ArticleUpdates in surgery2016
Surgical margins for duodenopancreatectomy.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microscopic residual tumor (R1) affects prognosis of resected pancreatic head cancer patients. Surgeon's ability, caseload and accuracy of pathological staging affect the rate of R1 resections. The goal of this study was to verify if a standardized histopathological workup of the specimen affects the rate of microscopic residual tumor after PD for cancer. Two groups of specimens were managed with (Group 1, Standardized Group, SG) or without (Group 2, Non Standardized Group, NSG) a standardized histopathological workup reported by the Royal College of Pathologists. Group 1 included 50 cases of PD for periampullary cancer treated between October 2010 and July 2012. Group 2 included 50 cases of PD for periampullary cancer treated between September 2005 and September 2010. The primary endpoint of the study was to verify the differences in terms of R1 rate in the two groups. Correlation between presence/absence of microscopic residual tumor status and local recurrence was also evaluated. The cohort of 100 patients consisted of 66 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (SG: 35; NSG: 31), 15 distal common bile duct cancer (SG: 9; NSG: 6) and 19 cancer of the ampulla of Vater (SG: 6; NSG: 13). The rate of R1 resections resulted higher in the SG (66% vs 10%, p < 0.05). The rate of local recurrence did not differ in the two groups (NSG 23.4%, SG 27.6%). No relationships were found between R1 status and development of local recurrence in both groups. Local recurrence occurred in 20% of R1-NSG and in 34.3% of R1-SG. Our study showed that the standardized method determines a significant increase of R1 resection if compared with other non-standardized methods. This difference is due to the different definition of minimum clearance (0-mm- vs 1-mm rule). Even if not significantly, the standardized method seems to better discriminate the patients in terms of local recurrence risk after R1 vs R0 in SG (34 vs 11%) in comparison with R1 vs R0 in NSG (20 vs 27%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
27778242What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.