SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of pathology sampling protocols for pancreatoduodenectomy specimens

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pancreatoduodenectomy is one of the most challenging surgical specimens for pathologists. Recently, two different, standardized protocols have been proposed: the axial slicing Leeds protocol (LP) and the bi-valving Adsay protocol (AP). Comparison between standardized and non-standardized protocols (NSP) was performed with emphasis on margin involvement and lymph node yield. Pancreatoduodenectomy cases were retrospectively recruited: 46 sampled with LP, 52 cases with AP and 46 cases with NSP. Clinico-pathologic data and rates of margin/surface involvement were collected and their prognostic influence on survival was assessed. Statistical differences between NSP and AP and LP were seen for nodal yield (p = 0.0001), N+ (p = 0.0001) and lymph node ratio - LNR (p < 0.0008) but not between AP and LP. Differences in R1/R0 status were statistically significant between NSP group (R1–15%) and both the LP (R1–73.9%) and AP (R1–70%) groups (p = 0.0001) but not between LP and AP groups. At univariate survival analysis, grade (p = 0.0023) and number of involved margins (p = 0.0096) in AP and “N-category” (p = 0.0057) “resection margin status” (p = 0.0094), “stage” (p = 0.0143), and “number of involved margins” (p = 0.00398) in LP were statistically significant, while no variable was significant in the NSP group. At multivariate analysis “N category,” “resection margin status,” “stage,” “number of involved margins,” and “LNR” retained significance for the LP group. These results show that both LP and AP perform better than non-standardized sampling making standardization mandatory in pancreatoduodenectomy cut up. Both AP and LP show strengths and weaknesses, and these may impact on the choice of protocol in different institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Thailand)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Malvezzi M, Bertuccio P, Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri E (2014) European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2014. Ann Oncol 25:1650–1656. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ducreux M, Cuhna AS, Caramella C, Hollebecque A, Burtin P, Goéré D, Seufferlein T, Haustermans K, Van Laethem JL, Conroy T, Arnold D, Guidelines Committee ESMO (2015) Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO clinical practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26:v56–v68. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Arnold MA, Chang DC, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Riall TS, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ (2006) 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1199–1210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Dunn JA, Almond J, Beger HG, Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fernandez-Cruz L, Lacaine F, Buckels J, Deakin M, Adab FA, Sutton R, Imrie C, Ihse I, Tihanyi T, Olah A, Pedrazzoli S, Spooner D, Kerr DJ, Friess H, Büchler MW, European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (2001) Influence of resection margins on survival for patients with pancreatic cancer treated by adjuvant chemoradiation and/or chemotherapy in the ESPAC-1 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 234:758–768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Paniccia A, Hosokawa P, Henderson W, Schulick RD, Edil BH, McCarter MD, Gajdos C (2015) Characteristics of 10-year survivors of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg 150:701–710. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.0668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schmidt CM, Powell ES, Yiannoutsos CT, Howard TJ, Wiebke EA, Wiesenauer CA, Baumgardner JA, Cummings OW, Jacobson LE, Broadie TA, Canal DF, Goulet RJ Jr, Curie EA, Cardenes H, Watkins JM, Loehrer PJ, Lillemoe KD, Madura JA (2004) Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 20-year experience in 516 patients. Arch Surg 139:718–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Raut CP, Tseng JF, Sun CC, Wang H, Wolff RA, Crane CH, Hwang R, Vauthey JN, Abdalla EK, Lee JE, Pisters PW, Evans DB (2007) Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 246:52–60

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV, McMahon MJ, Guillou PJ, Anthoney A (2006) Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 93:1232–1237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Menon KV, Gomez D, Smith AM, Anthoney A, Verbeke CS (2009) Impact of margin status on survival following pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer: the Leeds pathology protocol (LEEPP). HPB (Oxford) 11:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2008.00013.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Verbeke CS, Gladhaug IP (2016) Dissection of pancreatic resection specimens. Surg Pathol Clin 9:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.path.2016.05.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Adsay NV, Basturk O, Saka B, Bagci P, Ozdemir D, Balci S, Sarmiento JM, Kooby DA, Staley C, Maithel SK, Everett R, Cheng JD, Thirabanjasak D, Weaver DW (2014) Whipple made simple for surgical pathologists: orientation, dissection, and sampling of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens for a more practical and accurate evaluation of pancreatic, distal common bile duct, and ampullary tumors. Am J Surg Patho 38:480–493. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Soer E, Brosens L, van de Vijver M, Dijk F, van Velthuysen ML, Farina-Sarasqueta A, Morreau H, Offerhaus J, Koens L, Verheij J (2018) Dilemmas for the pathologist in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens: an overview of different grossing approaches and the relevance of the histopathological characteristics in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 472:533–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-018-2321-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Takahashi D, Kojima M, Sugimoto M, Kobayashi S, Takahashi S, Konishi M, Gotohda N, Nagino M (2018) Pathologic evaluation of surgical margins in pancreatic cancer specimens using color coding with tissue marking dyes. Pancreas 47:830–836. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000001106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Casadei R, Ricci C, Taffurelli G, Pacilio CA, Santini D, Di Marco M, Minni F (2018) Multicolour versus monocolour inking specimens after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer: a single Centre prospective randomised clinical trial. Int J Surg 51:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwarz RE, Smith DD (2006) Extent of lymph node retrieval and pancreatic cancer survival: information from a large US population database. Ann Surg Oncol 13:1189–2000. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9016-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Slidell MB, Chang DC, Cameron JL, Wolfgang C, Herman JM, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Pawlik TM (2008) Impact of total lymph node count and lymph node ratio on staging and survival after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large, population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 15:165–174. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9587-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Konstantinidis IT, Warshaw AL, Allen JN, Blaszkowsky LS, Castillo CF, Deshpande V, Hong TS, Kwak EL, Lauwers GY, Ryan DP, Wargo JA, Lillemoe KD, Ferrone CR (2013) Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a "true" R0 resection? Ann Surg 257:731–736. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318263da2f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell F, Smith RA, Whelan P, Sutton R, Raraty M, Neoptolemos JP, Ghaneh P (2009) Classification of R1 resections for pancreatic cancer: the prognostic relevance of tumour involvement within 1 mm of a resection margin. Histopathology 55:277–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03376.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Verbeke CS (2008) Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer - are we there yet? Histopathology 52:787–796

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Staley CA, Cleary KR, Abbruzzese JL, Lee JE, Ames FC, Fenoglio CJ, Evans DB (1996) The need for standardized pathologic staging of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens. Pancreas 12:373–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lüttges J, Zamboni G, Klöppel G (1999) Recommendation for the examination of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas. Dig Surg 16:291–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tomlinson JS, Jain S, Bentrem DJ, Sekeris EG, Maggard MA, Hines OJ, Reber HA, Ko CY (2007) Accuracy of staging node-negative pancreas cancer: a potential quality measure. Arch Surg 142:767–773. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.142.8.767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Warschkow R, Widmann B, Beutner U, Marti L, Steffen T, Schiesser M, Schmied BM (2017) The more the better-lower rate of stage migration and better survival in patients with retrieval of 20 or more regional lymph nodes in pancreatic cancer: a population-based propensity score matched and trend SEER analysis. Pancreas 46:648–657. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000000784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Adsay NV, Basturk O, Altinel D, Khanani F, Coban I, Weaver DW, Kooby DA, Sarmiento JM, Staley C (2009) The number of lymph nodes identified in a simple pancreatoduodenectomy specimen: comparison of conventional vs orange-peeling approach in pathologic assessment. Mod Pathol 22:107–112. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2008.167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pawlik TM, Gleisner AL, Cameron JL, Winter JM, Assumpcao L, Lillemoe KD, Wolfgang C, Hruban RH, Schulick RD, Yeo CJ, Choti MA (2007) Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery 141:610–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F, Reiser C, Herpel E, Friess H, Schirmacher P, Büchler MW (2008) Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1651–1660. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9839-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Osipov A, Nissen N, Rutgers J, Dhall D, Naziri J, Chopra S, Li Q, Hendifar AE, Tuli R (2017) Redefining the positive margin in pancreatic cancer: impact on patterns of failure, long-term survival and adjuvant therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3674–3682. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6076-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gnerlich JL, Luka SR, Deshpande AD, Dubray BJ, Weir JS, Carpenter DH, Brunt EM, Strasberg SM, Hawkins WG, Linehan DC (2012) Microscopic margins and patterns of treatment failure in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Arch Surg 147:753–760. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.1126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang Y, Frampton AE, Cohen P, Kyriakides C, Bong JJ, Habib NA, Spalding DR, Ahmad R, Jiao LR (2012) Tumor infiltration in the medial resection margin predicts survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1875–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1985-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Simona Pigozzi for technical help.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anatomic Pathology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy

    Federica Grillo, Jacopo Ferro, Leonardo Peñuela, Rita Bianchi, Roberto Fiocca & Luca Mastracci

  2. Ospedale Policlinico San Martino Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy

    Federica Grillo, Francesca Pitto, Roberto Fiocca & Luca Mastracci

  3. Unit of Anatomic Pathology, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Pavia, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Alessandro Vanoli & Oneda Grami

  4. Anatomic Pathology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Alessandro Vanoli

  5. Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Sara Delfanti

Authors
  1. Federica Grillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacopo Ferro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandro Vanoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara Delfanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesca Pitto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leonardo Peñuela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rita Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Oneda Grami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Roberto Fiocca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Luca Mastracci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Federica Grillo, Jacopo Ferro, Alessandro Vanoli, Sara Delfino, Francesca Pitto, Leonardo Peñuela, Rita Bianchi, Oneda Grami, and Luca Mastracci. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Federica Grillo, Alessandro Vanoli, Leonardo Peñuela, and Luca Mastracci, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federica Grillo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

This is a retrospective study in which all patients signed informed consent for surgery and histologic diagnosis. All patients were anonymized, and no new histological sections were produced.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the topical collection on Quality in Pathology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grillo, F., Ferro, J., Vanoli, A. et al. Comparison of pathology sampling protocols for pancreatoduodenectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 476, 735–744 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02687-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02687-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation