Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Introduction
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1.5 Venous Anatomy
- •1.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.1.1.1 IPDA
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Arterial Anatomy
- •1.3 Portal Venous Anatomy
- •1.4 Biliary Anatomy
- •2.1.1.4 Dorsal Pancreatic Artery (DPA)
- •2.3 Surgical Techniques
- •2.4 Discussion
- •2.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Intrahepatic Biliary Tract
- •3.2.4 Accessory Biliary Ducts
- •3.3 Extrahepatic Biliary Tract
- •3.3.2 Retroduodenopancreatic Portion
- •3.3.3 Intramural Portion
- •3.5 Accessory Biliary Tract
- •3.5.2 Vascularization
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Posthepatectomy Liver Failure (PHLF)
- •4.3.1 Portal Hypertension
- •4.3.3 Blood Chemistry Tests
- •4.3.4 Indocyanine Green (ICG) Clearance Test
- •4.4 M2BPGi
- •4.5 Scintigraphy
- •4.7 Measuring FLR Function
- •4.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •5.1.1 Hemangioma
- •5.1.2 Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •5.1.3 Simple Hepatic Cyst
- •5.1.4 Hepatic Adenoma
- •5.2.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.2.2 Metastatic Disease
- •5.2.3 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •5.2.4 Hepatic Angiosarcoma
- •5.3.1 Acute Calculous Cholecystitis
- •5.3.2 Chronic Cholecystitis
- •5.3.3 Acalculous Cholecystitis
- •5.3.4 Biliary Dyskinesia
- •5.3.5 Choledocolithiasis
- •5.3.7 Choledochal Cysts
- •5.3.8 Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
- •5.3.9 Benign Biliary Stricture
- •5.4.1 Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •5.4.2 Gall Bladder Cancer
- •5.5.1 Acute Pancreatitis
- •5.5.2 Chronic Pancreatitis
- •5.5.3 Pancreas Neuroendocrine Tumors
- •5.5.4 Pancreas Cystic Neoplasms
- •5.5.4.1 Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm
- •5.5.4.2 Mucinous Cystic Neoplasm
- •5.5.4.3 Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm
- •5.6.1 Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
- •References
- •6.2.1 Gallbladder
- •6.3.1 Gallbladder Dysfunction
- •6.3.3 Pancreaticobiliary Maljunction
- •6.4.2 Enterohepatic Circulation
- •6.4.3 Bile Acids
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •BilINs
- •IPNBs
- •7.1.1.2 Imaging Findings
- •BilINs
- •IPNB
- •7.1.2.1 Gross
- •BilIN
- •IPNB
- •Controversial Cases: BilIN or IPNB
- •7.1.2.2 Histologies
- •BilINs
- •IPNB.
- •8.4 Gallbladder Carcinoma
- •8.4.1 Gross Features
- •8.4.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.4.3 Molecular Features
- •References
- •BilIN
- •IPNB
- •7.1.4.1 BilIN
- •7.1.4.2 IPNB
- •7.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •8.2.1 Gross Features
- •8.2.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.2.3 Molecular Features
- •8.3 Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •8.3.1 Gross Features
- •8.3.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.3.3 Molecular Features
- •References
- •10.1.2 Epidemiology
- •10.1.3 Etiology
- •10.1.4 Clinical Features
- •10.1.5 Radiology
- •10.1.6 Pathology
- •10.1.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.1.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.1.6.4 Grading
- •10.1.6.6 Molecular Pathology
- •10.2.2 Epidemiology
- •10.2.3 Etiology
- •10.2.4 Clinical Features
- •10.2.5 Radiology
- •10.2.6 Pathology
- •10.2.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.2.6.2 Microscopic Appearance
- •10.2.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.2.6.5 Molecular Pathology
- •10.3.2 Epidemiology
- •10.3.3 Etiology
- •10.3.4 Clinical Features
- •10.3.5 Radiology
- •10.3.6 Pathology
- •10.3.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.3.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.3.6.5 Molecular Pathology
- •References
- •11: Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Clinical Aspects
- •11.3 Pathological Findings
- •11.3.1 Macroscopical Features
- •11.3.2 Histological Features
- •11.4 Molecular Abnormalities
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.1.1 General Features
- •12.1.2 Diagnostic Features
- •12.1.3 Clinical Implications
- •12.1.4 Desmoplastic Stroma
- •12.1.5 Venous Invasion
- •12.1.6 Variants
- •12.2 Conclusions
- •References
- •13.2.1 Benign Liver Tumors
- •13.2.2 Malignant Liver Tumors
- •13.2.3.1 Liver Abscess
- •13.4.1 Biliary Tree Tumors
- •13.5.1 Pancreatic Tumors
- •References
- •14.1 MRE Technique
- •14.2 MRE Performance
- •14.4 Technical Limitations
- •14.5 Summary
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •17.1 Intraoperative Cholangiography
- •17.2 Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •17.2.1 Anatomy
- •17.2.2 Diagnosis
- •17.2.3 Resection Guidance
- •17.2.3.2 Resection Guidance
- •17.3 Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging
- •17.4 Navigation Assisted Liver Resection
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Photon Therapy
- •18.3 Charged Particles Therapy
- •18.4 MRI Guided Therapy
- •18.5 Combination Strategies Using Cytotoxics
- •18.6 Radioimmunotherapy
- •18.8 Summary
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Systemic Chemotherapy
- •19.2.1 Adjuvant Therapy
- •19.2.2 First-Line Therapy
- •19.2.3 Second-Line Therapy
- •19.3 Targeted Therapy
- •19.4 Immunotherapy
- •19.5 Precision Medicine
- •References
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2.1 Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
- •20.2.2 Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •20.2.3 Palliative Chemotherapy
- •20.3 Immunotherapy
- •20.4 Tumor Microenvironment
- •20.5 Summary
- •References
- •21.1 Background
- •21.5 Combination Strategies
- •21.7 Future Perspectives
- •References
- •22.1 FGFR Alterations
- •22.2 IDH Mutations
- •22.3 BRAF Alterations
- •22.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2 Adjuvant Systemic Therapy
- •23.3 Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy
- •23.4.3 Second-Line Therapy
- •23.4.4 Targeted Therapy
- •References
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.4 The Various Stents Available
- •24.8 Hilar Strictures (Resectable Cases)
- •24.9 Hilar Stricture: Palliative Cases
- •24.11 Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage
- •24.12 Conclusions
- •References
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.3 EUS-TD Technique
- •25.4 EN Technique
- •25.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •26.1 Background
- •26.2 Short History
- •26.4.6 Personalized Cancer Treatment
- •References
- •27.1 Introduction
- •27.3.1 Pre-Admission Optimization
- •27.3.3 Carbohydrate Loading
- •27.3.6 Early Feeding
- •27.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •28.1 Introduction
- •28.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •29.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •30.1 Introduction
- •30.3 Surgical Indication
- •30.4 Surgical Technique
- •30.4.1 Exposure
- •30.4.4 Parenchymal Transection
- •30.5 Clinical Advantages
- •30.5.1 Technical Advantages
- •30.5.2 Prognostic Advantages
- •30.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •31.1 Introduction
- •31.2 Multiple Bilobar CLM
- •31.2.1 Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •31.2.2 Tumor-vessel Detachment
- •31.2.3 Communicating Veins
- •31.3 New Procedures
- •31.3.1.1 Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.2 Upper Trasversal Hepatectomy (UTH))
- •31.3.2.1 Mini-Upper Transversal Hepatectomy
- •31.3.2.2 Right Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [33]
- •31.3.2.3 Left Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [24]
- •31.3.2.4 Total Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [24, 34]
- •Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.3 Mini-mesohepatectomy (MMH) [35, 36]
- •31.3.3.1 Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.4 Liver Tunnel [37, 38]
- •Eligibility Criteria
- •31.4 Discussion
- •31.5 Concerns & Future Directions
- •31.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •32.1 Introduction
- •References
- •33.1 Introduction
- •33.6 Segmentectomy, Cone Unit Resection
- •33.7 Surgical Outcomes
- •References
- •34.1 Introduction
- •34.6 Laparoscopic Parenchymal Sparing Anatomical Hepatectomy (Lap-PSAH)
- •34.7 Surgical Procedures at Ageo Central General Hospital (ACGH)
- •34.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •35.5 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy V (S5)
- •35.6 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy VI (S6)
- •35.7 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy VII (S7)
- •References
- •36: Modified ALPPS Procedure
- •36.1 Introduction
- •36.2 Discussion
- •36.2.1 Parenchymal Transection
- •36.2.2 Hepatoduodenal Ligament Dissection
- •36.2.4.1 Partial ALPPS
- •36.2.4.2 Hybrid ALPPS
- •36.2.4.3 Mini-ALPPS/ALPTIPS
- •36.2.4.5 Tourniquet ALPPS
- •36.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •37.1 Introduction
- •37.3 Right-Posterior Approach
- •37.4 Right-Uncinate Approach
- •37.5 Mesenteric Approach
- •37.6 Left-Posterior Approach
- •37.7 Anterior Approach
- •37.8 Mesopancreatic Resection
- •37.10 Summary
- •References
- •38: Organ- and Parenchyma-sparing Pancreatic Surgery
- •38.1 Introduction
- •38.2 Organ-Sparing Techniques
- •38.2.1 Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •38.3 Parenchyma-Sparing Techniques
- •38.3.2 Dorsal Pancreatectomy
- •38.3.4 Middle-Preserving Pancreatectomy
- •38.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •39.1 Introduction
- •39.2.1 Laparotomy
- •39.2.2 Supramesocolic Approach
- •39.2.3 Inframesocolic Approach
- •39.3 Mesenteric Incision
- •39.9 Antithrombogenic PV Catheter Bypass
- •39.13 Discussion
- •References
- •40.1 Introduction
- •40.4 HA Reconstruction
- •40.4.1 Simple Reconstruction Case
- •40.4.2 Complicated Reconstruction Case
- •40.4.3 Concomitant Vein Resection
- •40.4.4 Management after HA Reconstruction
- •40.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •41.1 Introduction
- •41.3.1 Patients
- •41.3.2 Preoperative Treatments
- •41.3.5 Statistical Analyses
- •41.4 Results
- •41.5 Discussion
- •References
- •42.1 Introduction
- •42.1.1 Preoperative Planning
- •42.2 Surgical Technique
- •42.2.1 Basic Preliminary Maneuvers
- •42.3 Postoperative Management
- •42.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •43: Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy
- •43.1 Background
- •43.2 Robotic PD
- •43.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •44: Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection
- •References
- •45.1 Introduction
- •45.2 Surgical Technique
- •45.3 Discussion
- •References
- •46: Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •46.1 Introduction
- •46.2 Indications
- •46.4 Technique
- •46.4.1 Warshaw’s Technique
- •46.5 Postoperative Follow-Up
- •References
- •References
- •48.1 Introduction
- •48.10 Surgical Technique Preserving Left Gastric Artery
- •48.12 Conclusions
- •References
- •49: Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy
- •49.1 Surgical Technique
- •49.1.3 Distal Splenopancreatectomy
- •49.1.4 Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •49.2 Results
- •49.3 Discussion
- •References
- •50: Total Pancreatectomy
- •50.1 Introduction
- •50.2 Indications
- •50.3 Surgical Procedure
- •50.4 Vascular Resection
- •50.5 Comment
- •References
- •References
- •52.1 Introduction
- •52.2.1 Non-Functional PNEN (NF-PNEN)
- •52.2.2 Functional PNEN
- •52.2.4 High-grade PNEN
- •52.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •53.1 Introduction
- •53.1.1 Fukuoka Guidelines 2012 (Revised 2017)
- •53.1.2 European Guidelines 2018 (EG18)
- •53.2 Discussion
- •References
- •54.1 Introduction
- •54.1.1 Developmental Mechanism
- •54.1.2 Designations
- •54.1.3 Incidence
- •54.1.4 Predictive Factors
- •54.1.5 Treatment
- •54.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •55: Benign Biliary Diseases
- •55.1 Introduction
- •55.2 Congenital Anomalies
- •55.2.1 Biliary Atresia
- •55.2.2 Choledochal Cyst
- •55.3 Diagnosis
- •55.4 Complications
- •55.5 Management
- •55.5.1 Gallstones
- •55.6 Pathogenesis
- •55.8 Complications
- •55.9 Bile Duct Stones
- •55.10 Management
- •55.11 Intrahepatic Stones
- •55.13.1 Benign Biliary Strictures (BBS)
- •55.14 Iatrogenic Biliary Injury
- •55.15 Mirizzi Syndrome (MS)
- •55.16 Liver Transplantation Related BBS
- •55.17 Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC)
- •55.17.1 Biliary Dyskinesia
- •References
- •56.1 Introduction
- •56.2 Preoperative Evaluation
- •56.2.1 Preoperative Biliary Drainage
- •56.2.2 Portal Vein Embolization
- •56.3.2 Hilar No Touch “En-bloc” Technique
- •56.3.3 Vascular Resection
- •56.3.4 Margin Status
- •56.3.5 Lymph Node Dissection
- •56.3.6 Minimally Invasive Surgery
- •56.4 Short-term Results
- •56.5 Long-term Results
- •56.6 Conclusions
- •Bibliography
- •57.1 Introduction
- •57.2 Clinical Presentation
- •57.3 Serum Tumor Markers
- •57.4 Imaging
- •57.5 Treatment
- •57.6 Surgical Management
- •57.6.1 Liver Resection
- •57.11 Surgical Resection Procedure
- •57.13.2 Long-Term Outcomes
- •57.14 Recurrence
- •57.14.1 Liver Transplantation
- •References
- •58.1 Introduction
- •58.1.2 Surgical Techniques
- •58.1.4 Outcomes After HPD
- •58.1.5 Practical Management During Surgery
- •References
- •59: Hepato-biliary Injuries
- •59.1 Etiology
- •59.4 Diagnosis
- •59.4.1 Clinical Presentation
- •59.4.2 Imaging
- •References
- •60.1 Background
- •60.2 Diagnostics
- •60.3 Treatment
- •60.3.1 Nonoperative Management
- •60.3.2 Interventional Treatment
- •60.3.3 Surgery
- •References
- •61.1 Historical Overview
- •61.2.1.1 Acute Liver Failure (ALF)
- •61.2.1.2 Chronic Liver Failure
- •61.2.3 MELD Exceptions
- •61.2.4 Other Standardized MELD Exceptions
- •61.2.4.1 Non-Standardized MELD Exceptions
- •References
- •62.3 Patient Assessment
- •62.4 Prognostic Factors
- •62.6 Extracorporeal Liver Support Systems
- •62.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •63.1 Introduction
- •63.2 Donation After Brain Death
- •63.3 Donors after Circulatory Death
- •63.4.1 Surgical Technique
- •63.4.1.1 Cross-clamping
- •63.4.2 Technical Variants
- •63.4.2.1 Split Liver Retrieval
- •63.4.2.2 En-bloc Liver-pancreas Retrieval
- •63.4.2.3 En-bloc Liver-bowel Retrieval
- •63.4.3 Back-table
- •63.4.3.1 Incidents: Accidents
- •References
- •64.1 Introduction
- •64.11 Conclusions
- •References
- •65: Living Donor Liver Transplantation
- •65.1 Introduction
- •65.2.1 Graft Size
- •65.2.2 Left Liver Graft
- •65.2.3 Right Liver Graft
- •65.2.4 Right Lateral Sector Graft
- •65.2.5 Dual Graft
- •65.2.6 ABO Blood Type Incompatible Graft
- •References

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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. One thousand consecutive
pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg. 2006;244(1):10–5.
7. Janot MS, Belyaev O, Kersting S, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 folrinox
results in resectability in 60% of the patients. Ann Surg.
2016;264(3):457–63.
27. Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. The clinical outcomes
after total pancreatectomy. Dig Surg. 2017;34(2):142–50.
42. Billings BJ, Christein JD, Harmsen WS, etal. 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 forSolid
Pseudopapillary Neoplasms
WenmingWu, QiangXu, andRuiJiang
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 prole, 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 welldened, 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 signicant 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 signicantly smaller
tumor size and may lack the typical features [13, 14]. The
characteristic imaging manifestation combined with age and
gender prole may be sufcient for most SPNs diagnosis
[15]. EUS-guided ne-needle aspiration (FNA) is a accurate
diagnosis method with sensitivity and specicity 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
[16–18]. 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, illdened 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 [20–22]. 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]. Decient
residual volume of the pancreas is correlated with pancreatic
functional deciency [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 benecial 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 benets 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 signicantly longer postoperative hospitalization and increased
unadjusted mortality than segmental pancreatectomy, while
with no signicant 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 [41–44].
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 5years
after surgery. However, in a small but signicant number of
patients, recurrence or metastasis has been seen between 5
and 10years. 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 signicant 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 forSolid 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, etal., 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, etal. A combination of molecu-
lar markers and clinical features improve the classication of pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(6):1501–10.
4. Audard V, Cavard C, Richa H, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, Hassenpug M, Hinz U, etal. 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, etal. 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 difculties. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Grading solid pseudopapillary tumors
of the pancreas: the Fudan prognostic index. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020.
55. Canzonieri V, Berretta M, Buonadonna A, etal. 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, etal. Micro-RNA expression
patterns predict metastatic spread in solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas. Front Oncol. 2020;10:328.

Pancreatic Resection
forNeuroendocrine Neoplasms
ofthePancreas
YosukeKasai, ToshihikoMasui, KyoichiTakaori,
KenjiYoshino, andEricK.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 signicance 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 benet 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 ofPancreatic Resection
forPNENs
52.2.1 Non-Functional PNEN (NF-PNEN)
Table 52.1 Reported radiological signs of malignancy
Radiological factors
Tumor size >4cm [12]
Tumor size >2cm [13, 14]
Tumor size >1.5cm [15–17]
Tumor size (continuous) [18, 19]
Absence of early enhancement [20]
Calcication [18]
MPD involvement/dilatation [21, 22]
Lymphadenopathy [12]
a
Cystic component [23–25]
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 <1cm for NANETS guidelines) under certain
conditions [7–9]. 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
Table52.1, should be carefully evaluated to determine resection versus observation. Any nding suggesting malignancy
should direct patients toward pancreatic resection.
Figure52.1 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
[7–9]. *Patients should be followed up every 6–12months. 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 [7–9]. 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 forNeuroendocrine Neoplasms ofthePancreas
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
>2cm and those responsible for the hormone secretion based
on SASI test is enough [8, 9].
52.2.3 PNEN withDistant 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% [30–33].
Therefore, candidates for metastasectomy should benet
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 benecial 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 benecial for symptom control,
if evidence suggests that the primary tumor is responsible
for hormone secretion.
52.2.4 High-grade PNEN
In the WHO Classication 2017, high-grade PNENs (G3:
Ki-67 index >20% and/or >20 mitoses/10 high-power elds)
were reclassied 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 benet of
resection for PNEC is yet to be determined due to the
extremely poor prognosis [9].
52.3 Procedures Based ontheNeed
forSystematic LND
Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is present in 18–39% of
patients with PNENs without distant metastasis [40–42].
Prognostic signicance of LNM and regional LND is controversial for PNEN [15, 40–43], possibly because the indication and extent of LND have not been unied. 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 classied
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
Classication 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 sufcient, 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 [7–9, 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
[7–9]
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
