4.3 Article

Surgical management in patients with pancreatic cancer: a Queensland perspective

期刊

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 83, 期 11, 页码 859-864

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06312.x

关键词

Australia; general surgery; neoplasms; pancreatic neoplasms; therapeutics

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundLittle has been published regarding presenting symptoms, investigations and outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer in Australia. Data from a series of patients undergoing attempted resection in Queensland, Australia, are presented with the aim of assisting development of consistent strategies in disease management. MethodsWe reviewed the medical records of 121 patients who underwent attempted surgical resection and who took part in a case-control study between 2007 and 2009. Information relating to symptoms, investigations, surgical procedures and outcomes was captured. ResultsThe mean age was 63 years and 60% were men. The most common presenting symptoms were jaundice (64%) and pain (63%). Over 80% of patients had multiple imaging investigations or laparoscopy prior to surgery. Seventy-eight patients (64%) had a completed resection and 23% of these had involved margins. The presence of metastases and/or involvement of vessels or adjacent structures precluded resection in the remaining patients. The 1-year survival for patients whose resections were completed was 77% compared with 51% for those whose tumours were not resectable (P=0.004). There was no 30-day mortality and 68% of patients were alive 1 year after diagnosis. Resections were performed in 11 different hospitals but over 90% of patients underwent their surgery in one of five high-volume centres. ConclusionThe Queensland experience is consistent with that reported internationally. A significant proportion of attempted resections was not completed because preoperative staging underestimated disease extent. Most patients with potentially resectable disease are being treated in high-volume centres.

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