ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
R1 Endoscopic papillectomy for adenocarcinoma: is complementary pancreatoduodenectomy unavoidable?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch on the oncological outcomes of complementary pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) following incomplete (R1) endoscopic papillectomy (EP) for early-stage ampullary adenocarcinoma (AA) is limited, despite the increasing use of endoscopic approaches and the risks associated with PD. This study aimed to assess short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing complementary PD after EP R1 for AA.
methodsBetween January 2010 and December 2022, four patient groups were compared: patients with complete endoscopic resection (EP R0), those with R1 margins after EP closely followed up without complementary surgery (EP R1), those who underwent complementary PD after R1 EP (EP + PD), and those who underwent upfront PD (uPD). The primary endpoint was the difference in survival rates (overall [OS] and disease-free [DFS]) between the EP R1 and EP + PD groups and morbidity and mortality rate comparison between the EP + PD and uPD groups.
resultsIn the EP cohort (n = 56), the major complication was intraluminal hemorrhage (29%), and the median duration of hospitalization was 4 days (range 2-17 days). The presence of biliary obstruction, manifested as jaundice (p < 0.01), abnormal liver biology test results (p = 0.022), or biliary duct dilatation during endoscopic ultrasound (p < 0.001), was significantly higher in the EP R1 group (n = 20) than in the EP R0 (n = 16) group. After PD (n = 92), Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications occurred in 28 patients (31%), and the 90-day mortality rate was 5.5%. Postoperative outcomes were similar between the EP + PD (n = 20) and uPD (n = 72) groups. Regarding endoscopic and surgical resection for early stage (T1-T2) adenocarcinoma, there was no significant difference in OS (p = 0.074) and DFS (p = 0.16) between groups. The median survival was not reached.
conclusionsEP before complementary PD did not increase the incidence of postoperative complications or mortality rate. However, complementary PD after R1 EP did not improve long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40301156What 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.