Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37210448›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2023

Nationwide Impact of Centralization, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Minimally Invasive Surgery, and Standardized Pathology Reporting on R0 Resection and Overall Survival in Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer.

Simone Augustinus, Pascale J M Schafrat, Boris V Janssen, Bert A Bonsing, Lodewijk A A Brosens, Olivier R Busch, Stijn Crobach, Michail Doukas, Casper H van Eijck, Lydia G M van der Geest and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pancreatic cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Simone AugustinusDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.augustinus@amsterdamUMC.nl.
Pascale J M SchafratDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Boris V JanssenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bert A BonsingDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Lodewijk A A BrosensDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Olivier R BuschDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stijn CrobachDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Michail DoukasDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Casper H van EijckDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lydia G M van der GeestDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ignace H J T de HinghDepartment of Surgery, Catherina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
G Mihaela RaicuDepartment of Pathology, St Antonius Hospital and Pathology DNA, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Hjalmar C van SantvoortDepartment of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht & St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marie-Louise van VelthuysenDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Joanne VerheijDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.g.besselink@amsterdamUMC.nl.
Arantza Farina SarasquetaDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.farina@amsterdamUMC.nl.
Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLCancer Center AmsterdamUniversity of Amsterdam · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

Deltaplan Alvleesklierkanker 201-078 WOO 21-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgeons aim for R0 resection in patients with pancreatic cancer to improve overall survival. However, it is unclear whether recent changes in pancreatic cancer care such as centralization, increased use of neoadjuvant therapy, minimally invasive surgery, and standardized pathology reporting have influenced R0 resections and whether R0 resection remains associated with overall survival.

methodsThis nationwide retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic cancer from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Database (2009-2019). R0 resection was defined as > 1 mm tumor clearance at the pancreatic, posterior, and vascular resection margins. Completeness of pathology reporting was scored on the basis of six elements: histological diagnosis, tumor origin, radicality, tumor size, extent of invasion, and lymph node examination.

resultsAmong 2955 patients after PD for pancreatic cancer, the R0 resection rate was 49%. The R0 resection rate decreased from 68 to 43% (2009-2019, P < 0.001). The extent of resections in high-volume hospitals, minimally invasive surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, and complete pathology reports all significantly increased over time. Only complete pathology reporting was independently associated with lower R0 rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.83, P < 0.001). Higher hospital volume, neoadjuvant therapy, and minimally invasive surgery were not associated with R0. R0 resection remained independently associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.79, P < 0.001), as well as in the 214 patients after neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.87, P = 0.007).

conclusionsThe nationwide rate of R0 resections after PD for pancreatic cancer decreased over time, mostly related to more complete pathology reporting. R0 resection remained associated with overall survival.

Indexed as

Pancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomyHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoadjuvant TherapyRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37210448
PMCPMC10319672
OpenAlexW4377157324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.