Miao Yi, Cai Baobao, Lu Zipeng
Pancreas Center, First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, PR China.
Pancreas Center, The Affiliated BenQ Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, PR China.
Surg Open Sci. 2023 Mar 3;12:55-61. doi: 10.1016/j.sopen.2023.03.001. eCollection 2023 Mar.
The artery involvement explains the majority of primary unresectability of non-metastatic pancreatic cancer patients and both arterial resection and artery-sparing dissection techniques are utilized in curative-intent pancreatectomies for artery-involving pancreatic cancer (ai-PC) patients.
This narrative review summarized the history of resectability evaluation for ai-PC and attempted to interpret its current pitfalls that led to the divergence of resectability prediction and surgical exploration, with a focus on the rationale and the surgical outcomes of the sub-adventitial divestment technique.
The circumferential involvement of artery by tumor currently defined the resectability of ai-PC but insufficient to preclude laparotomy with curative intent. The reasons behind could be: 1. The radiographic involvement of tumor to arterial circumference was not necessarily resulted in histopathological artery wall invasion; 2. the developed surgical techniques facilitated radical resection, better perioperative safety as well as oncological benefit. The feasibility of periadventitial dissection, sub-adventitial divestment and other artery-sparing techniques for ai-PC depended on the tumor invasion depth to the artery, i.e., whether the external elastic lamina (EEL) was invaded demonstrating a hallmark plane for sub-adventitial dissections. These techniques were reported to be complicated with preferable surgical outcomes comparing to arterial resection combined pancreatectomies, while the arterial resection combined pancreatectomies were considered performed in patients with more advanced disease.
Adequate preoperative imaging modalities with which to evaluate the tumor invasion depth to the artery are to be developed. Survival benefits after these techniques remain to be proven, with more and higher-level clinical evidence needed.
The current resectability evaluation criteria, which were based on radiographic circumferential involvement of the artery by tumor, was insufficient to preclude curative-intent pancreatectomies for artery-involving pancreatic cancer patients. With oncological benefit to be further proven, periarterial dissection and arterial resection have different but overlapping indications, and predicting the tumor invasion depth in major arteries was critical for surgical planning.
动脉受累解释了大多数非转移性胰腺癌患者的原发性不可切除性,在针对动脉受累胰腺癌(ai-PC)患者的根治性胰切除术中,既采用了动脉切除,也采用了保留动脉的剥离技术。
本叙述性综述总结了ai-PC可切除性评估的历史,并试图解释其当前导致可切除性预测与手术探查结果不一致的缺陷,重点关注外膜下剥离技术的原理和手术结果。
目前,肿瘤对动脉的周向侵犯定义了ai-PC的可切除性,但不足以排除根治性剖腹手术。其背后的原因可能是:1. 肿瘤在影像学上对动脉周径的侵犯不一定导致组织病理学上的动脉壁侵犯;2. 成熟的手术技术有助于根治性切除、更好的围手术期安全性以及肿瘤学获益。ai-PC的外膜周围剥离、外膜下剥离和其他保留动脉技术的可行性取决于肿瘤对动脉的侵犯深度,即外弹性膜(EEL)是否受到侵犯,这是外膜下剥离的标志性层面。与动脉切除联合胰切除术相比,这些技术虽据报道操作复杂,但手术结果较好,而动脉切除联合胰切除术被认为适用于病情更晚期的患者。
需要开发足够的术前影像学检查方法来评估肿瘤对动脉的侵犯深度。这些技术后的生存获益仍有待证实,需要更多更高质量的临床证据。
目前基于肿瘤在影像学上对动脉周向侵犯的可切除性评估标准,不足以排除对动脉受累胰腺癌患者进行根治性胰切除术。在肿瘤学获益有待进一步证实的情况下,动脉周围剥离和动脉切除有不同但重叠的适应证,预测主要动脉中的肿瘤侵犯深度对手术规划至关重要。