Surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer: Currently debated topics on morbidity, mortality, and lymphadenectomy

Abstract

This review will examine several aspects of pancreatic surgery. Over the past twenty years, the need for a standardized postoperative complication report after resective pancreatic surgery has led to the definition both of a postoperative complication severity score, a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) severity grading, a fistula risk score (FRS) and a postoperative morbidity index to establish the burden of complications. Unfortunately, three problems have hindered the success of standardization: first, the failure to define a minimum postoperative follow-up period that needs to be reported; second, the lack of a clear definition of POPF-related morbidity and mortality; third, the often-incomplete reporting of postoperative complications. The debate on the extent of lymphadenectomy to associate to pancreaticoduodenectomy started in the late 1980s when, based on retrospective studies, Japanese surgeons reported better survival after extended” than after “standard” lymphadenectomy. Subsequently, eight prospective randomized controlled trials showed that “extended” lymphadenectomy offers no advantage over “standard” lymphadenectomy. Several consensus conference and reviews tried to define the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy to be associated to pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (DP). At least nineteen lymph nodes (LN) are required for optimal tumor staging, but eleven LN are considered the minimum to prevent under staging. There is no general agreement about aborting PD in LN16-positive patients; some authors perform PD in fit patients. Based on retrospective studies, a significant increase of R0 resections, a decrease of recurrence rate, a decrease of local recurrence rate and an increase of median or overall disease-free survival were reported after mesopancreas excision.