Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39120839›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG).

Thomas F Stoop, Simone Augustinus, Bergthor Björnsson, Bobby Tingstedt, Bodil Andersson, Christopher L Wolfgang, Jens Werner, Karin Johansen, Martijn W J Stommel, Matthew H G Katz and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Selection and Prognosis of Different Venous Reconstruction Methods in Laparoscopic Pancreatectomy].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
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

23 authors.

Thomas F StoopDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. t.f.stoop@amsterdamumc.nl.
Simone AugustinusAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bergthor BjörnssonDepartment of Surgery in Linköping and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Bobby TingstedtDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Bodil AnderssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Christopher L WolfgangDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, New York University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA.
Jens WernerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Karin JohansenDepartment of Surgery in Linköping and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Martijn W J StommelDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Matthew H G KatzDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Michael GhadimiDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Michael G HouseDepartment of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Poya GhorbaniDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
I Quintus MolenaarDepartment of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht/St. Antonius Ziekenhuis Nieuwegein, Utrecht & Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Roeland F de WildeDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J Sven D MieogDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Tobias KeckDGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas and Clinic of Surgery, UKSH Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Ulrich F WellnerDGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas and Clinic of Surgery, UKSH Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Waldemar UhlDepartment of Surgery, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Marc G BesselinkAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henry A Pitt *Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. Henry.Pitt@rwjbh.org.
Marco Del Chiaro *Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. marco.delchiaro@cuanschutz.edu.
for the Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.

resultsOverall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.

conclusionsPVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaMesenteric VeinsPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPortal VeinPostoperative ComplicationsAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsNorth AmericaPrognosisDistal pancreatectomyPancreatic cancerSurgical outcomeVenous resection

Identifiers

PMID39120839
PMCPMC11467095

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.