecutive patients who underwent PD and had intra-operative bile cultures performed between January 2010 and February 2013 were retrospectively identified. All patients received peri-operative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis, primarily cefazolin. RESULTS: Overall incidence of post-operative surgical complications was 52.3 %, with no difference between stented and non-stented patients (53.4 % vs. 51.1 %; p = 0.875). However, stented patients had a significantly higher incidence of deep incisional surgical site infections (SSIs) (p = 0.038). In multivariate analysis, biliary stenting was confirmed as a risk factor for deep incisional SSIs (p = 0.044). Significant associations were also observed for cardiac disease (p = 0.010) and BMI ≥25 kg/m(2) (p = 0.045). Enterococcus spp. were the most frequent bacterial isolates in bile (74.5 %) and in drain fluid (69.1 %). In antimicrobial susceptibilty testing, all Enterococci isolates were cefazolin-resistant. CONCLUSION: Given the increased risk of deep incisional SSIs, preoperative biliary stenting in patients underging PD should be used only in selected patients. In stented patients, an antibiotic with anti-enterococcal activity should be chosen for PD prophylaxis.

12 Article Morphohistological features of pancreatic stump are the main determinant of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. 2014

Ridolfi, Cristina / Angiolini, Maria Rachele / Gavazzi, Francesca / Spaggiari, Paola / Tinti, Maria Carla / Uccelli, Fara / Madonini, Marco / Montorsi, Marco / Zerbi, Alessandro. ·Section of Pancreatic Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, University of Milan School of Medicine, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy. · Department of Pathology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy. ·Biomed Res Int · Pubmed #24900974.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic surgery is challenging and associated with high morbidity, mainly represented by postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and its further consequences. Identification of risk factors for POPF is essential for proper postoperative management. AIM OF THE STUDY: Evaluation of the role of morphological and histological features of pancreatic stump, other than main pancreatic duct diameter and glandular texture, in POPF occurrence after pancreaticoduodenectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 2011 and April 2013, we performed 145 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. We intraoperatively recorded morphological features of pancreatic stump and collected data about postoperative morbidity. Our dedicated pathologist designed a score to quantify fibrosis and inflammation of pancreatic tissue. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was 59,3%. Mortality was 4,1%. POPF rate was 28,3%, while clinically significant POPF were 15,8%. Male sex (P = 0.009), BMI ≥ 25 (P = 0.002), prolonged surgery (P = 0.001), soft pancreatic texture (P < 0.001), small pancreatic duct (P < 0.001), pancreatic duct decentralization on stump anteroposterior axis, especially if close to the posterior margin (P = 0.031), large stump area (P = 0.001), and extended stump mobilization (P = 0.001) were related to higher POPF rate. Our fibrosis-and-inflammation score is strongly associated with POPF (P = 0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic stump features evaluation, including histology, can help the surgeon in fitting postoperative management to patient individual risk after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

13 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 / Anonymous521108. ·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.

14 Article Early expression of the fractalkine receptor CX3CR1 in pancreatic carcinogenesis. 2013

Celesti, G / Di Caro, G / Bianchi, P / Grizzi, F / Marchesi, F / Basso, G / Rahal, D / Delconte, G / Catalano, M / Cappello, P / Roncalli, M / Zerbi, A / Montorsi, M / Novelli, F / Mantovani, A / Allavena, P / Malesci, A / Laghi, L. ·Laboratory of Molecular Gastroenterology, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Via Manzoni, 56, 20089 Rozzano, Milan, Italy. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #24084767.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), fractalkine receptor CX3CR1 contributes to perineural invasion (PNI). We investigated whether CX3CR1 expression occurs early in PDAC and correlates with tumour features other than PNI. METHODS: We studied CX3CR1 and CX3CL1 expression by immunohistochemistry in 104 human PDAC and coexisting Pancreatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia (PanIN), and in PdxCre/LSL-Kras(G12D) mouse model of PDAC. CX3CR1 expression in vitro was studied by a spheroid model, and in vivo by syngenic mouse graft of tumour cells. RESULTS: In total, 56 (53.9%) PDAC expressed CX3CR1, 70 (67.3%) CX3CL1, and 45 (43.3%) both. CX3CR1 expression was independently associated with tumour glandular differentiation (P=0.005) and PNI (P=0.01). Pancreatic Intraepithelial Neoplasias were more frequently CX3CR1+ (80.3%, P<0.001) and CX3CL1+ (86.8%, P=0.002) than matched cancers. The survival of PDAC patients was better in those with CX3CR1+ tumour (P=0.05). Mouse PanINs were also CX3CR1(+) and -CL1(+). In vitro, cytokines significantly increased CX3CL1 but not CX3CR1 expression. Differently, CX3CR1 was upregulated in tumour spheroids, and in vivo only in well-differentiated tumours. CONCLUSION: Tumour differentiation, rather than inflammatory signalling, modulates CX3CR1 expression in PanINs and PDAC. CX3CR1 expression pattern suggests its early involvement in PDAC progression, outlining a potential target for interfering with the PanIN transition to invasive cancer.

15 Article Ultrasonic dissection versus conventional dissection techniques in pancreatic surgery: a randomized multicentre study. 2012

Uzunoglu, Faik G / Stehr, Anne / Fink, Judith A / Vettorazzi, Eik / Koenig, Alexandra / Gawad, Karim A / Vashist, Yogesh K / Kutup, Asad / Mann, Oliver / Gavazzi, Francesca / Zerbi, Alessandro / Bassi, Claudio / Dervenis, Christos / Montorsi, Marco / Bockhorn, Maximilian / Izbicki, Jakob R. ·Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, Hamburg, Germany. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #23095609.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: : This prospective randomized multicenter trial was performed to assess the potential benefits of ultrasonic energy dissection compared with conventional dissection techniques in pancreatic surgery. BACKGROUND: : Surgical procedures for tumors of the pancreatic head involve time-consuming manual dissection. The primary hypothesis was that use of ultrasonic tissue and vessel dissection would lead to substantial saving in operative time during pancreatic resection. METHODS: : Patients eligible for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or pylorus-preserving PD (PPPD) were randomized to group A (dissection with ultrasonic device) or group B (conventional dissection) from March 2009 to May 2011. The primary endpoint was overall duration of operation time. Secondary endpoints were time to end of resection phase, intraoperative blood loss, number of transfused units of blood, and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: : Analysis of primary and secondary endpoints included 101 patients, who received either PD or PPPD. Demographical characteristics and clinical parameters were similar in both groups. The use of an ultrasonic dissection device did not significantly reduce overall operation time (median 316 minutes in group A and 319 minutes in group B, P = 0.95) and did not significantly increase the costs of surgery. Analysis of secondary endpoints revealed no difference in postoperative course. CONCLUSIONS: : Tissue dissection and vessel closure using an ultrasonic device is equivalent to dissection with conventional techniques in pancreatic surgery.

16 Article Irrelevance of microsatellite instability in the epidemiology of sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. 2012

Laghi, Luigi / Beghelli, Stefania / Spinelli, Antonino / Bianchi, Paolo / Basso, Gianluca / Di Caro, Giuseppe / Brecht, Anna / Celesti, Giuseppe / Turri, Giona / Bersani, Samantha / Schumacher, Guido / Röcken, Christoph / Gräntzdörffer, Ilona / Roncalli, Massimo / Zerbi, Alessandro / Neuhaus, Peter / Bassi, Claudio / Montorsi, Marco / Scarpa, Aldo / Malesci, Alberto. ·Laboratory of Molecular Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. luigi.laghi@humanitas.it ·PLoS One · Pubmed #23029359.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic cancer risk is increased in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients with mismatch repair gene defects predisposing to colonic and extracolonic cancers with microsatellite instability (MSI). However, the frequency of MSI pancreatic cancers has never been ascertained in consecutive, unselected clinical series, and their contribution to the sporadic and inherited burden of pancreatic cancer remains to be established. Aims of the study were to determine the prevalence of MSI in surgically resected pancreatic cancers in a multicentric, retrospective study, and to assess the occurrence of pancreatic cancer in LS. METHODS: MS-status was screened by a panel of 5 mononucleotide repeats (Bat26, Bat25, NR-21, NR-24 and NR-27) in 338 consecutive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), resected at two Italian and one German referral centres. The personal history of pancreatic cancer was assessed in an independent set of 58 probands with LS and in 138 first degree relatives who had cancers. RESULTS: Only one PDAC (0.3%) showed MSI. This was a medullary type cancer, with hMLH1-deficiency, and no identified germ-line mutation but methylation of hMLH1. Pancreatic cancer occurred in 5 (2.5%) LS patients. Histological sampling was available for 2 cases, revealing PDAC in one case and an ampullary cancer in the other one. CONCLUSIONS: MSI prevalence is negligible in sporadic, resected PDAC. Differently, the prevalence of pancreatic cancer is 2.5% in LS patients, and cancers other than PDAC may be encountered in this setting. Surveillance for pancreatic cancer should be advised in LS mutation carriers at referral centers.

17 Article Single-access transumbilical diagnostic laparoscopy for pancreatic tumor using curved and reusable instruments. 2011

Dapri, Giovanni / Carnevali, Pietro / Himpens, Jacques / Bianchi, Paolo / Opocher, Enrico / Montorsi, Marco / Cadière, Guy-Bernard. ·Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, European School of Laparoscopic Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. giovanni@dapri.net ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #21080088.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic laparoscopy in pancreatic tumors remains controversial. The main argument in favor of this procedure is that it helps prevent a delay of chemotherapy in cases of unresectable tumors or peritoneal/lymph node metastasis. We report a technique of performing this exploration through single-incision laparoscopy. VIDEO: The umbilicus is incised, and a purse-string suture is applied. An 11-mm nondisposable trocar is inserted for a 10-mm, 30° angled scope. Curved and reusable instruments (Karl Storz-Endoskope, Tuttlingen, Germany) are inserted transumbilically. Laparoscopic exploration of the cavity allows the visualization of suspected peritoneal or lymph node metastasis. Peritoneal lavage for cytology is performed. Biopsy is accomplished through the curved shape of the instruments, which establishes the working triangulation inside the abdomen as well as externally. Laparoscopic ultrasonography of the liver and of the pancreas (after opening the lesser sac) is performed after replacement of the 11-mm trocar with a 13-mm trocar and the use of a 5-mm scope. The procedure can be continued either by laparoscopy or by open surgery. At completion, the umbilicus is meticulously closed to avoid complications. RESULTS: Operative time is 45-60 minutes, blood loss is minimal, and the size of the umbilical incision is less than 15 mm. CONCLUSIONS: In case of unresectable tumors or peritoneal metastasis, single-access diagnostic laparoscopy for pancreatic tumors permits the start of chemotherapy after less than 7 days. Curved and reusable instruments allow the achievement of ergonomic conditions as classic laparoscopy, without increasing of conventional laparoscopic cost.

18 Article Is there still a role for laparoscopy combined with laparoscopic ultrasonography in the staging of pancreatic cancer? 2011

Barabino, Matteo / Santambrogio, Roberto / Pisani Ceretti, Andrea / Scalzone, Rocco / Montorsi, Marco / Opocher, Enrico. ·2rd Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Milan, San Paolo Hospital, Via di Rudinì 8, 20142, Milan, Italy. matteo.barabino@alice.it ·Surg Endosc · Pubmed #20567851.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare our laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) experience in the resectability evaluation of pancreatic or periampullary cancers (PAC) in two different periods: before and after the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 104 CT-resectable patients with PAC. During Step 1 (1995-1999), we performed LUS on all patients, whereas during Step 2 (2002-2007), LUS was performed selectively according to Pisters' criteria. RESULTS: LUS was satisfactorily performed in all cases. At Step 1 accuracy of LUS in predicting pancreatic resectability was high (96%) but it was markedly lower in a subgroup of patients with close contact between tumor and portal vein (sensibility of 57%). At Step 2, selective LUS was performed on 9 of 64 patients (14%). LUS confirmed the MDCT finding of unresectability in 8 of 9 cases, and allowed curative resection in 1 case. Only 1 of 55 of the patients who did not undergo LUS would have benefited from the procedure. The yield of LUS decreased from 45% before to 1.8% after MDCT. CONCLUSIONS: In resectable-MDCT patients, routine LUS is unjustified. However, in doubtful MDCT cases, LUS has yet a good yield. In the event of close vascular contact, neither MDCT nor LUS seem to be conclusive, and laparotomy is still the only solution.