4.3 Review

White paper on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Part I, AJCC staging system, NCCN guidelines, and borderline resectable disease

期刊

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 716-728

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02289-5

关键词

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; AJCC staging; NCCN; Borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive gastrointestinal malignancy with a poor 5-year survival rate. Accurate staging of PDAC is an important initial step in the development of a stage-specific treatment plan. Different staging systems/consensus statements convened by different societies and academic practices are currently used. The most recent version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor/node/metastases (TNM) staging system for PDAC has shifted its focus from guiding management to assessing prognosis. In order to preoperatively define the resectability of PDAC and to guide management, additional classification systems have been developed. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, one of the most commonly used systems, provide recommendations on the management and the determination of resectability for PDAC. The NCCN divides PDAC into three categories of resectability based on tumor-vessel relationship: 'resectable,' 'borderline resectable,' and 'unresectable'. Among these, the borderline disease category is of special interest given its evolution over time and the resulting variations in the definition and the associated recommendations for management between different societies. It is important to be familiar with the evolving criteria, and treatment and follow-up recommendations for PDAC. In this article, the most current AJCC staging (8th edition), NCCN guidelines (version 2.2019-April 9, 2019), and challenges and controversies in borderline resectable PDAC are reviewed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据