@article{Okusaka2020326,

title = {Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer 2019 from the Japan Pancreas Society: A Synopsis},

author = {Takuji Okusaka and Masafumi Nakamura and Masahiro Yoshida and Masayuki Kitano and Katsuhiko Uesaka and Yoshinori Ito and Junji Furuse and Keiji Hanada and Kazuichi Okazaki},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85082094118&doi=10.1097%2fMPA.0000000000001513&partnerID=40&md5=2711a0bb237001a4c9b21c33e3fb8145},

doi = {10.1097/MPA.0000000000001513},

issn = {08853177},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

urldate = {2020-01-01},

journal = {Pancreas},

volume = {49},

number = {3},

pages = {326 – 335},

publisher = {Lippincott Williams and Wilkins},

abstract = {Objectives Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer were first published in 2006 by the Japan Pancreas Society, and they were revised in 2009, 2013, and 2016. In July 2019, the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer 2019 were newly revised in Japanese. Methods For this version, we developed the new guidelines according to the Minds Manual for Guideline Development 2017, which includes the concepts of GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), to enable a better understanding of the current guidelines. Results The guidelines show algorithms for the diagnosis, treatment, and chemotherapy of pancreatic cancer and address 7 subjects: diagnosis, surgical therapy, adjuvant therapy, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, stent therapy, and supportive and palliative medicine. They include 56 clinical questions and 84 statements. There are statements corresponding to clinical questions, evidence levels, recommendation strengths, and agreement rates. Conclusions These guidelines represent the most standard clinical and practical management guidelines at this time in Japan. This is the English synopsis of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer 2019 in Japanese and is an attempt to disseminate the Japanese guidelines worldwide for introducing the Japanese approach for clinical management of pancreatic cancer. © Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.},

note = {Cited by: 63; All Open Access, Green Open Access, Hybrid Gold Open Access},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Habib20201164,

title = {Synopsis of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cancer},

author = {Joseph R. Habib and Christopher L. Wolfgang},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85091271207&doi=10.1001%2fjamasurg.2020.3751&partnerID=40&md5=8ab334ab645a8c071623802956cfa7a2},

doi = {10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3751},

issn = {21686254},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

urldate = {2020-01-01},

journal = {JAMA Surgery},

volume = {155},

number = {12},

pages = {1164 – 1165},

publisher = {American Medical Association},

note = {Cited by: 0},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Isaji20182,

title = {International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017},

author = {Shuji Isaji and Shugo Mizuno and John A. Windsor and Claudio Bassi and Carlos Fernández-del Castillo and Thilo Hackert and Aoi Hayasaki and Matthew H. G. Katz and Sun-Whe Kim and Masashi Kishiwada and Hirohisa Kitagawa and Christoph W. Michalski and Christopher L. Wolfgang},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85035246382&doi=10.1016%2fj.pan.2017.11.011&partnerID=40&md5=9e732aecca1d54c1de22d6974f6b4d43},

doi = {10.1016/j.pan.2017.11.011},

issn = {14243903},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

urldate = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Pancreatology},

volume = {18},

number = {1},

pages = {2 – 11},

publisher = {Elsevier B.V.},

abstract = {This statement was developed to promote international consensus on the definition of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) which was adopted by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in 2006, but which has changed yearly and become more complicated. Based on a symposium held during the 20th meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) in Sendai, Japan, in 2016, the presenters sought consensus on issues related to BR-PDAC. We defined patients with BR-PDAC according to the three distinct dimensions: anatomical (A), biological (B), and conditional (C). Anatomic factors include tumor contact with the superior mesenteric artery and/or celiac artery of less than 180° without showing stenosis or deformity, tumor contact with the common hepatic artery without showing tumor contact with the proper hepatic artery and/or celiac artery, and tumor contact with the superior mesenteric vein and/or portal vein including bilateral narrowing or occlusion without extending beyond the inferior border of the duodenum. Biological factors include potentially resectable disease based on anatomic criteria but with clinical findings suspicious for (but unproven) distant metastases or regional lymph nodes metastases diagnosed by biopsy or positron emission tomography-computed tomography. This also includes a serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19–9 level more than 500 units/ml. Conditional factors include the patients with potentially resectable disease based on anatomic and biologic criteria and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or more. The definition of BR-PDAC requires one or more positive dimensions (e.g. A, B, C, AB, AC, BC or ABC). The present definition acknowledges that resectability is not just about the anatomic relationship between the tumor and vessels, but that biological and conditional dimensions are also important. The aim in presenting this consensus definition is also to highlight issues which remain controversial and require further research. © 2017 IAP and EPC},

note = {Cited by: 265; All Open Access, Hybrid Gold Open Access},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Ducreux2015v56,

title = {Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up},

author = {M. Ducreux and A. Sa. Cuhna and C. Caramella and A. Hollebecque and P. Burtin and D. Goéré and T. Seufferlein and K. Haustermans and J. L. Van Laethem and T. Conroy and D. Arnold},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84941646402&doi=10.1093%2fannonc%2fmdv295&partnerID=40&md5=526c2e6c86d7844ec67e63fa004aee18},

doi = {10.1093/annonc/mdv295},

issn = {09237534},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

urldate = {2015-01-01},

journal = {Annals of Oncology},

volume = {26},

pages = {v56 – v68},

publisher = {Oxford University Press},

note = {Cited by: 720; All Open Access, Bronze Open Access},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bockhorn2014977,

title = {Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)},

author = {Maximilian Bockhorn and Faik G. Uzunoglu and Mustapha Adham and Clem Imrie and Miroslav Milicevic and Aken A. Sandberg and Horacio J. Asbun and Claudio Bassi and Markus Büchler and Richard M. Charnley and Kevin Conlon and Laureano Fernandez Cruz and Christos Dervenis and Abe Fingerhutt and Helmut Friess and Dirk J. Gouma and Werner Hartwig and Keith D. Lillemoe and Marco Montorsi and John P. Neoptolemos and Shailesh V. Shrikhande and Kyoichi Takaori and William Traverso and Yogesh K. Vashist and Charles Vollmer and Charles J. Yeo and Jakob R. Izbicki},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901455120&doi=10.1016%2fj.surg.2014.02.001&partnerID=40&md5=ff29b14411d08f19636c8bd70084e5e5},

doi = {10.1016/j.surg.2014.02.001},

issn = {00396060},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

urldate = {2014-01-01},

journal = {Surgery (United States)},

volume = {155},

number = {6},

pages = {977 – 988},

publisher = {Mosby Inc.},

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. © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.},

note = {Cited by: 558},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Hartwig20141,

title = {Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)},

author = {Werner Hartwig and Charles M. Vollmer and Abe Fingerhut and Charles J. Yeo and John P. Neoptolemos and Mustapha Adham and Åke Andrén-Sandberg and Horacio J. Asbun and Claudio Bassi and Max Bockhorn and Richard Charnley and Kevin C. Conlon and Christos Dervenis and Laureano Fernandez-Cruz and Helmut Friess and Dirk J. Gouma and Clem W. Imrie and Keith D. Lillemoe and Miroslav N. Milićević and Marco Montorsi and Shailesh V. Shrikhande and Yogesh K. Vashist and Jakob R. Izbicki and Markus W. Büchler},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84902548300&doi=10.1016%2fj.surg.2014.02.009&partnerID=40&md5=13369c977272015b86a212cc52cde706},

doi = {10.1016/j.surg.2014.02.009},

issn = {00396060},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

urldate = {2014-01-01},

journal = {Surgery (United States)},

volume = {156},

number = {1},

pages = {1 – 14},

publisher = {Mosby Inc.},

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. © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.},

note = {Cited by: 173},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Tol2014591,

title = {Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)},

author = {Johanna A. M. G. Tol and Dirk J. Gouma and Claudio Bassi and Christos Dervenis and Marco Montorsi and Mustapha Adham and Ake Andrén-Sandberg and Horacio J. Asbun and Maximilian Bockhorn and Markus W. Büchler and Kevin C. Conlon and Laureano Fernández-Cruz and Abe Fingerhut and Helmut Friess and Werner Hartwig and Jakob R. Izbicki and Keith D. Lillemoe and Miroslav N. Milicevic and John P. Neoptolemos and Shailesh V. Shrikhande and Charles M. Vollmer and Charles J. Yeo and Richard M. Charnley},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84907598225&doi=10.1016%2fj.surg.2014.06.016&partnerID=40&md5=6a50e3dd76405d21e33e07a0e91f959c},

doi = {10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.016},

issn = {00396060},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

urldate = {2014-01-01},

journal = {Surgery (United States)},

volume = {156},

number = {3},

pages = {591 – 600},

publisher = {Mosby Inc.},

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.},

note = {Cited by: 362; All Open Access, Green Open Access},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}