scholarly journals An outlook on the lymph nodes dissection during the pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weishen Wang ◽  
Baiyong Shen
2011 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-135
Author(s):  
S. Yamashita ◽  
T. Hashimoto ◽  
T. Moroga ◽  
M. Kamei ◽  
K. Tokuishi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Yoonhyeong Byun ◽  
Kyoung‐Bun Lee ◽  
Jin‐Young Jang ◽  
Youngmin Han ◽  
Yoo Jin Choi ◽  
...  

1995 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 2301-2305
Author(s):  
Minoru TANADA ◽  
Toshiaki SAEKI ◽  
Wataru TAKIYAMA ◽  
Akira KURITA ◽  
Nobuji YOKOYAMA ◽  
...  

1986 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 840-843
Author(s):  
Jiro FUJIMOTO ◽  
Isao KOKUNAI ◽  
Tokuhiro MIYAMOTO ◽  
Satoshi TANE ◽  
Hitoshi SHIOZAKI ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Lian Xue ◽  
Xiao-Long Chen ◽  
Wei-Han Zhang ◽  
Kun Yang ◽  
Xin-Zu Chen ◽  
...  

Background. The studies on risk factors and metastatic rate of retropancreatic (number 13) lymph nodes in gastric adenocarcinoma were few and the results were still controversial. The aim of this study was to elucidate risk factors and prognostic significance of number 13 lymph nodes in gastric adenocarcinoma.Method. From January 2000 to December 2011, 114 patients who underwent gastrectomy with number 13 lymph nodes dissection were enrolled and followed up to January 2014. Patients were grouped according to whether number 13 lymph nodes were positive or negative.Results. The metastatic rate of number 13 lymph nodes was 22.8%. In multivariate analysis, pT stage (P=0.027), pN stage (P=0.005), and number 11p (P=0.015) lymph nodes were independent risk factors of positive number 13 lymph nodes. In all patients (P<0.001) and subpopulation with TNM III stage (P=0.007), positive number 13 lymph nodes had significantly worse prognosis than those of patients with negative number 13 LNs in Kaplan-Meier analysis.Conclusion. Number 13 lymph nodes had relatively high metastatic rate and led to poor prognosis. pT stage, pN stage, and number 11p lymph nodes were independent risk factors of positive number 13 lymph nodes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15549-e15549
Author(s):  
Mikhail Fedyanin ◽  
Kheda Elsnukaeva ◽  
Irina Demidova ◽  
Daniil Stroyakovskiy ◽  
Yuri Shelygin ◽  
...  

e15549 Background: Role of metastasectomy in pts with mBRAF metastatic CRC is still controversial. We performed analysis of prospective multicentric database of pts with mBRAF mCRC to evaluate the efficacy of metastasectomy in such group of pts in the real clinical practice. Methods: We analyzed a database of pts with mCRC in 7 cancer clinics in Russia and chose pts with metastasectomy with different mutational status. The primary endpoints were disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), which were calculated from the time of metastasectomy. Analysis was performed with the SPSS v.20 software package. Results: The study included 126 pts: 26 pts with mBRAF, 57 pts with mRAS and 43 pts with wtRAS/BRAF. Pts with mBRAF more often had synchronous metastases (50%/19,3/11,6%, p<0,01), N2 status (38,5%/11%/19,6%, p=0,04). In mBRAF cohort all but 1 pt had V600 mutations; peritonectomy performed in 19,2%, liver resection – in 34,6%, lung resection, ovariectomy, metastasectomy in brain and retroperitoneal lymph nodes dissection with removal of the local relapse – over 11,5%; R0 resection was achieved in 88,5%. Median DFS was 7 months in mBRAF pts, 14 months in mRAS and not achieved in wtRAS/BRAF group treated (HR 2,1, 95%CI 1,5-3.1, p<0.01). Median OS was 26 months in mBRAF, 38 months in mRAS and not achieved in wtRAS/BRAF group (HR 1,5, 95%CI 1,0-2,4, p=0.06). Perioperative chemotherapy didn’t improve DFS in pts with mBRAF (HR 1,9, 95%CI 0,67-5,7, p=0,2). The best median DFS were in pts after ovariectomy – 10 months, the worst - after retroperitoneal lymph nodes dissection with removal of the local relapse – 2 months. Conclusions: Prognosis of pts with mBRAF after metastasectomy is worse than with other mutational phenotypes. However in selected cases metastasectomy might be considered in such aggressive mCRC.


1998 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1592-1595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroki IMAZU ◽  
Takahiko FUNABIKI ◽  
Masahiro OCHIAI ◽  
Yoichi SAKURAI ◽  
Teruya SUGITA ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document