ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2018
Tumour origin and R1 rates in pancreatic resections: towards consilience in pathology reporting.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative liquid biopsy as a tool for detecting R1 resection during pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic carcinoma: the CETUPANC trial (part II).International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2024Article
- Evolution and improved outcomes in the era of multimodality treatment for extended pancreatectomy.BJS open · 2024Article
- Article
- Twelve Hundred Consecutive Pancreato-Duodenectomies from Single Centre: Impact of Centre of Excellence on Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Across India.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Cutting-edge strategies for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2019Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection to: Tumour origin and R1 rates in pancreatic resections: towards consilience in pathology reporting.2018 · Shrikhande, Shailesh [corrected to Shrikhande, Shailesh V]
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate differences in the R1 rates of ampullary (AC), pancreatic (PC), and distal bile duct (DBD) cancers in pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) using standardised pathology assessment. Data of PD (2010-2011) analysed in accordance with the Royal College of Pathologists (UK) protocol, were retrieved. Clinicopathologic features, including frequency, topography, and mode of margin involvement in AC (n = 87), PC (n = 18), and DBD (n = 5) cancers were evaluated. The R1 rate was 7%, 67%, and 20% in the AC, PC, and DBD cancers (p < 0.001). Within the PC cohort, R1 rate was heterogeneous (chemo-naïve, 77%; post-neoadjuvant, 40%). Commonest involved margins were as follows: posterior in overall PD (35%), AC (43%), overall PC (33%), and post-neoadjuvant PC (100%); superior mesenteric artery margin in chemo-naïve PC (38%) and common bile duct margin in DBD (100%) cancers. In AC, majority (66%) of R1 were signet ring cell type. Indirect margin involvement due to tumour within lymph node, perineural sheath or lymphovascular space was observed in 26% cases, and altered R1 rate in AC, PC, and DBD cohorts by 1%, 12%, and 0%, respectively. Although not statistically significant, patients with R1 had lower disease-free survival than those with R0 (mean, 25.4 months versus 44.4 months). Tumour origin impacts R1 data in PD necessitating its accurate classification by pathologists. Indirect involvement, histology, and neoadjuvant therapy influence the R1 rate, albeit in a minority of cases. Generating cogent R1 data based on standardised pathology reporting is the foremost need of the hour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.