Three-Dimensional Fixation: Pathological Protocol Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Portal Vein Resection for Pancreatic Cancer

  • Masayuki Tanaka
  • Yosuke Inoue
  • Kiyoshi Matsueda
  • Makiko Hiratsuka
  • Mariko Muto
  • Shoji Kawakatsu
  • Yoshihiro Ono
  • Yoshihiro Mise
  • Takeaki Ishizawa
  • Hiromichi Ito
  • Yu Takahashi
  • Yutaka Takazawa
  • Akio SaiuraEmail author
Original Article



Although existing histopathologic protocols for pancreatic cancer have been standardized, the relevance between prognosis and resection margin clearance is still controversial. Reconstruction of specimens as in situ to appropriately assess the margin is desirable in these protocols.


The three-dimensional fixation protocol defined specimen handling of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal vein (PV) resection. The superior mesenteric artery (SMA) margin of the specimen was tidily fixed around an artificial SMA as if in an in situ setting. In this prospective study, patients undergoing PD with PV resection for pancreatic cancer in 2016 were enrolled. To evaluate the feasibility of the three-dimensional fixation protocol, the SMA margin distance and PV involvement of tumor assessed by computed tomography (CT) were compared with those assessed by pathology.


Thirty-three patients with/without preoperative chemotherapy were enrolled. The entire cohort did not present with high-quality diagnostic assessment of the medial margins around SMA and PV (correct estimation, 58% and 73%, respectively). In contrast, in 16 patients undergoing upfront surgery, the concordance value of the SMA margin, which assesses the agreement between CT and pathology measures, was 0.48 (moderate agreement). The PV involvement examined by imaging was significantly associated with that by pathology (P = 0.013).


The three-dimensional fixation protocol was applicable to all cases undergoing PD with PV resection. Focusing on the patients with upfront surgery demonstrated the feasibility of accurate pathological assessment of medial margins. We propose this protocol as a promising standard for the assessment of true surgical margin status.


Pathological protocol Pancreaticoduodenectomy Medial margin Prospective study 


Author Contribution

• Study concept and design: MT, YI, KM, MH, YT, MM, SK, YO, YM, TI, HI, YT, AS

• Acquisition of data: MT, KM, MH, YT, MM

• Analysis and interpretation of data: MT

• Drafting of the manuscript: MT, YI

• Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: MT, YI, AS

• Approval of the final manuscript: MT,YI, KM, MH, YT, MM, SK, YO, YM, TI, HI, YT, AS

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Bassi C, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010;304:1073–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ducreux M, Cuhna AS, Caramella C, et al. Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2015;26 Suppl 5:v56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wagner M, Redaelli C, Lietz M, et al. Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2004;91:586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jamieson NB, Foulis AK, Oien KA, et al. Positive mobilization margins alone do not influence survival following pancreatico-duodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2010;251:1003–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell F, Smith RA, Whelan P, et al. Classification of R1 resections for pancreatic cancer: the prognostic relevance of tumour involvement within 1 mm of a resection margin. Histopathology 2009;55:277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fatima J, Schnelldorfer T, Barton J, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: implications of positive margin on survival. Arch Surg 2010;145:167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strobel O, Hank T, Hinz U, et al. Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: The New R-status Counts. Ann Surg 2017;265:565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghaneh P, Kleeff J, Halloran CM, et al. The Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Survival and Recurrence Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2019;269:520–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chandrasegaram MD, Goldstein D, Simes J, et al. Meta-analysis of radical resection rates and margin assessment in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 2015;102:1459–1472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Roessel S, Kasumova GG, Tabatabaie O, et al. Pathological Margin Clearance and Survival After Pancreaticoduodenectomy in a US and European Pancreatic Center. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:1760–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konstantinidis IT, Warshaw AL, Allen JN, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a “true” R0 resection? Ann Surg 2013;257:731–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. UICC: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 7th Edition. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th Edition. New York: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menon KV, Gomez D, Smith AM, et al. Impact of margin status on survival following pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer: the Leeds Pathology Protocol (LEEPP). HPB (Oxford) 2009;11:18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Royal College of Pathologists. Standards and datasets for reporting cancers. Minimum dataset for the histopathological reporting of pancreatic, ampulla of vater and bile duct carcinoma. London, UK: The Royal College of Pathologists; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gockel I, Domeyer M, Wolloscheck T, et al. Resection of the mesopancreas (RMP): a new surgical classification of a known anatomical space. World J Surg Oncol 2007;5:44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F, et al. Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:1651–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    NCCN: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2015 Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. [accessed 1 December 2018]
  19. 19.
    Inoue Y, Saiura A, Yoshioka R, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy With Systematic Mesopancreas Dissection Using a Supracolic Anterior Artery-first Approach. Ann Surg 2015;262:1092–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quinn C, Haber MJ, Pan Y. Use of the concordance correlation coefficient when examining agreement in dyadic research. Nurs Res 2009;58:368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dholakia AS, Hacker-Prietz A, Wild AT, et al. Resection of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation does not depend on improved radiographic appearance of tumor-vessel relationships. J Radiat Oncol 2013;2:413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gebauer F, Tachezy M, Vashist YK, et al. Resection margin clearance in pancreatic cancer after implementation of the Leeds Pathology Protocol (LEEPP): clinically relevant or just academic? World J Surg 2015;39:493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takahashi D, Kojima M, Sugimoto M, et al. Pathologic Evaluation of Surgical Margins in Pancreatic Cancer Specimens Using Color Coding With Tissue Marking Dyes. Pancreas 2018;47:830–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ikoma N, Estrella JS, Hofstetter WL, et al. Surgeon Assessment of Gastric Cancer Lymph Node Specimens with a Video of Technique. J Gastrointest Surg 2018;22:2013–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zaky AM, Wolfgang CL, Weiss MJ, et al. Tumor-Vessel Relationships in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma at Multidetector CT: Different Classification Systems and Their Influence on Treatment Planning. Radiographics 2017;37:93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ferrone CR, Marchegiani G, Hong TS, et al. Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 2015;261:12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katz MH, Fleming JB, Bhosale P, et al. Response of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer to neoadjuvant therapy is not reflected by radiographic indicators. Cancer 2012;118:5749–5756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masayuki Tanaka
    • 1
  • Yosuke Inoue
    • 1
  • Kiyoshi Matsueda
    • 2
  • Makiko Hiratsuka
    • 2
  • Mariko Muto
    • 3
  • Shoji Kawakatsu
    • 1
  • Yoshihiro Ono
    • 1
  • Yoshihiro Mise
    • 1
  • Takeaki Ishizawa
    • 1
  • Hiromichi Ito
    • 1
  • Yu Takahashi
    • 1
  • Yutaka Takazawa
    • 3
  • Akio Saiura
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Cancer Institute HospitalJapanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Cancer Institute HospitalJapanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute HospitalJapanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations