Abstract
The goal of surveillance programs for individuals at risk (IAR) from familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) families or families with other inherited tumor syndromes predisposing to the development of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), such as hereditary pancreatitis or Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, is the dectection and consecutive curative resection of early PDAC or even better its high-grade precursor lesions. Although the indication for surgery is quite established, the extent of surgery is not well defined due to the lack of evidence-based data. In addition, multiple factors have to be taken into account to determine an optimal personalized surgical strategy. This holds especially true since pancreatic surgery is associated with a relatively high morbidity and might impair the quality of life significantly. In this article the surgical aspects in the setting of hereditary PDAC are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
According to the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) consensus the primary goal of pancreatic surveillance is to prevent death from pancreatic cancer (PDAC) and ideally by preventing its development by identifying and treating its high-grade precursor lesions [1, 2]. Many factors should be considered when deciding about pancreatic surgery in individuals at risk (IAR), especially since the evidence in this setting is limited and recommendations from experts regarding the surgical approach are often only based on limited evidence. In case of screening detected suspicious pancreatic lesion(s), the IARs individual estimated risk for PDAC based on gene variant status and family history, age, comorbidities, life expectancy, compliance as well as the risk of any surgical procedure should be considered. Decision-making is best undertaken by an experienced, multidisciplinary expert team [1]. When surgery is indicated, it is best performed at a high-volume center, since several studies have shown that the case volume directly correlates with the surgical outcomes [2, 3].
Indication for surgery
Proven PDAC or suspicious solid lesion(s)
In general, IAR should undergo pancreatic resection for almost the same indications as individuals without a known familial/genetic risk according to established guidelines [1, 4,5,6]. A screening-detected, resectable PDAC without distant metastases should be resected. A borderline resectable PDAC should nowaday undergo neoadjuvant treatment (e.g. chemotherapy with Folfirinox) and secondary resection, if feasible. Unambiguous solid lesions whose size is ≥ 0.5 cm or which can be represented in multiple imaging modalities are suspicious of malignancy and should be removed, if additional evaluation (e.g. EUS-guided biopsy) does not yield a definitive preoperative diagnosis [1, 2].
Cystic lesions
Cystic lesions, especially so called “imaging” branch-duct type (BD)-IPMN, are detected in more than 50% of IAR, but only a minority of these cysts become malignant during up to 5 years follow-up in reported screening programs [7,8,9]. The predictive value of imaging to detect neoplastic changes in a pancreatic cyst is limited. Hence, there is a high chance for an unnecessary pancreatic resection, if the threshold for surgery is set too low [10, 11]. However, a recent European evidenced-based guideline defined with regard to the risk of malignant transformation absolute and relative indications for surgery in cystic lesions, which should also be applied to IAR (6, Table 1). Absolute indications for surgery in IPMN are positive cytology for malignancy or high-grade dysplasia, a solid mass component, jaundice, enhancing mural nodule ≥ 5 mm and main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter ≥ 10 mm (Table 1).
The relative indications should be adopted to the personal risk of the IAR, including affected members in the family, the presence of high-risk mutation, age and health status. The FaPaCa group (National Case Collection for Familial Pancreatic Cancer in Germany) indicates surgery also in IAR with pancreatic cyst > 20 mm or more than 5 cysts > 5 mm (Table 1) since these often indicate coexisting multifocal PanIN2/3 lesions [12] (Fig. 1).
Nowadays all types of pancreatic resections can be performed minimally invasive, especially with the robotic technique. In experienced centers the oncological results seem not to be inferior to the conventional technique, but the access trauma and general complications are reported to be lower [13,14,15].
Prophylactic extension of resection
During the CAPS consensus conferences [1, 3] the management of IAR with resected lesions was controversely discussed, particularly how the intraoperative and final pathology results, including margin status, should influence operative treatment. Most experts agreed that in case of intraoperatively proven PDAC further resection up to total pancreatectomy should be performed to achieve a R0 resection of the tumor. The FaPaCa group is more aggressive. In case of intraoperatively proven PDAC they prefer extension of the resection to total pancreatectomy independent of the resection margin. They also will proceed with resection even up to total pancreatectomy until no high-grade PanIN/IPMN could be detected at the resection margin.
Intraoperatively, further pancreatectomy (including total pancreatectomy) should not be performed in IAR with only PanIN2 in the resected specimen, nor if PanIN2 or low-grade IPMN are present at the resection margin or in the resected specimen [1, 3]. The presence of PanIN3 should be dealt with in consideration of the overall medical condition and life expectancy of the patient [16]. The FaPaCa group will proceed to total pancreatectomy, if the intraoperative frozen section describes multifocal PanIN 3 lesions in the absence of PDAC. It is important to know, however, that it is sometimes very difficult to grade PanIN in intraoperative frozen Sections. [3]. Therefore, the presence of higher grade PanIN oder IPMN might first be stated in the definitive pathology report. Most experts agreed that redo operations for further resection of the pancreas to remove PanIN2 at the margin or because of uni- or multifocal PanIN2 lesions anywhere in the resection specimen should not be performed [1, 3]. Multiple scenarios for consideration of further pancreatectomy, including the management of PanIN3 lesions at the margin or anywhere in the resection specimen did yet not reach consensus [1, 3]. PanIN3 lesions at the resection margin in non-familial patients treated for PDAC did not affect postoperative course [16], but this remains yet unclear for PanIN3-lesion in the absence of PDAC. Most experts recommend follow-up imaging less than 6 months after surgery, if there was any PanIN3 lesion in the resected pancreas of IAR without PDAC [3]. The FaPaCa group, however, recommends completion pancreatectomy in this situation, since they have experienced that all 8 IAR with this condition remained free of pancreatic disease up to 131 months after surgery with an acceptable quality of life [17].
Prophylactic pancreatectomy
The vast majority of experts agree that there is generally no indication for prophylactic pancreatectomy in asymptomatic IAR without any imaged lesion [1, 3, 18]. The complication rate of this procedure is about 30–40%, and the mortality around 1–6%, even when performed minimally invasive [19]. In addition, the consequences of exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency impair the quality of life sustainably [20]. Nevertheless, a Dutch group recently reported the PROPAN programme, which provides a conceptual and informative framework with decision tables for both IAR and physicians who wish to discuss prophylactic total pancreatectomy. This programme includes preoperative counselling, weighing the pros and cons between the reduction in PDAC risk and the risks and long-term consequences of total pancreatectomy, as well as the uncertainty regarding lifelong surveillance as an alternative management approach [21]. These considerations are important, since few IAR have serious cancer fear and therefore consider prophylactic pancreatectomy as it was the case in 2 IAR of the FaPaCa cohort [17].
An established exception to indicate a total pancreatectomy are symptomatic patients with hereditary pancreatitis (HP) and PRSS1 germline mutations since those have a PDAC lifetime risk of up to 40% [22, 23]. In symptomatic HP patients without suspicion lesions on imaging, however, endoscopic treatment is the most useful in patients with pancreatic duct lithiasis, obstruction, and dilation. It should be the first-line option, because it is less invasive than surgery. Surgery such as drainage operations (Puestow’s, Partington-Rochelle’s, Duval’s procedures), resectional operations (partial and subtotal or total pancreatectomies), resections with extended drainage (Beger’s, Frey’s procedures) should be the first-line option in patients for whom endoscopic treatment has failed or in those with a pancreatic mass with suspicion of malignancy. In general, total pancreatectomy should be considered in patients who have failed other operations or in patients with small duct or minimal change disease [24]. In these patients total pancreatectomy can be combined with autologous islet transplantation (see below).
Total pancreatectomy with autologous islet transplantation (TPAIT)
Total pancreatectomy with autologous islet transplantation (TPAIT) was already decribed in 1980 by Najarian et al. for chronic pancreatitis [25] and became thereafter a rare, but established procedure in patients with advanced symptomatic chronic pancreatitis, including HP [26].
To avoid postoperative insulin substitution the isolation of about 160.000 islet cells from the resected pancreas and the autotransplantation of roughly 2000 islet cells/kg body weight via the portal vein is mandatory [27]. Prerequisite of a successful TPAIT is fast processing of the resected pancreas, including a detailled histopatholgical analysis. In 2014, the participants of PancreasFest [28] published recommendations for TPAIT. According to these criteria pancreatic malignancy and high-grade precursor lesions have been considered an absolute contraindication for islet autotransplantation, because of the risk to disseminate cancer cells through the infusion of islets, which may still contain some exocrine cells even after purification. In 2016, Balzano et al. postulated criteria of extended indications for TPAIT [29] based on the experience with 31 patients with malignant sporadic pancreatic or periampullary neoplasms. Ex novo liver metastases following TPAIT were noted in only 3 patients and relapse was observed in 5 (12.9%) of 31 patients after median 2.5 years after TPAIT. The comparison of overall survival and disease-/progression-free survival of patients with PDAC treated with islet autotransplantation with those of patients with PDAC who had surgery without islet autotransplantation in the same period of time, the TPAIT group had a better survival at a similar stage of disease. At present, however, the use of TPAIT in malignant or high grade premalignant remains controversial, and thus is currently not standard management [30]. The FaPaCa group has intended TPAIT in 2 IAR (Fig. 2). However, both IAR had multifiocal PanIN3-lesions in the processed resected pancreas, so that the interdisciplinary board as well as the ethic committee voted against autoinfusion of the prepared islet cells (unpublished data). Large, prospective multicentric trials are needed to assess the long-term oncological results in the setting of hereditary PDAC.
Total pancreatectomy with pancreas transplantation
After total pancreatectomy in IAR with high grade PanIN2/3 lesions there is also the theroretical possibilty for pancreas transplantation. Charpentier et al. already reported in 2004 a 42-years old male IAR of a FPC family, who underwent total pancreatectomy for multifocal PanIN2 and 3 lesions. One year after pancreatectomy an allogenic pancreas transplantation was performed [31]. Fifteen months post transplantation the patient was free of insulin and showed no evidence of a PDAC or metastases on imaging. Pancreas transplantation in the setting of hereditary PDAC, however, remains only a theoretical option due to the lack of organs and all the uncertainties with precursor tumor cell spreading under the required immunosuppression.
Complications after surgery for hereditary PDAC
Several cohort studies have shown that the morbidity rate of major pancreatic resections in IAR, are similar with up to 30% clinically relevant (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) complications to those of patients with resected sporadic PDAC or high-grade IPMN (Table 2) The mortality of resected IAR in reported series [8, 32,33,34] and in a recent meta-analysis [35], however, is 0%, and thus lower than in sporadic PDAC. This might be due to the strong selection of IAR for pancreatic surgery in interdisciplinary expert programs.
Meeting the goal of surgery in hereditary PDAC
The goal of PDAC screening in IAR to detect PDAC at UICC stage I or its high-risk precursor neoplasms and consequently should early surgery of these screening detected lesions prolong survival. Vasen et al. [33] provided first evidence that surveillance of CDNK2A variant carriers is relatively successful, detecting most PDAC (75%) at a resectable stage with a 5-year survival rate of 24%. A retrospective examination of 16 international surveillance programs, however, showed that 35 of 41 screening detected PDAC were either unresectable (n = 14) or had advanced tumors with lymph node metastases (n = 21) [37]. In a recent Dutch study only 3 of 10 IAR with PDAC from FPC families met the postulated goal of screening, namely early PDAC confined to the pancreas without metastases, but the resectability rate was 60% with a median survival of 21 months for resected cases [33]. Currently, in the FaPaCa cohort, also 3 of 4 IAR with PDAC had cancers with lymph node metastases, but all 4 PDAC could be resected with median survival of 32.5 months. Thus, the goal of PDAC screening was not fulfilled in most FPC screening programs. The reported resectability and postoperative survival rates, however, compare favorably to that of sporadic PDAC outside surveillance programs, although longer survival partly be due to lead time bias cannot be excluded (Tables 3, 38 and 39).
Currently applied indications, which are mainly based on EUS and MRI, carry a risk of surgical overtreatment. A previous meta-analysis reported that 67% (198/257) of IAR had pancreatic resections for non-target lesions [41]. In a previous Dutch study 30–40% of IAR [33] and in the FaPaCa cohort [17] at least 25% of IAR underwent unnecessary pancreatic resections. A very recent meta-analysis based on 5027 IAR in 23 studies stated a pooled prevalence of low-yield surgery of only 2.1% [95%CI 0.9–3.7]. The temporal analysis showed that the rate of low-yield surgeries decreased in the last decade and stabilized at around 1% [35]. This reported low rate of low-yield surgery in IAR cannot be confirmed by the authors experience.
Psychological factors regarding surgery in IAR
The Dutch colleagues reported 2020 about the burden of intensified surveillance and surgery in IAR [29]. 298 IARs were under surveillance, 15 of them (5.0%) underwent surgery. 67% (10/15) were interviewed a median of 43 months after surgery. Most patients felt surgery justified (70%). All IAR would have voted for surgery again regardless of whether histopathological results showed PDAC (10%), precursors (50%) or benign findings (30%) and the postoperative recovery was uneventful or with complications [42].
Conclusion
The goal of surgery in hereditary PDAC is the early resection of PDAC at UICC stage I or its high-risk precursors to prolong survival in IAR under surveillance. Indication for surgery for IAR with proven PDAC or suspicious solid lesion(s) and also for cystic lesions should be based on the established guidelines for individuals without a known familial/genetic risk and experts’ recommendations on FPC. Diameter and number of cysts should be considered and assessed more strictly in IAR, the same applies for potential prophylactic extent of resection when detecting precursors in the resected specimen or in the resection margins.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Goggins M, Overbeek KA, Brand R, Syngal S, Del Chiaro M, Bartsch DK, Bassi C, Carrato A, Farrell J, Fishman EK, Fockens P, Gress TM, van Hooft JE, Hruban RH, Kastrinos F, Klein A, Lennon AM, Lucas A, Park W, Rustgi A, Simeone D, Stoffel E, Vasen HFA, Cahen DL, Canto MI, Bruno M (2020) International Cancer of the pancreas Screening (CAPS) consortium. Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. Gut 69(1):7–17
Aslanian HR, Lee JH, Canto MI (2020) AGA clinical practice update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk individuals: Expert Review. Gastroenterology 159(1):358–362
Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban RH, Offerhaus GJ, Poley JW, Kamel I, Nio Y, Schulick RS, Bassi C, Kluijt I, Levy MJ, Chak A, Fockens P, Goggins M, Bruno M (2013) International Cancer of pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. International Cancer of the pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut 62(3):339–347
Seufferlein T et al Konsultationsfassung S3-Leitlinie Exokrines Pankreaskarzinom Version 3.01-August 2023; AWMF-Registernummer: 032-010OL
Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, Behrman SW, Benson AB, Cardin DB, Chiorean EG, Chung V, Czito B, Del Chiaro M, Dillhoff M, Donahue TR, Dotan E, Ferrone CR, Fountzilas C, Hardacre J, Hawkins WG, Klute K, Ko AH, Kunstman JW, LoConte N, Lowy AM, Moravek C, Nakakura EK, Narang AK, Obando J, Polanco PM, Reddy S, Reyngold M, Scaife C, Shen J, Vollmer C, Wolff RA, Wolpin BM, Lynn B, George GV (2021) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 19(4):439–457
European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas (2018) European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut 67(5):789–804
Potjer TP, Schot I, Langer P et al (2013) Variation in precursor lesions of pancreatic cancer among high-risk groups. Clin Cancer Res 19:442–449
Bartsch DK, Slater EP, Carrato A, Ibrahim IS, Guillen-Ponce C, Vasen HF, Matthäi E, Earl J, Jendryschek FS, Figiel J, Steinkamp M, Ramaswamy A, Vázquez-Sequeiros E, Muñoz-Beltran M, Montans J, Mocci E, Bonsing BA, Wasser M, Klöppel G, Langer P, Fendrich V, Gress TM (2016) Refinement of screening for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut 65(8):1314–1321
Konings IC, Harinck F, Poley JW et al (2017) Prevalence and progression of pancreatic cystic precursor lesions differ between groups at high risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 46:28–34
Overbeek KA, Goggins MG, Dbouk M, Levink IJM, Koopmann BDM, Chuidian M, Konings ICAW, Paiella S, Earl J, Fockens P, Gress TM, Ausems MGEM, Poley JW, Thosani NC, Half E, Lachter J, Stoffel EM, Kwon RS, Stoita A, Kastrinos F, Lucas AL, Syngal S, Brand RE, Chak A, Carrato A, Vleggaar FP, Bartsch DK, van Hooft JE, Cahen DL, Canto MI, Bruno MJ, International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium (2022) Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and implications for successful early detection in high-risk individuals. Gastroenterology 162(3):772–785e4
Dbouk M, Brewer Gutierrez OI, Lennon AM et al (2021) Guidelines on management of pancreatic cysts detected in high-risk individuals: an evaluation of the 2017 Fukuoka guidelines and the 2020 International Cancer of the pancreas Screening (CAPS) consortium statements. Pancreatology 21:613–621
Bartsch DK, Dietzel K, Bargello M, Matthaei E, Kloeppel G, Esposito I, Heverhagen JT, Gress TM, Slater EP, Langer P (2013) Multiple small imaging branch-duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) in familial pancreatic cancer: indicator for concomitant high grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia? Fam Cancer 12(1):89–96
Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, Al Abbas AI, Boone BA, Moser AJ, Bartlett DL, Hogg ME (2021) Zeh HJ 3rd. 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing performance. Ann Surg 273(5):966–972
van der Heijde N, Vissers FL, Manzoni A, Zimmitti G, Balsells J, Berrevoet F, Bjornsson B, van den Boezem P, Boggi U, Bratlie SO, Burdio F, Coratti A, D’Hondt M, Del Pozo CD, Dokmak S, Fara R, Can MF, Festen S, Forgione A, Fristrup C, Gaujoux S, Groot Koerkamp B, Hackert T, Khatkov IE, Keck T, Seppänen H, Lips D, Luyer M, Pittau G, Maglione M, Molenaar IQ, Pessaux P, Roeyen G, Saint-Marc O, Cabus SS, van Santvoort H, van der Schelling G, Serradilla-Martin M, Souche FR, Suarez Muñoz MÁ, Marino MV, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M (2023) Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry. 25(4):400–408 HPB (Oxford). European Consortium on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery
Müller PC, Breuer E, Nickel F, Zani S Jr, Kauffmann E, De Franco L, Tschuor C, Krohn PS, Burgdorf SK, Jonas JP, Oberkofler CE, Petrowsky H, Saint-Marc O, Seelen L, Molenaar IQ, Wellner U, Keck T, Coratti A, van Dam JL, de Wilde R, Koerkamp BG, Valle V, Giulianotti P, Ghabi E, Moskal D, Lavu H, Vrochides D, Martinie J, Yeo C, Sánchez-Velázquez P, Ielpo B, Ajay PS, Shah MM, Kooby DA, Gao S, Hao J, He J, Boggi U, Hackert T, Allen P, Borel-Rinkes IHM, Clavien PA (2023) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: a Novel Standard of Care? Benchmark values for Surgical outcomes from 16 International Expert centers. Ann Surg 278(2):253–259
Matthaei H, Hong SM, Mayo SC et al (2011) Presence of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia in the pancreatic transection margin does not influence outcome in patients with R0 resected pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3493–3499
Maurer E, Lehman B, Matthäi E, Denzer U, Figiel J, Jesinghaus M, Slater EP, Stefenelli U, Gress TM, Bartsch DK Pancreatic cancer screening is effective in individuals at risk with predisposing germline gene variants, but not in gene variant-negative familial pancreatic cancer families. JCO.23.01400R1 under review.
Bartsch DK, Matthäi E, Mintziras I, Bauer C, Figiel J, Sina-Boemers M, Gress TM, Langer P, Slater EP (2021) The German National Case Collection for familial pancreatic carcinoma (FaPaCa)—Knowledge gained in 20 years. Dtsch Arztebl Int 118(10):163–168
Scholten L, Stoop TF, Del Chiaro M, Busch OR, van Eijck C, Molenaar IQ, de Vries JH, Besselink MG (2019) Dutch pancreatic Cancer Group. Systematic review of functional outcome and quality of life after total pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 106(13):1735–1746
Langer P, Rothmund M, Bartsch DK (2006) Prophylaktische Chirurgie Des Pankreas [Prophylactic pancreas surgery]. Chirurg 77(1):25–32
Scholten L, Latenstein AE, Aalfs CM, Bruno MJ, Busch OR, Bonsing BA, Koerkamp BG, Molenaar IQ, Ubbink DT, van Hooft JE, Fockens P, Glas J, DeVries JH, Besselink MG, Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (2020) Prophylactic total pancreatectomy in individuals at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PROPAN): systematic review and shared decision-making programme using decision tables. United Eur Gastroenterol J 8(8):865–877
Bennett C, Suguitan M, Abad J, Chawla A (2022) Identification of high-risk germline variants for the development of pancreatic cancer: common characteristics and potential guidance to screening guidelines. Pancreatology 22(6):719–729
Le Cosquer G, Maulat C, Bournet B, Cordelier P, Buscail E, Buscail L (2023) Pancreatic Cancer in chronic pancreatitis: Pathogenesis and Diagnostic Approach. Cancers (Basel) 15(3):761
Jabłońska B (2013) Is endoscopic therapy the treatment of choice in all patients with chronic pancreatitis? World J Gastroenterol 19(1):12–16
Najarian JS, Sutherland DE, Baumgartner D, Burke B, Rynasiewicz JJ, Matas AJ, Goetz FC (1980) Total or near total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation for treatment of chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 192(4):526–542
Nathan JD, Yang Y, Eaton A, Witkowski P, Wijkstrom M, Walsh M, Trikudanathan G, Singh VK, Schwarzenberg SJ, Pruett TL, Posselt A, Naziruddin B, Mokshagundam SP, Morgan K, Lara LF, Kirchner V, He J, Gardner TB, Freeman ML, Ellery K, Conwell DL, Chinnakotla S, Beilman GJ, Ahmad S, Abu-El-Haija M, Hodges JS, Bellin MD (2022) Surgical approach and short-term outcomes in adults and children undergoing total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation: a report from the prospective observational study of TPIAT. Pancreatology 22(1):1–8
Ludwig B, Reichel A, Steffen A, Zimerman B, Schally AV, Block NL, Colton CK, Ludwig S, Kersting S, Bonifacio E, Solimena M, Gendler Z, Rotem A, Barkai U, Bornstein SR (2013) Transplantation of human islets without immunosuppression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(47):19054–19058
Bellin MD, Freeman ML, Gelrud A, Slivka A, Clavel A, Humar A, Schwarzenberg SJ, Lowe ME, Rickels M, Whitcomb DC et al (2014) Total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation in chronic pancreatitis: recommendations from PancreasFest. Pancreatology 14:27–35
Balzano G, Maffi P, Nano R, Mercalli A, Melzi R, Aleotti F, Zerbi A, De Cobelli F, Gavazzi F, Magistretti P et al (2016) Autologous islet transplantation in patients requiring pancreatectomy: a broader spectrum of indications beyond chronic pancreatitis. Am J Transpl 16:1812–1826
Jabłońska B, Mrowiec S (2021) Total pancreatectomy with autologous islet cell transplantation-the current indications. J Clin Med 10(12):2723
Charpentier KP, Brentnall TA, Bronner MP, Byrd D, Marsh C (2004) A new indication for pancreas transplantation: high grade pancreatic dysplasia. Clin Transpl 18(1):105–107
Paiella S, Capurso G, Cavestro GM, Butturini G, Pezzilli R, Salvia R, Signoretti M, Crippa S, Carrara S, Frigerio I, Bassi C, Falconi M, Iannicelli E, Giardino A, Mannucci A, Laghi A, Laghi L, Frulloni L, Zerbi A (2019) Results of First-Round of Surveillance in individuals at high-risk of pancreatic Cancer from the AISP (Italian Association for the study of the Pancreas) Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 114(4):665–670
Vasen H, Ibrahim I, Ponce CG, Slater EP, Matthäi E, Carrato A, Earl J, Robbers K, van Mil AM, Potjer T, Bonsing BA, de Vos Tot Nederveen, Cappel WH, Bergman W, Wasser M, Morreau H, Klöppel G, Schicker C, Steinkamp M, Figiel J, Esposito I, Mocci E, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Sanjuanbenito A, Muñoz-Beltran M, Montans J, Langer P, Fendrich V, Bartsch DK (2016) Benefit of Surveillance for Pancreatic Cancer in High-Risk individuals: outcome of long-term prospective Follow-Up studies from three European Expert centers. J Clin Oncol 34(17):2010–2019
Canto MI, Kerdsirichairat T, Yeo CJ, Hruban RH, Shin EJ, Almario JA, Blackford A, Ford M, Klein AP, Javed AA, Lennon AM, Zaheer A, Kamel IR, Fishman EK, Burkhart R, He J, Makary M, Weiss MJ, Schulick RD, Goggins MG, Wolfgang CL (2020) Surgical outcomes after pancreatic resection of screening-detected lesions in individuals at high risk for developing pancreatic Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 24(5):1101–1110
Paiella S, Secchettin E, Lionetto G, Archibugi L, Azzolina D, Casciani F, Simeone DM, Overbeek KA, Goggins M, Farrell J, Ponz de Leon Pisani R, Tridenti M, Corciulo MA, Malleo G, Arcidiacono PG, Falconi M, Gregori D, Bassi C, Salvia R, Capurso G (2023 Sep) Surveillance of individuals at high risk of developing pancreatic Cancer: a prevalence meta-analysis to Estimate the rate of low-yield surgery. Ann Surg 8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006094Epub ahead of print
Paiella S, Capurso G, Carrara S, Secchettin E, Casciani F, Frigerio I, Zerbi A, Archibugi L, Bonifacio C, Malleo G, Cavestro GM, Barile M, Larghi A, Assisi D, Fantin A, Milanetto AC, Fabbri C, Casadei R, Donato G, Sassatelli R, De Marchi G, Di Matteo FM, Arcangeli V, Panzuto F, Puzzono M, Buono AD, Pezzilli R, Salvia R, Rizzatti G, Casadio M, Franco M, Butturini G, Pasquali C, Coluccio C, Ricci C, Cicchese N, Sereni G, de Pretis N, Stigliano S, Rudnas B, Marasco M, Lionetto G, Arcidiacono PG, Terrin M, Crovetto A, Mannucci A, Laghi L, Bassi C, Falconi M (2023 Oct) Outcomes of a 3-year prospective surveillance in individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 3. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002546Epub ahead of print
Lu C, Xu CF, Wan XY et al (2015) Screening for pancreatic cancer in familial high-risk individuals: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 21:8678–8686
McGuigan A, Kelly P, Turkington RC et al (2018) Pancreatic cancer: a review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 24:4846–4861
Ilic M, Ilic I (2016) Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 22:9694–9705
Klatte DCF, Boekestijn B, Wasser MNJM, Feshtali Shahbazi S, Ibrahim IS, Mieog JSD, Luelmo SAC, Morreau H, Potjer TP, Inderson A, Boonstra JJ, Dekker FW, Vasen HFA, van Hooft JE, Bonsing BA, van Leerdam ME (2022) Pancreatic Cancer surveillance in carriers of a germline CDKN2A pathogenic variant: yield and outcomes of a 20-Year prospective Follow-Up. J Clin Oncol 40(28):3267–3277
Corral JE, Mareth KF, Riegert-Johnson DL et al (2019) Diagnostic yield from screening asymptomatic individuals at high risk for pancreatic Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Cohort studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:41–53
Overbeek KA, Cahen DL, Kamps A, Konings ICAW, Harinck F, Kuenen MA, Koerkamp BG, Besselink MG, van Eijck CH, Wagner A, Ausems MGE, van der Vlugt M, Fockens P, Vleggaar FP, Poley JW, van Hooft JE, Bleiker EMA, Bruno MJ (2020) Dutch familial pancreatic Cancer Surveillance Study Group. Patient-reported burden of intensified surveillance and surgery in high-risk individuals under pancreatic cancer surveillance. Fam Cancer 19(3):247–258
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E.M. and D.K.B. wrote and reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Maurer, E., Bartsch, D.K. Surgical aspects related to hereditary pancreatic cancer. Familial Cancer 23, 341–350 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-024-00384-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-024-00384-1