Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Resection for Pancreatic Cancer Using the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Classifications

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Pancreatic Cancer

  • 180 Accesses

Abstract

The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) has published a number of definitions within the last decade to standardize terminology and reporting in the field of pancreatic surgery. Furthermore, the group has also extended their approach of summarizing expert opinions in terms of recommendations for the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer. These definitions and consensus statements have been highly accepted in the worldwide surgical community, and the citations of the respective papers are steadily increasing, which underlines their importance not only in clinical practice but also in the setting of study conductance and scientific reporting. Besides the initial definitions of postoperative complications (postoperative pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying), the recent ISGPS publications have addressed important issues of pancreatic cancer (PDAC) surgery, especially with regard to preoperative evaluation of resectability, extended resections, and lymph node management during PDAC resection. Currently, more ISGPS publications are being prepared to cover the entire field of surgical and perioperative management in pancreatic surgery.

This chapter gives a general overview of the ISGPS definitions and consensus recommendations and, in addition, puts a special focus on the publications of the group dealing with PDAC surgery.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bassi C, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138(1):8–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bassi C, et al. Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection. The importance of definitions. Dig Surg. 2004;21(1):54–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hackert T, Hinz U, Pausch T, Fesenbeck I, Strobel O, Schneider L, Fritz S, Büchler MW. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: we need to redefine grades B and C. Surgery. 2016;159(3):872–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hackert T, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: we need to redefine grades B and C. Surgery. 2016;159(3):872–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wente MN, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142(1):20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wente MN, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142(5):761–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shukla PJ, et al. Toward improving uniformity and standardization in the reporting of pancreatic anastomoses: a new classification system by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2010;147(1):144–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tol JA, et al. Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156(3):591–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hartwig W, et al. Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156(1):1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bockhorn 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klauss M, et al. A new invasion score for determining the resectability of pancreatic carcinomas with contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography. Pancreatology. 2008;8(2):204–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shrikhande SV, et al. Multimodality imaging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review of the literature. HPB (Oxford). 2012;14(10):658–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2014: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12(8):1083–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhou Y, et al. Pancreatectomy combined with superior mesenteric vein-portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2012;36(4):884–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pedrazzoli S, et al. Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Lymphadenectomy Study Group. Ann Surg. 1998;228(4):508–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Yeo CJ, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma: comparison of morbidity and mortality and short-term outcome. Ann Surg. 1999;229(5):613–22; discussion 622–4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Yeo CJ, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma, part 2: randomized controlled trial evaluating survival, morbidity, and mortality. Ann Surg. 2002;236(3):355–66; discussion 366–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Farnell MB, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery. 2005;138(4):618–28; discussion 628–30.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Riall TS, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma – part 3: update on 5-year survival. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9(9):1191–204; discussion 1204–6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nimura Y, et al. Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy in radical pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: long-term results of a Japanese multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2012;19(3):230–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Michalski CW, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94(3):265–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kawarada Y. New classification of pancreatic carcinoma – Japan Pancreas Society. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 2003;100(8):974–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Valsangkar NP, et al. N0/N1, PNL, or LNR? The effect of lymph node number on accurate survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(2):257–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hartwig W, et al. Pancreatic cancer surgery in the new millennium: better prediction of outcome. Ann Surg. 2011;254(2):311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Strobel O, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: number of positive nodes allows to distinguish several N categories. Ann Surg. 2015;261(5):961–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Iqbal N, et al. A comparison of pancreaticoduodenectomy with extended pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of 1909 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35(1):79–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fujita T, et al. Evaluation of the prognostic factors and significance of lymph node status in invasive ductal carcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas. Pancreas. 2010;39(1):e48–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lin CC, Chen CL, Cheng YF. Modified extended distal pancreatectomy for carcinoma of body and tail of pancreas. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2005;52(64):1090–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fortner JG. Regional resection of cancer of the pancreas: a new surgical approach. Surgery. 1973;73(2):307–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Giovinazzo F, et al. Meta-analysis of benefits of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2016;103(3):179–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dokmak S, et al. Parietal peritoneum as an autologous substitute for venous reconstruction in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):366–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Del Chiaro M, et al. Cattell-braasch maneuver combined with artery-first approach for superior mesenteric-portal vein resection during pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(12):2264–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chu CK, et al. Prosthetic graft reconstruction after portal vein resection in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(3):316–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Beltrame V, et al. Mesenteric-portal vein resection during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:659730.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Murakami Y, et al. Portal or superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2015;102(7):837–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hartwig W, et al. Multivisceral resection for pancreatic malignancies: risk-analysis and long-term outcome. Ann Surg. 2009;250(1):81–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hackert T, Weitz J, Buchler MW. Splenic artery use for arterial reconstruction in pancreatic surgery. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2014;399(5):667–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mollberg N, et al. Arterial resection during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):882–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Weitz J, et al. The “artery first” approach for resection of pancreatic head cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(2):e1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Inoue Y, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy with systematic mesopancreas dissection using a supracolic anterior artery-first approach. Ann Surg. 2015;262(6):1092–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sanjay P, et al. ‘Artery-first’ approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(8):1027–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jing W, et al. Distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection for the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic body and tail cancer. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2013;60(121):187–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Strasberg SM, Fields R. Left-sided pancreatic cancer: distal pancreatectomy and its variants: radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection. Cancer J. 2012;18(6):562–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Okada K, et al. Surgical strategy for patients with pancreatic body/tail carcinoma: who should undergo distal pancreatectomy with en-bloc celiac axis resection? Surgery. 2013;153(3):365–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hackert T, et al. Clinical significance of liver ischaemia after pancreatic resection. Br J Surg. 2011;98(12):1760–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gaujoux S, et al. Ischemic complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, prevention, and management. Ann Surg. 2009;249(1):111–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kulemann B, et al. Perioperative and long-term outcome after standard pancreaticoduodenectomy, additional portal vein and multivisceral resection for pancreatic head cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(3):438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Burdelski CM, et al. Multivisceral resections in pancreatic cancer: identification of risk factors. World J Surg. 2011;35(12):2756–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hartwig W, et al. Outcomes after extended pancreatectomy in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2016;103(12):1683–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gillen S, et al. Preoperative/neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages. PLoS Med. 2010;7(4):e1000267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Petrelli F, et al. FOLFIRINOX-based neoadjuvant therapy in borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analytical review of published studies. Pancreas. 2015;44(4):515–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Katz MH, et al. Response of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer to neoadjuvant therapy is not reflected by radiographic indicators. Cancer. 2012;118(23):5749–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tachezy M, et al. Sequential neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by curative surgery vs. primary surgery alone for resectable, non-metastasized pancreatic adenocarcinoma: NEOPA- a randomized multicenter phase III study (NCT01900327, DRKS00003893, ISRCTN82191749). BMC Cancer. 2014;14:411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Tang K, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages. Pancreatology. 2016;16(1):28–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Blazer M, et al. Neoadjuvant modified (m) FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced unresectable (LAPC) and borderline resectable (BRPC) adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(4):1153–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Faris JE, et al. FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center experience. Oncologist. 2013;18(5):543–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Ajani JA, et al. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13(2):194–227.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Ferrone CR, et al. Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):12–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Takahashi H, et al. Perineural invasion and lymph node involvement as indicators of surgical outcome and pattern of recurrence in the setting of preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2012;255(1):95–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tian H, et al. Extrapancreatic neural plexus invasion by carcinomas of the pancreatic head region: evaluation using thin-section helical CT. Radiat Med. 2007;25(4):141–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Patel BN, et al. Three-dimensional volume-rendered multidetector CT imaging of the posterior inferior pancreaticoduodenal artery: its anatomy and role in diagnosing extrapancreatic perineural invasion. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13(4):580–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. De Robertis R, et al. Prognostication and response assessment in liver and pancreatic tumors: the new imaging. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(22):6794–808.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Mornex F, et al. Radiochemotherapy in the management of pancreatic cancer – part I: neoadjuvant treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2005;15(4):226–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Strobel O, et al. Resection after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced, “unresectable” pancreatic cancer. Surgery. 2012;152(3 Suppl 1):S33–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Nanda RH, et al. Neoadjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX and chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer improves resectability. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(8):1028–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Christians KK, et al. Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for borderline resectable pancreas cancer: a new treatment paradigm? Oncologist. 2014;19(3):266–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. James ET, Yao X, Cong X, Li J, Hahn C, Kaley K, Kortmansky JS, Fischbach NA, Chang BW, Salem RR, Cha C, Stein S, Hochster HS, Lacy J. Interim analysis of a phase II study of dose-modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) in locally advanced (LAPC) and metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). J Clin Oncol. 2014;3:32.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Conroy T, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1817–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hackert T, et al. locally advanced pancreatic cancer: neoadjuvant therapy with Folfirinox results in resectability in 60% of the patients. Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):457–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Katz MH, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: the importance of this emerging stage of disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(5):833–46; discussion 846–8.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hartwig W, et al. CA19-9 in potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: perspective to adjust surgical and perioperative therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(7):2188–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Aldakkak M, et al. Pre-treatment carbohydrate antigen 19-9 does not predict the response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with localized pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17(10):942–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Boone BA, et al. Serum CA 19-9 response to neoadjuvant therapy is associated with outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(13):4351–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kurahara H, et al. Prognostication by inflammation-based score in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Pancreatology. 2015;15(6):688–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Thilo Hackert, Christoph W. Michalski & Markus W. Büchler

Authors
  1. Thilo Hackert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph W. Michalski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus W. Büchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thilo Hackert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Div. Surgery & Oncology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

    John P. Neoptolemos

  2. Rochester, Minnesota, USA

    Raul Urrutia

  3. Dept. Gastrointestinal Medical Onco, Duke University Medical Center Dept. Gastrointestinal Medical Onco, Durham, North Carolina, USA

    James Abbruzzese

  4. Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus W. Büchler

Section Editor information

  1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    James L. Abbruzzese

  2. Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, 55905, Rochester, MN, USA

    Raul A. Urrutia

  3. Division of Surgery and Oncology, University of Liverpool, Daulby Street, Liverpool, UK

    John Neoptolemos

  4. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus W. Büchler MD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hackert, T., Michalski, C.W., Büchler, M.W. (2016). Surgical Resection for Pancreatic Cancer Using the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Classifications. In: Neoptolemos, J., Urrutia, R., Abbruzzese, J., Büchler, M. (eds) Pancreatic Cancer. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6631-8_82-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6631-8_82-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6631-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6631-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation