Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_775_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
46 Мб
Скачать
382
A. Karamarkovic et al.

References

1. Rockey EW.Total pancreatectomy for carcinoma: case report. Ann Surg. 1943;118(4):603–11.
2. Barbier L, Jamal W, Dokmak S, et al. Impact of total pancre­atectomy: short- and long-term assessment. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15(11):882–92.
3. Müller MW, Friess H, Kleeff J, etal. Is there still a role for total pancreatectomy? Ann Surg. 2007;246(6):966–74; discussion 74–5.
4. Casadei R, Monari F, Buscemi S, etal. Total pancreatectomy: indi­cations, operative technique, and results: a single centre experience and review of literature. Updat Surg. 2010;62(1):41–6.
5. Büchler MW, Wagner M, Schmied BM, etal. Changes in morbidity after pancreatic resection: toward the end of completion pancre­atectomy. Arch Surg (Chicago, IL: 1960). 2003;138(12):1310–4; discussion 5.
6. Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, etal. One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg. 2006;244(1):10–5.
7. Janot MS, Belyaev O, Kersting S, etal. Indications and early out­comes for total pancreatectomy at a high-volume pancreas center. HPB Surg. 2010;2010.
8. Coco D, Leanza S, Guerra F. Total pancreatectomy: indica­tions, advantages and disadvantages – a review. Maedica. 2019;14(4):391–6.
9. Cuillerier E, Cellier C, Palazzo L, et al. Outcome after surgical resection of intraductal papillary and mucinous tumors of the pan­creas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(2):441–5.
10. Norton JA, Kivlen M, Li M, et al. Morbidity and mortality of aggressive resection in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors. Arch Surg (Chicago, IL: 1960). 2003;138(8):859–66.
11. Crippa S, Tamburrino D, Partelli S, et al. Total pancreatectomy: indications, different timing, and perioperative and long-term out­comes. Surgery. 2011;149(1):79–86.
12. Hackert T, Fritz S, Büchler MW. Main- and branch-duct intra­ductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: extent of surgical resection. Viszeralmedizin. 2015;31(1):38–42.
13. Tanaka M, Fernández-Del Castillo C, Kamisawa T, etal. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2017;17(5):738–53.
14. Sutherland DE, Radosevich DM, Bellin MD, et al. Total pancre­atectomy and islet autotransplantation for chronic pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(4):409-424; discussion 24–6.
15. Liu X-SWY-B.Total pancreatectomy. In: Liu Y-B, editor. Surgical Atlas of pancreatic cancer. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore;
2020.
16. Hackert T, Weitz J, Büchler MW. Splenic artery use for arterial reconstruction in pancreatic surgery. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2014;399(5):667–71.
17. Del Chiaro M, Segersvärd R, Rangelova E, et al. Cattell­Braasch Maneuver combined with artery-rst approach for supe­rior mesenteric- portal vein resection during pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(12):2264–8.
18. Schmidt CM, Glant J, Winter JM, etal. Total pancreatectomy (R0 resection) improves survival over subtotal pancreatectomy in iso­lated neck margin positive pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Surgery. 2007;142(4):572–8; discussion 8–80.
19. Sabater L, Muñoz E, Roselló S, et al. Borderline resectable pan­creatic cancer. Challenges and controversies. Cancer Treat Rev. 2018;68:124–35.
20. Bockhorn M, Uzunoglu FG, Adham M, etal. Borderline resect­able pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;155(6):977–88.
21. Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Chiorean EG, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 12019 Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN. 2019;17(3):202–210.
22. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee ES, et al. Preoperative MDCT assessment of resectability in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(5):1059–65.
23. Tosolini C, Michalski CW, Kleeff J. Response evaluation follow­ing neoadjuvant treatment of pancreatic cancer patients. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;5(2):12–5.
24. Kumar R, Herman JM, Wolfgang CL, et al. Multidisciplinary management of pancreatic cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2013;22(2):265–87.
25. Shaib WL, Ip A, Cardona K, etal. Contemporary management of borderline resectable and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. Oncologist. 2016;21(2):178–87.
26. Hackert T, Sachsenmaier M, Hinz U, et al. Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: neoadjuvant therapy with folrinox results in resectability in 60% of the patients. Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):457–63.
27. Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, etal. Survival impact of neoadju­vant gemcitabine plus S-1 chemotherapy for patients with border­line resectable pancreatic carcinoma with arterial contact. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2017;79(1):37–47.
28. Hackert T, Strobel O, Michalski CW, et al. The triangle opera­tion – radical surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer: a single arm observational study. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(11):1001–7.
29. Zhai S, Huo Z, Wang Y, et al. Triangle operation for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in total pancreatectomy. Transl Cancer Res. 2019;8(6):2416–24.
30. Rosso E, Zimmitti G, Iannelli A, etal. The ‘triangle operation’ by laparoscopy: radical pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vascu­lar resection for borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(5):1613–4.
31. Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compreh Cancer Netw JNCCN. 2017;15(8):1028–1061.
32. Pessaux P, Varma D, Arnaud JP. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: superior mesenteric artery rst approach. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10(4):607–11.
33. Nakao A.The mesenteric approach in pancreatoduodenectomy. Dig Surg. 2016;33(4):308–13.
34. Wei K, Hackert T.Surgical treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocar­cinoma. Cancers 2021;13(8).
35. Hackert T, Weitz J, Büchler MW.Reinsertion of the gastric coro­nary vein to avoid venous gastric congestion in pancreatic surgery. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17(4):368–70.
36. Fancellu A, Petrucciani N, Porcu A, etal. The impact on survival and morbidity of portal-mesenteric resection during pancreatico­duodenectomy for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: A system­atic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies Cancers 2020;12(7).
37. Xie ZB, Li J, Gu JC, etal. Pancreatoduodenectomy with portal vein resection favors the survival time of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis. Oncol Lett. 2019;18(5):4563–72.
38. Klaiber U, Mihaljevic A, Hackert T. Radical pancreatic cancer surgery-with arterial resection. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:8.
39. Sonohara F, Yamada S, Takami H, et al. Novel implications of combined arterial resection for locally advanced pancreatic
50 Total Pancreatectomy
383
cancer in the era of newer chemo-regimens. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(10):1895–900.
40. Del Chiaro M, Rangelova E, Halimi A, etal. Pancreatectomy with arterial resection is superior to palliation in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21(2):219–25.
41. Suzuki S, Kajiyama H, Takemura A, etal. The clinical outcomes after total pancreatectomy. Dig Surg. 2017;34(2):142–50.
42. Billings BJ, Christein JD, Harmsen WS, etal. Quality-of-life after total pancreatectomy: is it really that bad on long-term follow-up? J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9(8):1059-1066; discussion 66–7.
Pancreatic Resection forSolid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms
WenmingWu, QiangXu, andRuiJiang
51
Abstract
Pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) are rare and relatively benign tumors, with a malignancy ratio of 10–15%. The utility of multiple imaging modalities, combining with age and gender prole, is crucial for the diagnosis of SPNs. At present, surgery remains the only curative method for SPNs. While opinions towards surgi­cal procedures are highly divided due to its rarity, mini­mally invasive procedures for SPNs are gradually recommended, whether extent of resection or surgical path. Although patients with SPNs always have a favor­able prognosis, postoperative follow-ups remain essen­tial. In general, we mainly discussed the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for patients with SPNs.
Pancreatic solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) are rare, accounting for 1–2% and 5% of pancreatic exocrine neo­plasms and pancreatic cystic neoplasms, respectively [1]. SPNs are relatively benign neoplasms with a malignancy rate of 10–15% [2]. The mutation of CTNNB1, present in over 90% of cases, is a molecular hallmark of the disease, leading to the activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway [3, 4]. SPNs are mostly found in younger women [5], with a female to male ratio of 10:1 [6]. The symptoms are not well­dened, but the most common symptom is abdominal dis­comfort, which is present in over half of patients [7]. In addition, about a third of patients are asymptomatic. There is no signicant difference in presentation between men and women [8], nor in symptom and tumor characteristics between children and adults [9, 10].
W. Wu (*) · Q. Xu · R. Jiang Department of General Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China e-mail: wuwm@pumch.cn
Radiological examinations are important for SPNs diag­nosis. Computed tomography (CT) is the most commonly used imaging modality, followed by ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [7]. The combination of imaging manifestations of US, CT, and MRI is crucial for the diagnosis of SPNs [11]. However, the CT imaging features of SPNs are different between males and females, such as tumor shape and tumor composition. Tumor imaging in male patients always features a solid mass with lobulated margin and progressive enhancement [12]. Compared to symptom­atic SPNs, asymptomatic ones have signicantly smaller tumor size and may lack the typical features [13, 14]. The characteristic imaging manifestation combined with age and gender prole may be sufcient for most SPNs diagnosis [15]. EUS-guided ne-needle aspiration (FNA) is a accurate diagnosis method with sensitivity and specicity as high as 91% and 94%, respectively. However, the procedure of FNA may entail certain risks, such as hemorrhage, pancreatitis, pancreatic stula, gastrointestinal perforation, and even tumor cells dissemination [15]. Previous studies recom­mended that laparoscopic biopsy should be avoided due to the risk of tumor recurrence and peritoneal dissemination [1618]. In addition to diagnosis, the preoperative imaging workups are helpful for discriminating between potentially malignant and benign tumors to guide clinical treatment options. Previous studies have indicated that preoperative CT imaging may be helpful to discriminate aggressive SPNs from non-aggressive tumors [12]. Incomplete capsule, ill­dened margin, and absence of bleeding feature in CT imag­ing are risk factors for aggressive SPNs, which could be used to guide the preoperative selection of surgical procedure. In addition to radiographic results, researchers have also found that preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is predictive of malignant SPNs [19].
At present, surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment for SPNs, which is recommended by the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) and the 2018 European Pancreatic Club guidelines [2022]. The
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Makuuchi et al. (eds.), The IASGO Textbook of Multi-Disciplinary Management of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Diseases,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0063-1_51
385
386
W. Wu et al.
common surgical procedures for SPNs generally include enucleation, segmental pancreatectomy, and pancreaticodu­odenectomy, which depend on the location of the tumor [23]. Tumors located in the head or uncinate of the pancreas require enucleation, or pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without pylorus-preserving. For tumors located in the neck or body of the pancreas, surgeons could resect the midpor­tion of the pancreas or perform enucleation. Distal pancre­atectomy (DP) with or without splenectomy is often performed for SPNs located in the body or tail of the pan­creas [2, 15, 24]. However, there is currently no uniform standard on the selection of surgical procedures. The proce­dure may be performed either laparoscopically or by open surgery and could be aggressive or function-preserving. The lack of a golden standard is partially due to the rarity of SPNs, and that the current experience is mostly based on the small-scale studies or case reports.
Due to the favorable prognosis and low-grade malignancy of SPNs, pancreatic function and adjacent organ preserving surgery has been proposed by multiple studies [25]. Decient residual volume of the pancreas is correlated with pancreatic functional deciency [26]. Previous studies have shown that enucleation could be performed for SPNs located within the head, neck, or body of the pancreas, especially with no indi­cations of dilated pancreatic duct and/or common bile duct [23]. However, opinions regarding such a surgical procedure are highly divided. Some studies maintained that enucleation is indicated for smaller tumors [24], while others considered that it should not be performed because of the increased risk of dissemination, recurrence, and pancreatic stula [2, 27]. For SPNs in children, enucleation may be a safe and effec­tive surgical procedure if taking tumor size and location into consideration, but it correlates with increased risk of pro­longed fasting times and development of pancreatic stula [28]. Enucleation may be more benecial for children than adults with SPNs, because it could preserve the exocrine and endocrine functions of the pancreas to the greatest extent. However, because age < 13.5 is associated with a higher risk of recurrence [29], surgeons should balance the benets and risks of enucleation. Whether enucleation should be per­formed on patients with SPNs and the selection of patients for enucleation require future researches.
Patients undergoing Whipple’s procedure experience sig­nicantly longer postoperative hospitalization and increased unadjusted mortality than segmental pancreatectomy, while with no signicant difference in postoperative complication rates [30]. Compared to conventional DP, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) may reduce the risk of over­whelming post-splenectomy infection, without increasing the complication rate and prolonging postoperative hospital­ization [31, 32]. It appears that function or organs preserving surgery is superior to invasive surgery. The function or organ preserving surgery could preserve the function of digestive
system, pancreas, or spleen to a large extent, which is crucial for the life quality of patients, especially for younger ones. However, some studies have indicated that parenchyma­preserving surgical procedure is associated with an increased risk for postoperative recurrence due to the incomplete resec­tion [33].
When it comes to the surgical path, laparoscopic surgery is recently becoming more prevalent with the improvement of surgical techniques. Shorter time to diet and postoperative hospitalization, lower intraoperative blood loss and transfu­sion requirement, and lower complication rates have been previously observed in minimally invasive pancreatectomy (MIP) for SPNs than open groups [34, 35]. However, laparo­scopic management may be correlated with a higher risk of local or disseminated recurrence than open laparotomy [36].
There is a growing body of literature that recommends function-preserving and laparoscopic surgery for SPNs due to low-grade malignancy, but routine lymphadenectomy is not indicated because of the rarity of metastasis [15]. However, patients with preoperative imaging workups or histopathological examination showing high-grade malig­nancy, such as locally advanced tumors or distant metastasis, require more aggressive surgical procedures [37, 38]. For instance, patients with portal-superior mesenteric vein (PV/ SMV) and/or adjacent organ involvement, who underwent en bloc primary tumor excision with synchronous PV/SMV and/or adjacent organ resection could obtain a good progno­sis [39]. The principle of surgical management for patients with distant metastasis is to resect both the primary and met­astatic tumors as completely as possible [40]. But for patients with unresectable tumors of SPNs, adjuvant radiation, che­motherapy, vascular resection and reconstruction, and liver transplantation may be acceptable options, but the evidence level is relatively low [4144].
Although patients with SPNs always have a favorable prognosis, with the 5-year survival rate of more than 95% [15, 45], postoperative follow-ups remain essential. The majority of recurrences or metastases occur within 5years after surgery. However, in a small but signicant number of patients, recurrence or metastasis has been seen between 5 and 10years. Long-term follow-ups are needed to examine the outcome of surgery for patients with SPNs. About 2% of patients who underwent surgical resection experience recur­rence after surgery [46]. Over the last decades, the factors suggesting malignant potential of SPNs have been broadly explored, which could predict surgical outcome and guide postoperative follow-ups. Extensive researches have shown that tumor size and microscopic malignant features are sig­nicant prognostic factors for postoperative recurrence [47
49]. Besides, multiple large-scale studies have demonstrated
that blood vessel invasion and larger tumor size may be asso­ciated with high-grade malignancy [48, 50, 51]. However, previous studies have shown differences in predictive ability
51 Pancreatic Resection forSolid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms
387
and cut-off value of tumor size to predict recurrence [52, 53]. Recently, Yang et al. have shown that the combination of Ki-67 and tumor size is helpful to predict postoperative recurrence, superior to the current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) staging systems [54]. Negative surgical margins are essential to avoid recurrence, and the intraopera­tive frozen section could be used for validation [55, 56]. On the other hand, a meta-analysis study that summarized the studies analyzing the relationships between clinicopatholog­ical factors and SPNs malignancy has found no reliable fac­tor [57]. In addition to the clinicopathological characteristics, Cohen et al. analyzed the miRNA patterns among normal pancreas, primary tumors, and metastatic tumors through miRNA array. They found that lower expression of miR-375, miR- 217, and miR-200c and higher expression of miR-184, miR- 10a, and miR-887 are associated with metastasis [58]. However, even if patients relapsed at follow-up, reoperation could still result in long-term survival [24].
We herein summarize the diagnosis, treatment, and post­operative follow-up for patients with SPNs. Yet, the current literature regarding SPNs mostly come from case reports and studies by an isolated center with low levels of evidence. Regardless, minimally invasive procedures are increasingly being recommended for the treatment of SPNs, not only for the extent of resection but also as surgical path. Meanwhile, future studies should establish methods for more accurate preoperative diagnosis and malignant markers. Large-scale multicenter studies are urgently needed to verify and update the current understanding of SPNs.

References

1. Klöppel G, Basturk O, Klimstra D, Lam A, Notohara K.Solid pseu-
dopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. In: Carneiro Fatima CJ, NYA C, etal., editors. Digestive system tumours, vol. 1. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2019. p.340–2.
2. Naar L, Spanomichou DA, Mastoraki A, Smyrniotis V,
Arkadopoulos N.Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: a surgical and genetic enigma. World J Surg. 2017;41(7):1871–81.
3. Springer S, Wang Y, Dal Molin M, etal. A combination of molecu-
lar markers and clinical features improve the classication of pan­creatic cysts. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(6):1501–10.
4. Audard V, Cavard C, Richa H, etal. Impaired E-cadherin expres-
sion and glutamine synthetase overexpression in solid pseudopapil­lary neoplasm of the pancreas. Pancreas. 2008;36(1):80–3.
5. Stark A, Donahue TR, Reber HA, Hines OJ.Pancreatic cyst dis-
ease: a review. JAMA. 2016;315(17):1882–93.
6. Papavramidis T, Papavramidis S.Solid pseudopapillary tumors of
the pancreas: review of 718 patients reported in English literature. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200(6):965–72.
7. Law JK, Ahmed A, Singh VK, etal. A systematic review of solid-
pseudopapillary neoplasms: are these rare lesions? Pancreas. 2014;43(3):331–7.
8. Wang P, Wei J, Wu J, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of solid­pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas: a single institution experi­ence with 97 cases. Pancreatology. 2018;18(4):415–9.
9. Leraas HJ, Kim J, Sun Z, etal. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas in children and adults: a national study of 369 patients. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2018;40(4):e233–6.
10. Waters AM, Russell RT, Maizlin, II, Group C, Beierle EA.Comparison of pediatric and adult solid pseudopapillary neo­plasms of the pancreas. J Surg Res. 2019;242:312–317.
11. Cheng DF, Peng CH, Zhou GW, et al. Clinical misdiagno­sis of solid pseudopapillary tumour of pancreas. Chin Med J. 2005;118(11):922–6.
12. Park MJ, Lee JH, Kim JK, etal. Multidetector CT imaging features of solid pseudopapillary tumours of the pancreas in male patients: distinctive imaging features with female patients. Br J Radiol. 2014;87(1035):20130513.
13. Hu S, Zhang H, Wang X, etal. Asymptomatic versus symptomatic solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas: clinical and MDCT manifestations. Cancer Imaging. 2019;19(1):13.
14. Inoue T, Nishi Y, Okumura F, etal. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas associated with familial adenomatous polyposis. Intern Med. 2015;54(11):1349–55.
15. Yang F, Fu DL, Jin C, et al. Clinical experiences of solid pseudo­papillary tumors of the pancreas in China. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23(12):1847–51.
16. Petrosyan M, Franklin AL, Jackson HT, McGue S, Reyes CA, Kane TD.Solid pancreatic pseudopapillary tumor managed laparoscopi­cally in adolescents: a case series and review of the literature. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24(6):440–4.
17. Butte JM, Brennan MF, Gonen M, et al. Solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas. Clinical features, surgical outcomes, and long-term survival in 45 consecutive patients from a single center. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(2):350–7.
18. Cavallini A, Butturini G, Daskalaki D, et al. Laparoscopic pan­createctomy for solid pseudo-papillary tumors of the pancreas is a suitable technique; our experience with long-term follow-up and review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(2):352–7.
19. Yang F, Bao Y, Zhou Z, Jin C, Fu D. Preoperative neutrophil-to­lymphocyte ratio predicts malignancy and recurrence-free survival of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas. J Surg Oncol. 2019;120(2):241–8.
20. van Huijgevoort NCM, Del Chiaro M, Wolfgang CL, van Hooft JE, Besselink MG.Diagnosis and management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: current evidence and guidelines. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16(11):676–89.
21. Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Committee CG, Association AG.American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancre­atic cysts. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(4):819–822; quize812–813.
22. Pancreas ESGoCTot. European evidence-based guidelines on pan­creatic cystic neoplasms. Gut. 2018;67(5):789–804.
23. Chang H, Gong Y, Xu J, Su Z, Qin C, Zhang Z.Clinical strategy for the management of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: aggressive or less? Int J Med Sci. 2010;7(5):309–13.
24. Cai Y, Ran X, Xie S, et al. Surgical management and long-term follow-up of solid pseudopapillary tumor of pancreas: a large series from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(5):935–40.
25. Liu M, Liu J, Hu Q, et al. Management of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of pancreas: a single center experience of 243 consecu­tive patients. Pancreatology. 2019;19(5):681–5.
26. DiNorcia J, Ahmed L, Lee MK, et al. Better preservation of endocrine function after central versus distal pancreatectomy for mid-gland lesions. Surgery. 2010;148(6):1247–1254; discussion 1254–1246.
388
W. Wu et al.
27. Vassos N, Agaimy A, Klein P, Hohenberger W, Croner RS.Solid­pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) of the pancreas: case series and literature review on an enigmatic entity. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013;6(6):1051–9.
28. Cho YJ, Namgoong JM, Kim DY, Kim SC, Kwon HH.Suggested indications for enucleation of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in pediatric patients. Front Pediatr. 2019;7:125.
29. Irtan S, Galmiche-Rolland L, Elie C, etal. Recurrence of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: results of a nation­wide study of risk factors and treatment modalities. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(9):1515–21.
30. Manuballa V, Amin M, Cappell MS.Clinical presentation and com­parison of surgical outcome for segmental resection vs. Whipple’s procedure for solid pseudopapillary tumor: Report of six new cases & literature review of 321 cases. Pancreatology. 2014;14(1):71–80.
31. Lee SE, Jang JY, Lee KU, Kim SW.Clinical comparison of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy. J Korean Med Sci. 2008;23(6):1011–4.
32. He Z, Qian D, Hua J, Gong J, Lin S, Song Z. Clinical compari­son of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy: a meta­analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91593.
33. Tjaden C, Hassenpug M, Hinz U, etal. Outcome and prognosis after pancreatectomy in patients with solid pseudopapillary neo­plasms. Pancreatology. 2019;19(5):699–709.
34. Hao EIU, Rho SY, Hwang HK, et al. Surgical approach to solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the proximal pancreas: minimally invasive vs. open. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):160.
35. Tan HL, Syn N, Goh BKP. Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive pancreatectomies for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreas. 2019;48(10):1334–42.
36. Fais PO, Carricaburu E, Sarnacki S, etal. Is laparoscopic manage­ment suitable for solid pseudo-papillary tumors of the pancreas? Pediatr Surg Int. 2009;25(7):617–21.
37. Kumar NAN, Bhandare MS, Chaudhari V, Sasi SP, Shrikhande SV. Analysis of 50 cases of solid pseudopapillary tumor of pan­creas: aggressive surgical resection provides excellent outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(2):187–91.
38. Kim CW, Han DJ, Kim J, Kim YH, Park JB, Kim SC.Solid pseu­dopapillary tumor of the pancreas: can malignancy be predicted? Surgery. 2011;149(5):625–34.
39. Cheng K, Shen B, Peng C, Yuan F, Yin Q. Synchronous portal­superior mesenteric vein or adjacent organ resection for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: a single-institution experience. Am Surg. 2013;79(5):534–9.
40. Wang WB, Zhang TP, Sun MQ, Peng Z, Chen G, Zhao YP.Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas with liver metastasis: clinical features and management. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(11):1572–7.
41. Sperti C, Berselli M, Pasquali C, Pastorelli D, Pedrazzoli S.Aggressive behaviour of solid-pseudopapillary tumor of the pan­creas in adults: a case report and review of the literature. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(6):960–5.
42. Sumida W, Kaneko K, Tainaka T, Ono Y, Kiuchi T, Ando H.Liver transplantation for multiple liver metastases from solid pseu­dopapillary tumor of the pancreas. J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42(12): e27–31.
43. Ward HC, Leake J, Spitz L.Papillary cystic cancer of the pancreas: diagnostic difculties. J Pediatr Surg. 1993;28(1):89–91.
44. Maffuz A, Bustamante Fde T, Silva JA, Torres-Vargas S.Preoperative gemcitabine for unresectable, solid pseudopapillary tumour of the pancreas. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(3):185–6.
45. Yu PF, Hu ZH, Wang XB, etal. Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: a review of 553 cases in Chinese literature. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(10):1209–14.
46. Yepuri N, Naous R, Meier AH, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of recurrence in patients with Solid Pseudopapillary Tumors of the Pancreas. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22(1):12–9.
47. Kang CM, Choi SH, Kim SC, etal. Predicting recurrence of pan­creatic solid pseudopapillary tumors after surgical resection: a mul­ticenter analysis in Korea. Ann Surg. 2014;260(2):348–55.
48. Kim MJ, Choi DW, Choi SH, Heo JS, Sung JY.Surgical treatment of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas and risk factors for malignancy. Br J Surg. 2014;101(10):1266–71.
49. Gao H, Gao Y, Yin L, etal. Risk factors of the recurrences of pan­creatic solid pseudopapillary tumors: a systematic review and meta­analysis. J Cancer. 2018;9(11):1905–14.
50. Wu JH, Tian XY, Liu BN, Li CP, Zhao M, Hao CY. Clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of pancreas. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2019;32(1(Special)):459–64.
51. Estrella JS, Li L, Rashid A, etal. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: clinicopathologic and survival analyses of 64 cases from a single institution. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(2):147–57.
52. Kang CM, Kim KS, Choi JS, Kim H, Lee WJ, Kim BR.Solid pseu­dopapillary tumor of the pancreas suggesting malignant potential. Pancreas. 2006;32(3):276–80.
53. Machado MC, Machado MA, Bacchella T, Jukemura J, Almeida JL, Cunha JE.Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: dis­tinct patterns of onset, diagnosis, and prognosis for male versus female patients. Surgery. 2008;143(1):29–34.
54. Yang F, Wu W, Wang X, etal. Grading solid pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas: the Fudan prognostic index. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020.
55. Canzonieri V, Berretta M, Buonadonna A, etal. Solid pseudopapil­lary tumour of the pancreas. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4(4):255–6.
56. Ng KH, Tan PH, Thng CH, Ooi LL.Solid pseudopapillary tumour of the pancreas. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(6):410–5.
57. You L, Yang F, Fu DL. Prediction of malignancy and adverse outcome of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;10(7):184–93.
58. Cohen SJ, Papoulas M, Graubardt N, etal. Micro-RNA expression patterns predict metastatic spread in solid pseudopapillary neo­plasms of the pancreas. Front Oncol. 2020;10:328.
Pancreatic Resection forNeuroendocrine Neoplasms ofthePancreas
YosukeKasai, ToshihikoMasui, KyoichiTakaori, KenjiYoshino, andEricK.Nakakura
52
Abstract
Pancreatic resection is the mainstay treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PNEN) for curative intent or symptom control. In this chapter, we describe the indication of pancreatic resection for PNENs and procedures based on the need for systematic lymph node dissection (LND). Recent guidelines accept initial observation for incidentally discovered small non-functional PNEN (NF-PNEN) without malignant signs. Otherwise, formal pancreatic resection with systematic LND is recommended (pancreatoduodenectomy for head/uncinate tumor and distal pancreatectomy for body/ tail tumor). For hormone-secreting functional PNENs, pan­creatic resection is generally recommended because hor­monal symptoms severely impair the patients’ quality of life.
Y. Kasai (*) Department of Surgery, Nagahama City Hospital, Nagahama, Shiga, Japan
Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA e-mail: yokasai@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp
T. Masui Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
K. Takaori Department of Surgery, Nagahama City Hospital, Nagahama, Shiga, Japan
Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
K. Yoshino Department of Surgery, Nagahama City Hospital, Nagahama, Shiga, Japan
Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
E. K. Nakakura Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
Tumor enucleation without systematic LND can be indicated for insulinoma, whereas formal pancreatectomy with sys­tematic LND is recommended for gastrinoma. When sys­tematic LND is omitted, sampling peritumoral lymph nodes should be performed for accurate staging. In the setting of unresectable distant metastasis, the signicance of resection of the primary tumor has been controversial. For patients with resectable pancreatic head tumor and liver metastasis, staged operation of liver metastasectomy followed by pan­creatoduodenectomy is recommended to avoid biliary infec­tion after bilioenteric anastomosis. Survival benet of resection of poorly-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma has not been demonstrated due to the extremely poor prognosis.
Abbreviations
CP central pancreatectomy DP distal pancreatectomy ENETS European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society EUS-FNA endoscopic ultrasound-guided ne needle
aspiration LND lymph node dissection LNM lymph node metastasis MEN1 multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 MPD main pancreatic duct NANETS North American Neuroendocrine Tumor
Society NCCN National Comprehensive Cancer Network NF-PNEN non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine
neoplasm PD pancreatoduodenectomy PNEC pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma PNEN pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm PNET pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor SASI selective arterial secretagogue injection SPDP spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy WHO World Health Organization
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Makuuchi et al. (eds.), The IASGO Textbook of Multi-Disciplinary Management of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Diseases,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0063-1_52
389
390
Y. Kasai et al.

52.1 Introduction

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PNEN) accounts for 3% of malignancies arising in the pancreas [1]. The inci­dence has increased four folds over the past two decades, with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 0.8 per 100,000 population in the United States [2]. Although most PNENs behave benignly compared to pancreatic ductal adenocarci­noma, the prognosis of patients with metastatic or high-grade PNEN is poor [2]. Pancreatic resection is the mainstay treat­ment of PNENs for curative intent or symptom control. The operative indication and procedure depend on various fac­tors, including the tumor size, World Health Organization (WHO) grade [3], tumor location, functionality, inherited syndrome, and the presence or absence of metastasis.
In this chapter, we describe the indication of pancreatic resection for PNENs and procedures based on the need for systematic lymph node dissection (LND).
52.2 Indication ofPancreatic Resection
forPNENs

52.2.1 Non-Functional PNEN (NF-PNEN)

Table 52.1 Reported radiological signs of malignancy
Radiological factors
Tumor size >4cm [12] Tumor size >2cm [13, 14] Tumor size >1.5cm [1517] Tumor size (continuous) [18, 19] Absence of early enhancement [20] Calcication [18] MPD involvement/dilatation [21, 22] Lymphadenopathy [12]
a
Cystic component [2325]
a
Cystic component has been reported as a benign sign
For patients with NF-PNEN, the tumor is not accompanied by hormonal symptoms, accounting for 60–90% of all PNENs [4, 5]. The incidental discovery of small NF-PNENs is increasing due to improvements in diagnostic modalities. Because such NF-PNENs usually exhibit indolent pheno­types [6], guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (NANETS) accept initial observation for patients with small NF-PNEN (2 cm for NCCN and ENETS, and <1cm for NANETS guidelines) under certain conditions [79]. Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided ne needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a useful tool for the diagnosis of PNEN, grading by EUS-FNA is underestimated in 20–30% of cases due to intratumor heterogeneity [10, 11]. Therefore, radiological signs of malignancy, as shown in Table52.1, should be carefully evaluated to determine resec­tion versus observation. Any nding suggesting malignancy should direct patients toward pancreatic resection. Figure52.1 summarizes the indication of pancreatic resec­tion for NF-PNEN.

52.2.2 Functional PNEN

Functional PNENs are hormone-secreting tumors, including insulinoma, gastrinoma, glucagonoma, and VIPoma.
Fig. 52.1 Indication of pancreatic resection for NF-PNEN based on
the recommendations of NCCN, ENETS, and NANETS guidelines [79]. *Patients should be followed up every 6–12months. If the tumor progresses over time, patients should proceed to operation
Because hormonal symptoms severely impair the patients’ quality of life, resection of functional PNENs is generally recommended [79]. Some functional PNENs are too small to be detected on conventional imaging modalities. The selective arterial secretagogue injection (SASI) test has been used to identify the feeding artery and localize functional tumors [26]. Somatostatin receptor imaging (
68
Ga DOTA TATE or DOTA TOC positron emission tomography/com­puted tomography) is highly sensitive for detecting PNENs, including insulinoma [27, 28]. Although most PNENs are sporadic and solitary, nearly 10% of insulinomas and 20% of gastrinomas are associated with inherited syndrome, includ-
52 Pancreatic Resection forNeuroendocrine Neoplasms ofthePancreas
391
ing multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), and most of them are multiple [29]. In such cases, all lesions do not need to be resected, but excising only the dominant lesions >2cm and those responsible for the hormone secretion based on SASI test is enough [8, 9].
52.2.3 PNEN withDistant Metastasis
Curative or even debulking resection of neuroendocrine liver metastasis provides favorable long-term outcomes in select cases, with a 5-year survival rate of 70–80% [3033]. Therefore, candidates for metastasectomy should benet from resection of the primary tumor. For patients with resectable pancreatic head tumor and liver metastasis, staged operation of liver metastasectomy followed by pan­creatoduodenectomy (PD) is recommended to reduce the risk of biliary infection and liver abscess after bilioenteric anastomosis [7, 34]. In the setting of unresectable distant metastasis, several registry-based studies showed that resec­tion of the primary tumor was associated with prolonged survival compared to non-surgical management [35, 36]. However, these studies had potential selection biases, including metastatic tumor burden and patients’ comorbidi­ties of which the registry does not cover the data [9]. Therefore, it is inconclusive whether resection of the pri­mary tumor is truly benecial in the setting of unresectable distant metastasis. For functional PNEN with distant metas­tasis, resection of the primary tumor with or without debulk­ing metastasectomy may be benecial for symptom control, if evidence suggests that the primary tumor is responsible for hormone secretion.

52.2.4 High-grade PNEN

In the WHO Classication 2017, high-grade PNENs (G3: Ki-67 index >20% and/or >20 mitoses/10 high-power elds) were reclassied to well-differentiated pancreatic neuroen­docrine tumor (PNET) and poorly-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (PNEC) based on the histological morphology [3]. PNET-G3 is completely different from PNEC in the genetic backgrounds (MEN1, ATRX, and DAXX mutations versus TP53, RB, and KRAS mutations) [37], response to platinum-based regimens (low versus high) [38], and the prognosis (years versus months) [39]. Based on these points, locoregional PNET-G3 is indicated for pancreatic resection as well as PNET-G1/2, whereas survival benet of resection for PNEC is yet to be determined due to the extremely poor prognosis [9].
52.3 Procedures Based ontheNeed
forSystematic LND
Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is present in 18–39% of patients with PNENs without distant metastasis [4042]. Prognostic signicance of LNM and regional LND is contro­versial for PNEN [15, 4043], possibly because the indica­tion and extent of LND have not been unied. The site and frequency of LNM by the location of the primary tumor, reported by Izumo, et al. [44], are described in Fig. 52.2, which guides the regions of lymph nodes to be dissected sys­tematically for accurate staging and R0 resection. Based on this nding, the standard procedure for PNEN should be PD
Fig. 52.2 Site and frequency of lymph node metastasis by the location
of the primary tumor. The proportion of patients with metastasis in each lymph node to those who had the lymph node dissected was classied to 20% (thick grey circle), 10–20% (thin grey circle), and 0%<, <10%
(white circle): data referenced from the report by Izumo, et al. [44] Nodes with dotted line represent those located on the posterior surface of the pancreas. The lymph node numbers are in accordance with the Classication of Pancreatic Carcinoma by Japan Pancreas Society [45]
392
Y. Kasai et al.
for head/uncinate tumors and distal pancreatectomy (DP) with splenectomy for body/tail tumors.
The risk of LNM varies depending on tumor size [16,
40], functionality (non-functional vs gastrinoma vs insuli-
noma) [46, 47], and WHO grade [12, 48]. Patients at low risk of LNM can be offered a limited resection [enucle­ation, partial pancreatectomy, or central pancreatectomy (CP)] without systematic LND to preserve pancreatic endo­crine and exocrine function [9, 49]. In NF-PNEN, the can­didates for observation (2 cm, G1, and no radiological signs of malignancy) are at low risk of LNM, and limited resection without systematic LND may be considered, especially for head/uncinate tumors [7]. Most insulinomas are benign, so enucleation without LND is sufcient, unless
the tumor is proximal to the main pancreatic duct (MPD) or there is a sign of local invasion [7, 8]. A spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) should be considered for patients with body/tail insulinoma in whom enucleation is not feasible due to involvement of the MPD. In contrast, gastrinoma is generally malignant with an LNM rate of >40%, and systematic LND should be performed [79, 47,
50]. Nevertheless, enucleation remains optional for head/
uncinate gastrinoma away from the MPD as an alternative to PD. [7] Even if systematic LND can be omitted, sam­pling peritumoral lymph nodes is required for staging. Procedures of pancreatic resection for sporadic PNENs are summarized in Fig.52.3. For experienced surgeons at high­volume centers, a laparoscopic approach may be consid-
Fig. 52.3 Procedures of pancreatic resection for sporadic PNENs based on the recommendations of NCCN, ENETS, and NANETS guidelines
[79]