Vergara Reading

A Reading on
PANCREATIC CANCER
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements in NCM 212 – RLE
IMMUNOLOGY AND CANCER ROTATION
Submitted to:
MS. LOVELY EREDIANO, RN
Clinical Instructor
Submitted by:
VICTORIA GRACE U. VERGARA
BSN 3C- GROUP 2
August 15, 2021

Title: Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of Clinical Diagnosis, Epidemiology, Treatment
and Outcomes
Bibliography: McGuigan, A., Kelly, P., Turkington, R., Jones, C., Coleman, H., &
McCain, R. (2018). Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of Clinical Diagnosis,
Epidemiology, Treatment and Outcomes. World Journal of Gastroenterology,
24(43), 4846-4861. doi: 10.3748/wjg. v24.i43.4846
Summary
Pancreatic cancer is a disease associated with poor outcomes and an increasing

prevalence. It has been predicted to become the second leading cause of cancer
mortality in some regions. The disease often presents itself at an advanced stage,
which contributes to a poor five-year survival rate, ranking last among all cancer
sites. Speaking about its incidence, the disease is rising in the developed world
and modifiable lifestyle factors such as alcohol consumption, smoking and obesity
may play an important role. On the other hand, non-modifiable factors include an
individual’s age, sex, ethnicity, family history and genetic susceptibility. Poor
outcomes of the disease are largely due to the late presentation and therefore the
detection of early tumors or premalignant conditions is essential for treatments to
be initiated. Early pancreatic cancers often do not cause any signs or symptoms.
But by the time they do cause symptoms, they have often grown very large or
already spread outside the pancreas. Clinical manifestations of this condition may
include jaundice, belly or back pain, weight loss or poor appetite, nausea and
vomiting, gallbladder or liver enlargement and blood clots. However, having one or
more of these signs and symptoms does not mean an individual already have
pancreatic cancer. If an individual has been diagnosed with this condition,
treatments may be advised. Surgical resection is the only treatment that offers a
potential cure of pancreatic cancer and the addition of chemotherapy in the
adjuvant setting has been shown to improve survival rates.
Reaction
After reading the article, I realized that throughout our lives, we will be tested in
various ways, even if it doesn’t directly affect us. Our families and friends can even
face difficulties throughout their lives that can touch ours as well and when
something like this happens, it can be really tough to push through. What I learned
about cancer (whether any kind) is that it just doesn’t cause a huge impact on you
or to someone who’s experiencing it first hand, but to your loved ones as well. As
countless people know, chemotherapy is ultimately the common treatment for
cancer. People said it was terrible, but watching someone experiencing it is
completely different and it can legitimately change your perspective on everything.
Based on the article I used, pancreatic cancer is ranked as the 14th most common
and the 7th highest cause of cancer mortality in the world and with the advanced
technologies we have now, many people still wonder why cancer is so difficult to
treat. Despite the number of managements used to treat cancer, what it all boils
down to is money. The margin of healing is limited depending on its different
manifestations and sometimes there is no certainty that the cure or treatment will
work. Some treatments can be fatal, some don’t.
As a student nurse, I can apply what I have read in various ways in the nursing
practice. During this tough times, I must offer a lot of emotional support for my
patient since they will be deciding how they want to spend the remaining time and
where to invest their energies, some patients may also experience depression
during the course of the disease that’s why it’s important to offer them the
emotional support they need. We, student nurses and aspiring health allied
workers in the future, should help our patients cope with the pain and face the path
with patience and serenity and I think that in every case mentioned we should be
happy with every achievement, confront each of the regressions, and look for a
goal or reason that encourages everyone to dream and take advantage of the
remaining time.
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More.
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Nov 21; 24(43): 4846–4861. PMCID: PMC6250924

Published online 2018 Nov 21. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i43.4846 PMID: 30487695
Pancreatic cancer: A review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology,

treatment and outcomes
Andrew McGuigan, Paul Kelly, Richard C Turkington, Claire Jones, Helen G Coleman, and R Stephen McCain
Andrew McGuigan, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7AE,
United Kingdom;
Contributor Information.
Author contributions: McGuigan A, Turkington RC, Coleman HG, McCain RS designed research; McGuigan A,
Kelly P, McCain RS performed research; McGuigan A, Kelly P, Turkington RC, Jones C, Coleman HG and McCain
RS all wrote the paper.
Correspondence to: R Stephen McCain, BM, BCh, Surgeon, Centre for Public Health, Royal Victoria Hospital,
Block B, Belfast BT12 6BA, United Kingdom. smccain02@qub.ac.uk
Telephone: +44-28-90635009 Fax: +44-28-90235900
Received 2018 Sep 25; Revised 2018 Oct 19; Accepted 2018 Oct 27.
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external
reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0)
license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their
derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
Abstract
This review aims to outline the most up-to-date knowledge of pancreatic adenocarcinoma risk,
diagnostics, treatment and outcomes, while identifying gaps that aim to stimulate further research in this
understudied malignancy. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal condition with a rising incidence,
predicted to become the second leading cause of cancer death in some regions. It often presents at an
advanced stage, which contributes to poor five-year survival rates of 2%-9%, ranking firmly last amongst
all cancer sites in terms of prognostic outcomes for patients. Better understanding of the risk factors and
symptoms associated with this disease is essential to inform both health professionals and the general
population of potential preventive and/or early detection measures. The identification of high-risk patients
who could benefit from screening to detect pre-malignant conditions such as pancreatic intraepithelial
neoplasia, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms is urgently required,
however an acceptable screening test has yet to be identified. The management of pancreatic
adenocarcinoma is evolving, with the introduction of new surgical techniques and medical therapies such
as laparoscopic techniques and neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, however this has only led to modest
improvements in outcomes. The identification of novel biomarkers is desirable to move towards a
precision medicine era, where pancreatic cancer therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, while
unnecessary treatments that have negative consequences on quality of life could be prevented for others.
Research efforts must also focus on the development of new agents and delivery systems. Overall,
considerable progress is required to reduce the burden associated with pancreatic cancer. Recent, renewed
efforts to fund large consortia and research into pancreatic adenocarcinoma are welcomed, but further
streams will be necessary to facilitate the momentum needed to bring breakthroughs seen for other cancer
sites.
Keywords: Pancreatic cancer, Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Pancreatic cancer risk factors, Pancreatic
cancer treatment
Core tip: The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is rising in the developed world and modifiable
lifestyle factors such as alcohol and obesity may play an important role in this. The five-year survival from
this disease is as low as 2% in some countries, despite improvement in surgical technique, chemotherapy
regimens and the introduction of neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The poor outcomes are largely due to
the late presentation of the disease and therefore the detection of early tumours or premalignant conditions
is essential for treatment to be initiated early. The optimum screening test is however yet to be identified.
Given the poor outcomes and current gaps in knowledge surrounding this malignant process, further
research is essential to understand this disease better, enable early diagnosis and improve survival.
INTRODUCTION
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal condition with poor outcomes and an increasing incidence. This
review presents the most up to date knowledge on the incidence, outcomes, risk factors, pathogenesis,
diagnostics, investigated biomarkers and treatments available to pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. This
review focuses on pancreatic adenocarcinoma where possible, however in some places where the general
term “pancreatic cancer” is used, it should be assumed that the majority of cases are pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinomas.
INCIDENCE
Pancreatic cancer is ranked as the 14th most common cancer and the 7th highest cause of cancer mortality
in the world. Globocan estimates revealed that there will be 458918 diagnoses and 432242 deaths from
pancreatic cancer globally in 2018[1]. The incidence rates vary significantly between countries, as
demonstrated in Figure 1. The highest age-standardised incidence is seen in Europe and North America,
and the lowest in Africa and South Central Asia[2]. There is a general trend of higher incidence rates in
developed countries compared to developing countries and this is supported by Wong et al[3] who
demonstrated that in higher human development index countries there are higher incidences of pancreatic
cancer in both males and females.
Open in a separate window
Figure 1
Diagram of incidence of pancreatic cancer in both sexes throughout the world Adapted from Globocan[1]
2018.
A major concern is that the incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing in the Western world. One
example of this is a study performed by Saad et al[4] using data from the United States Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) which found that, between 1973 and 2014, the age-
standardised incidence rates of pancreatic cancer have increased by 1.03% per year. This translates to
pancreatic cancer being predicted to rise from being the 4th to the 2nd most common cause of cancer-
related death in the United States by 2030[5,6].
The large disparities in pancreatic cancer incidence between countries also suggest that environmental
factors play a significant role as risk factors for the disease, and these are discussed below.
RISK FACTORS
Due to the relatively low incidence and poor survival of pancreatic cancer, the risk factors associated with
the development of this disease have historically been investigated using case-control studies.
Unfortunately, these study designs do have weaknesses including selection bias and recall bias. Consortia
pooling data from multiple cohort studies are needed to overcome sample size issues in prospective
studies, and these have been published more frequently in recent years. The best available evidence is
presented below in the sections divided into non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors and the evidence
behind the latter is summarised in Table 1[7-26]. There is also some preliminary evidence that some of
these lifestyle factors can influence survival, but this is an area that requires further research[7,8].
Table 1
Summary of modifiable risk factors associated with pancreatic cancer
Factor Direction Strength of association Type of Related notable findings Ref.

of studies
association conducted
Smoking Positive Strong association; 74% Case- Dose responsive; risk remains [18-
increased risk in current control, 10-20 yr following smoking 20]
smokers; 20% increased risk in cohort, cessation
former smokers nested
case-
control
studies
Alcohol Mixed Various; 15%-43% increased Meta- Dose responsive; sex [9,21-
between no risk in meta-analysis analysis of dependent; Increased risk in 24]
association cohort spirit drinkers; link with
and studies chronic pancreatitis which is a
positive risk factor for pancreatic
cancer
Obesity Positive 10% increased risk for every 5 Cohort Link with Type 2 diabetes [25]
BMI units studies which is associated with
increased risk of pancreatic
cancer
Dietary Variable Non-significant positive Cohort Overall consensus cannot be [25]
factors association for red meat; 17% studies made and further research is
increased risk associated with required
50 g/d of processed meat
consumption compared to 20
g/d
Helicobacter Positive 45% increased risk Meta- Significant publication bias [26]
pylori analysis of and small numbers included
case- therefore further studies are
control required
studies
Open in a separate window
BMI: Body mass index.
NON-MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS
Age
Pancreatic cancer is typically a disease of the elderly. It is extremely rare for patients to be diagnosed
before the age of 30, and 90% of newly diagnosed patients are aged over 55 years of age, with the majority
in their 7th and 8th decade of life[9,10]. The age at which the incidence peaks varies between countries. In
India, for example, there is a peak in incidence in patients in their sixth decade of life whereas the in the
United States this is the seventh decade of life[9].
Sex
The worldwide incidence of pancreatic cancer is higher in males than females (Age-standardised rate 5.5
in males compared to 4.0 in females)[1]. This disparity appears to be greater in higher development index
countries[7]. Despite the sex difference, a systematic review of 15 studies concluded that reproductive
factors were not associated with pancreatic cancer in women[11]. These findings point towards differing
exposures in environmental or genetic factors as alternative explanations for the male predominance.
Ethnicity
Within the United States, a 50%-90% increased risk of pancreatic cancer in African-Americans compared
to Caucasians has been reported, while incidence rates are lowest in Pacific Islanders and Asian-
Americans[9]. The higher incidence rates within the African-American population is proposed to be linked
to a greater exposure to other risk factors for pancreatic cancer, such as cigarette smoking, alcohol
consumption, elevated body mass index and higher incidence of diabetes[12], but there is also evidence
for underlying genetic or gene environment interactions to explain at least some of the observed
differences in incidence between ethnic groups[13,14].
Blood group
The risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been shown to be associated with different ABO
blood groups in several large epidemiological studies. Wolpin et al[15] combined data from the renowned
United States Nurse Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and found that compared to
blood patients with blood group O, patients with blood group A (HR: 1.32, 95%CI: 1.02-1.72), AB (HR:
1.51, 95%CI: 1.02-2.23), or B (HR: 1.72, 95%CI: 1.25-2.38) were at a significantly higher risk of
developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Results from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium which
combined data from 12 prospective cohort studies was in agreement with these findings[16]. The proposed
mechanisms behind this include alterations in glycosyltransferase specificity and the host inflammatory
state across the different ABO blood groups[15]
Gut Microbiota
Multiple studies have been performed examining the role of gut microbiota in pancreatic cancer. A
systematic review by Memba et al[17] demonstrated that lower levels of Neisseria elongate and
Streptococcus mitis, and higher levels of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Granulicatella adiacens are
associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. However, further studies are needed to validate
these findings and also to establish if targeted treatment is a therapeutic possibility.
Family history and genetic susceptibility

Pancreatic cancer is considered to be familial if two or more first degree relatives have previously been
diagnosed with the disease and accounts for 5%-10% of new cases[27]. Patients with familial risk factors
have a nine times higher risk of developing pancreatic cancer than those with no family history, and this
increases to a thirty-two times greater risk if three or more first degree relatives have been previously
diagnosed[28]. A meta-analysis of nine studies has also reported that individuals with a family history of
pancreatic cancer were only one first degree relative has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, still have
an 80% increased risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma (RR: 1.8, 95%CI: 1.48-2.12) compared
with individuals with no reported family history[29].
This points towards a strong genetic susceptibility for pancreatic cancer in a subgroup of affected patients.
In familial pancreatic cancer, the risk rises exponentially with the number of first degree relatives affected
and BRCA2 and PALB are the most commonly implicated mutations in this cohort[2,9]. Specific
syndromes are also associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer compared to the general
population. These are summarised in Table 2[30,31].
Table 2
Range of increased relative risk of pancreatic cancer associated with specific syndromes as
summarised by Chen et al[30] and Del Chiaro et al[31]
Gene Syndrome Increase relative risk vs general population
Chen et al[30] Del Chiaro et al[31]

BRCA2 Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer 2.2-5.9
BRCA1 1.6-4.7
STK11 Peutz-Jeghers syndrome 76.2-139.0 132.0
PRSS1 Hereditary pancreatitis 53-87 50-70
CDKN2A Familial atypical multiple mole melanoma 14.8-80.0 34-39
MMR Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer 0.0-10.7 4.7
Diabetes
Diabetes is a well-established risk factor for pancreatic cancer. Stevens et al[32] performed a meta-
analysis which demonstrated that the risk of pancreatic cancer was twice that in patients with type one
diabetes compared to those without this condition (RR: 2.00, 95%CI: 1.37-3.01). Another comprehensive
meta-analysis of 36 studies also demonstrated a similar magnitude of increased risk of pancreatic cancer in
patients with type-2 diabetes (OR: 1.82 95%CI: 1.66-1.89)[33]. However, it must be noted that although
diabetes is a risk factor, pancreatic cancer can also manifest itself as new onset of diabetes. This has led to
interest in HbA1c as a potential biomarker of early detection in pancreatic cancer[34].
MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS
Smoking
Cigarette smoking is considered the most important modifiable risk factor in pancreatic cancer with
multiple individual and combined studies demonstrating a strongly positive association. The Panc4 study
combined data from 12 case-control studies of which there were 6507 cancer cases and 12890 controls.
The results demonstrated a dose responsive significantly increased risk of pancreatic cancer in ever
smokers[18]. A meta-analysis of 82 published studies found that there is a 74% increased risk of
pancreatic cancer in current (OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.61-1.87) and a 20% increased risk in former smokers
(OR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.11-1.29) compared to never smokers[19]. This study also found that following
smoking cessation the risk remains for at least 10 years[19] while others have shown it may take up to 20
years following smoking cessation for the risk to return to baseline[9]. The Pancreatic Cancer Cohort
Consortium has reported similar findings, and also found the risk increased with both duration of smoking
(> 50 years OR: 2.13, 95%CI: 1.25-3.62) and number of cigarettes smoked (> 30 cigarettes/d, OR: 1.75,
95%CI: 1.27-2.42)[20].
A novel area for future research remains unanswered in relation to e-cigarettes and pancreas health. E-
cigarettes deliver heated nicotine, but fewer chemicals than tobacco smoking, and have generally been
promoted as safer (but not necessarily safe) alternatives to traditional cigarettes[35]. New studies are
required to determine the risk/benefit balance of e-cigarettes as an exposure with unknown carcinogenic
potential, or as a helpful smoking cessation tool contributing to pancreatic cancer prevention[35].
Alcohol
Multiple studies have investigated the impact of alcohol consumption on the development of pancreatic
cancer but thus far results have been mixed[9,21,22]. A pooled analysis of 14 cohort studies with 2187
cases of pancreatic cancer found an increased risk when patients consumed > 30 g of alcohol per day (RR:
1.22, 95%CI: 1.03-1.45)[23]. The most recent meta-analysis found that low and moderate alcohol
consumption was not associated with pancreatic cancer risk, however, in those with a high alcohol
consumption there was a 15% increased risk of pancreatic cancer (RR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.06-1.25; P = 0.001)
[24]. This increased risk was strongest in heavy male drinkers and heavy drinkers of spirits[24].
Excessive alcohol consumption is also the main cause of chronic pancreatitis, which is a known risk factor
for pancreatic cancer and therefore alcohol in this setting is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer[36].
Chronic pancreatitis
Chronic pancreatitis is a progressive inflammatory condition of the pancreas leading to fibrosis and loss of
acinar and islet cells. Significant variety exists in the reported incidence of this disease, ranging from 2-
14/100000 of the United States population[37]. Approximately 5% of these patients will develop
pancreatic cancer a during their lifetime[38]. Pooled results from seven studies investigating chronic
pancreatitis and found significantly 13-fold higher risk of pancreatic cancer (RR: 13.3, 95%CI: 6.1-28.9)
in these patients, compared with the general population or controls[38]. The relatively low incidence and
greater risk infers that of chronic pancreatitis patients could be a potential target group for pancreas cancer
screening, if an effective test can be found and long latency period accounted for.
Obesity
The worldwide prevalence of obesity is increasing with an estimated 1.97 billion adults and 338 million
children and adolescents categorised worldwide as overweight or obese in 2016[25]. The World Cancer
Research Fund in the pancreatic cancer report from 2012 identified 23 studies which assessed for an
association between a raised body mass index (BMI) and pancreatic cancer. Nineteen of these individual
studies reported an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in obese patients and in the meta-analysis
performed of these studies there was a 10% increased risk of pancreatic cancer for every 5 BMI units (RR:
1.10, 95%CI: 1.07-1.14) with no difference in outcomes between males and females[25].
Given the strength of the evidence linking obesity to pancreatic cancer, it is likely that the rising incidence
of obesity is a major factor for the increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer in the developed world. There
have been large public health campaigns around some of the other major lifestyle with a subsequent
decrease in alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking. Similar campaigns need to focus on educating the
public on the health risks associated with obesity.
Dietary factors
Table 3 provides a concise review of the impacts of diet and nutrition on the risk of pancreatic cancer
according to the World Cancer Research Fund global report. There is limited suggestive evidence that red
and processed meat consumption are association with pancreas cancer development. This is biologically
plausible given that excessive consumption of red and processed meat has been shown to potentially cause
DNA damage and the formation of carcinogens such as N-nitroso compounds[25]. Other dietary factors
with limited suggestive evidence in pancreatic cancer aetiology include foods and beverages containing
fructose, or foods containing saturated fatty acids; while no conclusions could be made with regards to
other dietary exposures. This reflects the difficulties in nutritional epidemiology and appropriate study
designs for investigating pancreatic cancer risk.
Table 3
Summary of impact of dietary factors, nutrition and physical activity on pancreatic cancer risk
Diet, nutrition, physical activity and pancreatic cancer
Decreases Increases risk

risk
Strong Convincing Body fatness
evidence Probable Adult attained height
Limited Limited - Red meat, Processed meat; alcoholic drinks (heavier drinking); foods and
evidence suggestive beverages containing fructose; foods containing saturated fatty acids
Limited - Physical activity; fruits; vegetables; folate; fish; eggs; tea; soft drinks; coffee;
no carbohydrates; sucrose; glycaemic index; glycaemic load; total fat; monounsaturated fat;
conclusion polyunsaturated fats; dietary cholesterol; vitamin C; and multivitamin/mineral supplements
Strong Substantial
evidence effect on
risk
unlikely
Adapted from World Cancer Research Fund Continuous Update Project[25].
Infection
The relationship between several infections and pancreatic cancer has also been investigated, with
increased risks observed in patients with Helicobacter pylori (H-pylori)[26] or hepatitis C infections[39].
Further studies are necessary to strengthen these findings[26]. The potential association for H-pylori raises
interesting speculation about H-pylori eradication (intended to reduce gastric cancer risk) having
potentially negative consequences for increasing pancreas cancer incidence, as has been noted for
oesophageal adenocarcinoma trends[40].
Outcome
The worldwide 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer patients is approximately 6%, but this ranges
from 2% to 9% in published literature[2,41,42]. Factors that impact on survival include age, sex, quality of
healthcare available, presence of co-morbidities and lifestyle habits and some of these account for the
difference in survival rates between countries. However, the main factor influencing disease outcome is
the tumour stage at the time of diagnosis[43]. Unfortunately pancreatic cancer often presents late and only
20% of patients with pancreatic cancer have surgically resectable disease at time of presentation[2,43]. In
patients who are able to undergo successful surgical resection, 5-year survival is quoted as 27% whereas if
the patient has locally advanced or metastatic disease the median survival is six to eleven months and two
and six months respectively[44]. Despite advances in surgical and medical treatment of pancreatic cancer
there has been a minimal improvement in the 5-year survival rates. For example, population-based
Northern Ireland cancer registry data revealed minimal improvements in five-year survival from 2.5% to
5.2% in cases diagnosed between 1993-1999 compared with 2005-2009[45]. The rising incidence and
ongoing poor survival figures highlight the need to identify methods of screening patients at high risk,
develop methods of early detection and improve both surgical and medical management of these patients.
PATHOLOGY OF PANCREATIC CANCER

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma and its variants account for 90% of all pancreatic carcinomas[46]. This section
will briefly outline the pathology of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, its variants and precursor lesions. Non-
ductal tumours such as acinar cell carcinomas and neuroendocrine neoplasms will not be discussed here
and for this, readers are directed elsewhere[47].
Approximately 60%-70% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas arise in the head of the pancreas with the
remainder being found in the body (15%) and tail (15%). At the time of diagnosis most pancreatic
adenocarcinomas have already spread beyond the pancreas and nodal metastases are not uncommon[48].
Morphological variants of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, recognised in the World Health Organisation

classification of pancreatic tumours have different histological features compared to conventional
pancreatic adenocarcinomas. These variants also differ in terms of prognosis and may have a different
molecular signature[49-52]. The main variants of pancreatic adenocarcinomas are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Summary of the different subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma[52]
Morphological Variant Characteristics

Adenosquamous Significant components of ductal/glandular and squamous differentiation (at least
carcinoma 30%). Considered to have a worse prognosis than pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Colloid/mucinous Production of copious amounts of extracellular stromal mucin. Most arise in
carcinoma association with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms; thought to have more
favourable prognosis than pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Undifferentiated/anaplastic Minimal or no differentiation; highly atypical cells which may appear spindle shaped
carcinoma or sarcomatoid, often admixed with osteoclast-like giant cells. One of the most
aggressive forms of pancreatic cancer with extremely poor survival rates
Signet ring cell carcinoma Discohesive, singly invasive cells with intracytoplasmic mucin that may displace the
nucleus. Similar tumours throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Very rare form of
pancreatic cancer with prognosis similar to that of pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Medullary carcinoma Syncytial arrangement of pleomorphic epithelial cells with associated intratumoral
lymphoid infiltrate. Prognosis is slightly better than pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Hepatoid carcinoma Morphological similarity to hepatocellular carcinoma. May produce bile. Very rare
tumour with a poor prognosis similar to that of pancreatic adenocarcinoma
PATHOGENESIS
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma develops following a series of step-wise mutations from normal mucosa
(Figure 2A) to specific precursor lesions and ultimately invasive malignancy[53]. The three best
characterised precursors of this malignancy are pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), intraductal
papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN)[54]. Each of these has
unique clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics.
Figure 2
Pathogenesis. A: Normal duct; B: Low grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN); C: High grade
PanIN.
PanIN
Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a non-invasive microscopic lesion that occurs in the small (usually
less than 0.5 cm) pancreatic ducts. It has been proposed that PanIN may have a role in the development of
localised pancreatitis and that the resultant epithelial injury and repair cycles may further propagate the
neoplastic process[55]. These lesions were first categorised in 2001 and initially graded from 1-3,
reflecting progressive neoplastic morphological changes[56]. More recently there has been a move to
simplify the classification using a two-tiered system, with the suggestion that the historical grades of 1a/1b
and 2 be classified as low grade PanIN (Figure 2B), and the original PanIN 3 revised to high grade (Figure
2C)[57].
A recent microsimulation model, using the original PanIN classification, has sought to shed further light
on the natural history of these lesions. Based on this model, the authors estimate an overall chance of 1.5%
for men and 1.3% for women progressing from PanIN 1 to detectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma over
their lifetime[58]. It was also estimated that it will take 11.3 years for men and 12.3 years for women to
transform from PanIN 3 to pancreatic adenocarcinoma[58]. This represents a possible window for
screening prior to the development of invasive malignancy as will be discussed later.
IPMN
IPMNs are also well recognised as precursor lesions for pancreatic cancer[59]. They represent a broad
group of pathology, being mainly classified as arising from the main pancreatic duct or one of the side
branches. This distinction is important as the risk of malignancy is significantly different. For example,
several studies found malignant cells, including carcinoma in situ, present in a mean of 70% of resected
main duct IPMNs compared to a mean of 25% of side branch lesions that were removed[60].
Mucinous cyst neoplasms

Mucinous cyst neoplasms also represent premalignant lesions of the pancreas. They account for 25% of
pancreatic cysts undergoing resection and are significantly more common in women[53]. A retrospective
study of 163 patients undergoing pancreatic resection for MCN, found malignancy in 17.5% of the lesions
removed[61].
Given that 1% of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans will identify a cystic lesion of the
pancreas, it is imperative that clear guidelines exist to ensure the appropriate management of these
potentially premalignant abnormalities[53]. European[62] and international[63] consensus papers have
recently been published and are an important point of reference for clinicians dealing with these lesions.
However, there is a lack of high-quality population-based studies investigating all premalignant lesions of
the pancreas and future work is needed to progress our understanding of aetiology, trends in incidence and
factors affecting progression to malignancy. This is particularly urgent given the known rise in pancreatic
cancer incidence, and that a diagnosis of PanIN and/or pancreatic cysts represents a potential opportunity
for intervention and patient management to minimise this risk of progression. On the other hand, this must
be balanced with better understanding of which patients could be considered low-risk, which could
provide reassurance both to the patient and minimise unnecessary burden on healthcare systems.
Molecular understanding of pancreatic adenocarcinoma pathogenesis

PanIN is the most common precursor of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and this is supported by molecular
studies that show that these lesions have genetic abnormalities that are common to adjacent pancreatic
adenocarcinoma and the histological progression of PanIN parallels the accumulation of molecular
abnormalities[46]. Lower grade PanIN lesions have mutations in the KRAS oncogene and exhibit telomere
shortening, suggesting these are early changes on the pathway to invasive malignancy[64]. Mutations in
p16, CDNK27, p53 and SMAD4 appear later and are present in higher grade PanIN and pancreatic
adenocarcinoma. The rate of KRAS mutation also increases in relation to the grade of PanIN[53,65].
Abnormalities in notch signalling and sonic hedgehog pathways have also been implicated in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma development and 80% of these mutations appear to be sporadic[9,43].
Recent genomic analysis identified 32 recurrently mutated genes in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and these
were able to be stratified into four sub-groups namely squamous, pancreatic progenitor, immunogenic and
aberrantly differentiated endocrine exocrine, each of which has a unique genomic signature which
corresponded to histopathological findings and prognosis[66]. The squamous sub-type was associated with
the adenosquamous histological variant of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and found to carry an independently
poor prognosis. The pancreatic progenitor group highly expressed transcription factors involved in
determining pancreatic cell lineage. Significant immune infiltration was found in the immunogenic
tumours and the aberrantly differentiated endocrine exocrine tumours were associated with acinar cell
carcinomas[66].These findings shed further light on the complex and heterogenous nature of pancreatic
cancer and may aid the development of more targeted, personalised therapy based on individual tumour
biology.
Given that the majority of pancreatic tumours express androgen receptors (AR), the role of these in the
pathogenesis of this disease has been an area of study for many years[67-69]. Some in vitro and mouse
models have shown reduced cell line proliferation and tumour shrinkage with androgen receptor
blockade[69]. However, there is discordance between studies regarding AR expression in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma and its possible role in pathogenesis[70]. A retrospective cohort study of 60 patients who
underwent pancreatic resection found that AR expression was not related to the grade of tumour or
prognosis[70]. The relative lack of robust evidence prevents any current recommendation that therapies
targeting AR be used in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and this is another area in need of further
study[68,71].
DIAGNOSIS AND SCREENING

Pancreatic cancer poses a significant diagnostic challenge and the majority of cases present late, with
either locally advanced or metastatic disease. The reasons for this are multi-factorial including the non-
specific symptoms associated with the disease and the close proximity of major blood vessels which can
be readily invaded by the tumour[72]. These factors mean that 80%-85% of tumours are not resectable at
the time of presentation[43]. At present, surgical resection is the only potential cure for pancreatic cancer,
although rates of recurrence are high with inevitably dismal rates of long-term survival.
Due to the low lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer (around 1%), population-based screening of unselected
populations for this tumour is not recommended[31,73,74]. The International Cancer of the Pancreas
Screening Consortium, recommends that individuals meeting the definition of familial pancreatic cancer
(outlined in Table 2) are a potential target for screening[73]. There was disagreement as to when to begin
screening of these high risk populations, with just over half of the consensus group voting that screening
should begin at 50[73]. If a non-suspicious cyst is found, surveillance should be repeated every 6-12 mo.
Solid lesions, not meeting the criteria for immediate resection, and main pancreatic duct strictures should
have repeat imaging after three months[73].
Whilst a high-risk population for screening has been identified, the best diagnostic imaging modalities and
lesions which should be targeted are less well defined[73]. Secretin enhanced magnetic resonant imaging
(MRI) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) have been shown to have a good to
excellent concordance with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings when used as a one-time screening
modality and avoids the risk of ionising radiation[73]. However, EUS has a higher sensitivity for
identifying solid pancreatic lesions, less than 2cm, when compared to CT and MRI[75]. EUS is also able
to identify worrisome features in pancreatic cysts and can be combined with fine needle aspiration
cytology to help further characterise these lesions[73]. Historically it was felt that PanIN could not be
reliably identified on imaging[76]. There is, however, emerging evidence that it may be associated with
lobulocentric atrophy producing similar appearances to chronic pancreatitis on EUS[55,77]. In the high
risk population outlined by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium group,
consensus was that a combination of EUS and MRI/MRCP are the recommended imaging modalities for
screening in these individuals[73].
Whilst the appropriate population and imaging modality for screening has been outlined, equipoise still
exists as to the appropriate management of any identified abnormalities and further study is needed. A
recent meta-analysis of screening programs in populations at high risk of pancreatic cancer found higher
rates of curative resection and longer median survival when compared to controls[78]. These findings are
promising, although must be balanced against the issue of heightened anxiety in the screened
population[78].
Whilst general population-based screening is not recommended, various awareness campaigns have been
established to highlight the often vague symptoms of pancreatic cancer and encourage individuals to seek
medical attention early. One study highlighted that many people who were ultimately diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer were falsely reassured by the intermittent nature of their symptoms over the preceding
months[79]. The relative rarity of pancreatic cancer also means that many primary care physicians will
only see a case every few years on average. It is therefore imperative to maintain awareness among these
professionals in order that those with relevant symptoms are investigated in a timely and appropriate
fashion. A retrospective case-control study in primary care found that patients sought medical attention 18
times on average in the period preceding their pancreatic cancer diagnosis[80].
BIOMARKERS FOR EARLY DETECTION

Investigation of potential biomarkers including liquid biopsy, to aid in screening, diagnosis, and treatment
of pancreatic cancer has been an area of intense research. Efforts to detect biomarkers in blood, breath and
pancreatic juice have all been investigated.
Serum cancer antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) is the only marker approved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration for use in the routine management of pancreatic cancer[81]. The low positive predictive
value of CA19-9 means it has no role in mass screening of asymptomatic patients and is only appropriate
to monitor response to treatment and as a marker of recurrent disease[82]. Mass spectrometry of tumour
tissue metabolites found increased levels of specific metabolic by-products in early stage pancreatic
adenocarcinoma when compared to controls in a recent study. There was, however, discordance between
the levels identified from tumour tissue and plasma samples suggesting further study is required if a blood
based biomarker is to be developed[74]. More recent studies into plasma-based metabolite panels have
shown more promise in relation to the early diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the general
population[83] and in those with chronic pancreatitis and a higher risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma[84].
The high rate of genetic mutation associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma has also led to the
investigation of cell free DNA and tumour cells in systemic circulation as a screening or diagnostic test.
Riva et al[84] found that, despite the high rates of KRAS mutation in pancreatic tumour tissue,
concentrations of circulating tumour cells or cell free DNA did not have the required level of sensitivity or
specificity to enable their use as screening tests.
Other non-invasive alternatives to blood have been investigated as mediums for early detection biomarker
research, namely the increased concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in exhaled air specific.
A recent case-control study found raised levels of VOC in patients with pancreatic cancer compared to
healthy controls with a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 84% respectively[85]. This is another
avenue of potential further study in the development of a non-invasive biomarker for pancreatic cancer.
The presence of DNA mutations in pancreatic juice has also been an area of study. Mutant P53 was found
in the pancreatic juice of individuals with PanIN 2-3, intermediate and high grade IPMN and invasive
malignancy[86]. When next generation sequencing techniques were used, pancreatic cancer was more
likely to have mutated DNA found in pancreatic juice than healthy controls[76]. A small number of
patients who eventually developed invasive malignancy had evidence of mutated DNA in pancreatic juice
samples pre-dating any abnormalities identified on imaging[76].
Whilst the discovery of biomarkers for the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma continues, a recent
review concluded that a lack of validated and specific biomarker for this disease remains a major
challenge[87].
TREATMENT
Surgical resection is the only treatment that offers a potential cure of pancreatic cancer and the addition of
chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting has been shown to improve survival rates. There have been some
optimistic results showing a further improvement in survival with the administration of chemo-
radiotherapy in the neo-adjuvant setting but further work is needed to identify which group of patients will
benefit the most. The most up-to-date evidence supporting these treatment options is presented below.
SURGICAL MANAGEMENT
Pancreatico-duodenectomy (Whipple’s procedure), distal or total pancreatectomy are the surgical options
for the resection of pancreatic cancer depending on the anatomical location of the tumour or tumours.
Reorganisation of healthcare services and restriction of these procedures to high volume centres has
improved outcomes as surgeons’ expertise increases[20]. Innovations in technology and operative
technique have sought to further reduce adverse outcomes and improve survival. The aim of surgical
resection is to achieve an R0 resection as this is associated with a significantly improved survival
compared to R1 resections[88]. Neo-adjuvant treatment and vascular resections have been employed in an
attempt to increase the rate of microscopic clearance. There is ongoing debate as to what constitutes an R1
resection with the Union for International Cancer Control and College of American Pathologists defining
it as microscopic evidence of cancer cells at the definite resection margin whereas the Royal College of
Pathologists define it as tumour within 1mm of the resection margin[89].
Pre-operative biliary drainage

A significant proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer present with jaundice. This can have
implications with regards to coagulopathy and increased peri-operative infective complications[90].
Traditionally, patients with obstructive jaundice would have this relieved prior to resection taking place.
A Cochrane review comparing the outcomes of five studies investigating pre-operative biliary drainage (4
via percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and 1 using endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) found no evidence for or against drainage, although the evidence was
acknowledged to be poor[91]. However, a recent multi-centre randomised trial of ERCP and drainage vs
immediate surgery found a higher rate of peri-operative complications in the drainage group[92]. This
suggests that a select group of patients may do better with expedited surgery rather than biliary
decompression, followed by resection.
Anastomotic technique
A major source of morbidity following Whipple’s procedure is leak from the pancreatic anastomosis and
formation of a pancreatic fistula[93]. It is possible to reconstruct the alimentary tract following Whipple’s
by anastomosing the pancreatic remnant to the stomach or jejunum. A recent Cochrane review found no
difference in outcome when these two techniques were compared to each other[94]. Variations in
anastomotic technique have also been described but a recent meta-analysis failed to demonstrate reduced
rates of pancreatic fistula with the “duct-to-mucosa” anastomosis vs the “invagination” technique[94].
Minimally invasive surgery

In line with other areas, interest has grown in minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic surgery.
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was the first minimally invasive pancreatic resection to be described.
One meta-analysis found comparable morbidity and mortality between laparoscopic and open distal
pancreatectomy, with reduced blood loss and length of stay in the minimally invasive group. There was no
difference in the rate of positive resection margins[95]. A further meta-analysis stated that laparoscopic
distal pancreatectomy was at least non-inferior to the open procedure, but lack of level one evidence meant
that it could not be deemed superior[96].
Attempts have also been made to use robotic techniques to improve Whipple’s procedure. When compared
to open pancreatectomy, a meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies found a lower complication rate
and less margin involvement in the robotic group[97]. However, the lack of randomisation in these studies
leaves them open to selection bias. Robotic surgery also requires a significant capital investment and no
cost-effectiveness evaluations were included in any of the papers[98].
Vascular resection
The relationship between any pancreatic tumour and the surrounding vasculature is an important
determinant of resectability[99]. Whilst it is often technically feasible, the benefit of resection of
mesenteric and portal vessels invaded by tumour remains a controversial topic[99].
Meta-analysis of studies involving patients undergoing Whipple’s procedure with or without major arterial
resection found higher rates of peri-operative mortality and poor outcomes at year one and three in the
group undergoing arterial reconstruction[100]. For this reason, invasion of the superior mesenteric artery
or coeliac trunk remains a largely accepted contraindication to resection. Outcomes from venous resection,
however, may be more promising. A meta-analysis of 22 retrospective cohort studies found no difference
in perioperative morbidity, one or three-year survival in those undergoing resection of the portal or
superior mesenteric vein when compared to those in whom no vascular intervention was undertaken.
Unsurprisingly, there was an increased operative time and blood loss recorded in the venous resection
group[101]. As stated previously, the lack of randomisation leaves these studies at risk of selection bias.
However, combined pancreatectomy and venous resection may have a role in a select group of patients.
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
Adjuvant treatment
The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was supported by the landmark randomised CONKO-001 study which
compared adjuvant gemcitabine after complete surgical resection against surgery alone. This study
demonstrated a significantly improved median disease free survival (13.4 mo vs 6.7 mo) and overall
survival with a five year survival of 20.7% vs 10.4% and ten year survival of 12.2% vs 7.7%[102].
However, despite these promising results the median overall survival only improved from 20 to 23 mo (P
= 0.01)[102]
Further studies have sought to identify the best chemotherapy regime. The ESPAC-3 trial demonstrated
that gemcitabine was the chemotherapy agent of choice when compared to 5-fluorouracil[103]. Although
survival outcomes were comparable in both groups, the latter was less well tolerated[103]. Due to the
success of dual therapy of capecitabine and gemcitabine in both advanced and metastatic disease,
Neoptolemos et al[103] performed the ESPAC-4 trial in patients with resected disease and found that the
median overall survival was 28 mo (95%CI: 23.5-31.5) in dual therapy compared to 25.5 mo (22.7-27.9)
in gemcitabine alone (HR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.68-0.98; P = 0.032).
Other chemotherapy regime have been studied, for example, in the PRODIGE24/CCTG randomised
clinical trial which compared the outcomes of gemcitabine or mFOLFIRONOX (a combination of
oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin) in patients with an R1 or R0 resection of pancreatic
adenocarcinoma[104]. The results at a median follow up time of 33.6 mo have shown that administration
of mFOLFIRONOX was associated with a significantly improved disease-free survival (21.6 mo vs 12.8
mo), and overall survival (54.4 mo vs 35 mo) compared to gemcitabine[105]. Administration of
mFOLFIRONOX was associated with a significantly increased risk of complications although the only
death that occurred was within the gemcitabine treatment group[105]. The current standard of care is
guided by post-operative fitness and mFOLFIRONOX is used for very fit patients with tumours of the
head, body and tail of the pancreas whereas in less fit patients dual therapy with gemcitabine and
capecitabine is given[105]. Single agents (usually 5-Fu) are used for periampullary tumours as there is
insufficient evidence for the same treatment as the previously mentioned tumours[106].
Neo-adjuvant treatment
Although there has been shown to be a survival benefit with adjuvant treatment, between 71% and 76%
per cent of patients still relapse within two years up. Furthermore, due to complications associated with
surgery up to 40% of patients are not suitable for progression to adjuvant therapy[105]. Such figures
coupled with the success seen with neo-adjuvant treatment in several other cancers including rectal,
oesophageal, and gastric cancer have led to the exploration of the impact of neo-adjuvant treatment in
pancreatic cancer[107].
The theoretical advantage of neo-adjuvant therapy includes eliminating micro-metastases and shrinkage of
the primary tumour and both these factors are associated with a decreased incidence of tumour
recurrence[108]. However, patients receiving neo-adjuvant treatment may develop complications which
can delay or prevent the progression to surgery and tumours may be unresponsive to the
chemoradiotherapy leading to disease progression and previously resectable disease becoming
unresectable. Furthermore, the administration of chemo radiotherapy induces fibrosis within the pancreas
which can increase the complication rate associated with pancreatectomy[109].
Studies looking at the impact of neo-adjuvant treatment have been performed in patients with resectable or
borderline resectable disease. The definition of resectable disease is in those patients who have no
involvement of the superior mesenteric artery, coeliac axis, portal vein or superior mesenteric vein
whereas the definition of borderline resectable disease is based on the degree of involvement of these
major venous and arterial structures[110].
Multiple meta-analyses have been performed studying the impact of neoadjuvant treatment on survival in
pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The most recent was by Versteijne et al[110] which included 38 studies with a
combination of 3 randomised controlled trials, 9 phase one or phase two trials, 12 prospective cohort
studies and 14 retrospective cohort studies. In intention-to-treat analysis there was a median overall
survival of 18.8 mo in the neo-adjuvant group compared to 14.8 mo in the surgery first group. For those
who actually underwent surgery the median survival time was 15 mo in the surgery-first group, compared
to 26.1 mo in the neoadjuvant treated group. The overall resection rate was lower in the neoadjuvant group
compared to those who had surgery first (66% vs 81.3%; P < 0.001) however the R0 resection rate was
higher in patients who had neo-adjuvant treatment compared to those who had surgery first (86.8% vs
66.9%; P < 0.001)[111].
The ongoing Preopanc-1 trial is a Dutch study which recruited 246 patients with resectable or borderline
resectable disease[112]. Patients were randomised to either immediate surgery or to pre-operative
chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. There was an increased rate of resection in the immediate surgery
group (72%) compared to the group which received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (60%) although this
did not reach a level of statistical significance. There was an improved survival in intention to treat
analysis with 17.1 mo in the neoadjuvant group compared to 13.7 mo in the immediate surgery group
although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07) either. In patients who underwent an R0 or R1
resection there was a significantly improved overall survival in the neo-adjuvant group (42.2 mo vs 16.8
mo; P < 0.001) and there was also a significantly increased time until distant metastases (P = 0.01) and
loco regional recurrence (P = 0.002)[112]. It should be noted that the evidence base for neo-adjuvant
treatment in pancreatic cancer is based on phase two trials and meta-analysis while the results of phase
three trials are awaited.
TREATMENT IN METASTATIC PATIENTS

The management of metastatic pancreatic cancer involves symptom control, management of jaundice and
palliative chemotherapy with the preferred chemotherapy regime FOLFIRONOX (mFOLFIRINOX with
5-fluorouracil). Conroy et al[112] performed a multicentre, randomised trial in 48 French centres with
patients receiving either gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX within a week of enrolment. There were 171
patients within each group and intention to treat analysis was performed. The median overall survival in
the FOLFIRONOX group was 11.1 mo (95%CI: 9.0-13.2) compared to 6.8 mo (95%CI: 5.5-7.6) in the
gemcitabine group (HR: 0.57 95%CI: 0.45-0.73; P < 0.001). There was an increased incidence of adverse
affects within the group receiving FOLFIRONOX however, this group concluded that FOLFIRONOX
should be the treatment of choice in patients with metastatic disease[114].
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENT

The limitations of current treatment strategies in pancreatic cancer reinforces the need for new avenues of
research to be explored, in order to achieve potential breakthroughs. Novel therapeutic modalities
including oncolytic viral therapy and gene editing technology have been identified as promising in several
pre-clinical and early phase clinical trials[114,115]. These therapeutic strategies have been recently
reviewed by Rouanet et al[116], which provides an excellent overview of the current landscape of these
experimental treatments.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Pancreatic cancer is more common in developed countries, which may be attributed to lifestyle factors.
Aetiology is still poorly understood, and further large, prospective studies are necessary to better
understand risk factors associated with pancreatic cancer.
Patients with a risk of familial pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are a potential target for screening.
However, the optimum age, time interval at which screening should be performed or the best imaging
technique is not agreed upon. Further retrospective and prospective studies which follow these patients
with familial pancreatic cancer over time will help gain a better understanding of the course of this disease
and enable the introduction of effective screening and treatment methods.
PanIN, IPMN and MCN are recognised precursors to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Identifying patients with
these lesions early, and developing an appropriate follow up programme will enable early treatment in
high risk patients but also prevent unnecessary surgery in low risk lesions. This can be achieved by
performing large retrospective and prospective studies which follow these patient groups over prolonged
periods of time which will enable a better understanding of the disease process to be achieved.
Furthermore, the risk factors associated with these pre-malignant conditions will be able to be identified,
which opens the possibility of target populations being screened for these pre-malignant conditions.
The introduction of neo-adjuvant therapy has improved survival in some patients whereas others with
previously resectable disease have developed unreseactable disease during the course of their treatment.
Further randomised studies are essential to identify which patients will benefit most from this approach.
The discovery of novel biomarkers may contribute to the decision-making process and enable precision
medicine and therapy tailored to individual patients.
Surgical resection remains the mainstay of curative treatment of pancreatic cancer. Venous resection
enables clear margins to be achieved but the survival benefit from this is not clear. Further retrospective
studies identifying patients who have undergone this treatment and the outcomes associated with it will
add to the evidence pool and help formulate future guidelines.
CONCLUSION
This review provides a comprehensive account of the epidemiology and management of pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma. Significant gaps (as highlighted in the summary section above) remain in the
understanding of this disease and treatment options although continually evolving continue to have limited
success. There has been a recent drive to fund large consortia and specialist research into pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma but there is much work to be done to enable similar breakthroughs as seen for other
cancer sites.
Footnotes
Manuscript source: Invited manuscript
Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology
Country of origin: United Kingdom
Peer-review report classification
Grade A (Excellent): A
Grade B (Very good): B, B
Grade C (Good): C
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors of this manuscript confirm there is no conflict of interest.
Peer-review started: September 25, 2018
First decision: October 14, 2018
Article in press: October 27, 2018
P- Reviewer: Aosasa S, Kanda T, Swierczynski JT, Tandon RK S- Editor: Wang XJ L- Editor: A E- Editor: Bian YN
Contributor Information
Andrew McGuigan, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast
BT9 7AE, United Kingdom.
Paul Kelly, Department of Pathology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BA, United Kingdom.
Richard C Turkington, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast
BT9 7AE, United Kingdom.
Claire Jones, Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Mater Hospital, Belfast BT14 6AB, United Kingdom.
Helen G Coleman, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United
Kingdom.
R Stephen McCain, Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Mater Hospital, Belfast BT14 6AB, United
Kingdom. Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.
smccain02@qub.ac.uk.
References
1. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Global Cancer Observatory
2018; Available from: URL: http://gco.iarc.fr/
2. Ilic M, Ilic I. Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:9694–9705.

[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Wong MCS, Jiang JY, Liang M, Fang Y, Yeung MS, Sung JJY. Global temporal patterns of pancreatic
cancer and association with socioeconomic development. Sci Rep. 2017;7:3165. [PMC free article]
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Saad AM, Turk T, Al-Husseini MJ, Abdel-Rahman O. Trends in pancreatic adenocarcinoma incidence
and mortality in the United States in the last four decades; a SEER-based study. BMC Cancer.
2018;18:688. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30. [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
6. Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM. Projecting cancer
incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United
States. Cancer Res. 2014;74:2913–2921. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. IARC. Globocan 2012; Available from: URL: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.
8. McMenamin ÚC, McCain S, Kunzmann AT. Do smoking and alcohol behaviours influence GI cancer
survival? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;31:569–577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Midha S, Chawla S, Garg PK. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for pancreatic cancer: A
review. Cancer Lett. 2016;381:269–277. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Wood HE, Gupta S, Kang JY, Quinn MJ, Maxwell JD, Mudan S, Majeed A. Pancreatic cancer in
England and Wales 1975-2000: patterns and trends in incidence, survival and mortality. Aliment
Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23:1205–1214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Wahi MM, Shah N, Schrock CE, Rosemurgy AS 2nd, Goldin SB. Reproductive factors and risk of
pancreatic cancer in women: a review of the literature. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19:103–111. [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
12. Silverman DT, Hoover RN, Brown LM, Swanson GM, Schiffman M, Greenberg RS, Hayes RB,
Lillemoe KD, Schoenberg JB, Schwartz AG, et al. Why do Black Americans have a higher risk of
pancreatic cancer than White Americans? Epidemiology. 2003;14:45–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Arnold LD, Patel AV, Yan Y, Jacobs EJ, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Colditz GA. Are racial disparities in
pancreatic cancer explained by smoking and overweight/obesity? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2009;18:2397–2405. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Pernick NL, Sarkar FH, Philip PA, Arlauskas P, Shields AF, Vaitkevicius VK, Dugan MC, Adsay NV.
Clinicopathologic analysis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in African Americans and Caucasians. Pancreas.
2003;26:28–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Wolpin BM, Chan AT, Hartge P, Chanock SJ, Kraft P, Hunter DJ, Giovannucci EL, Fuchs CS. ABO
blood group and the risk of pancreatic cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:424–431. [PMC free article]
16. Wolpin BM, Kraft P, Gross M, Helzlsouer K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Steplowski E, Stolzenberg-
Solomon RZ, Arslan AA, Jacobs EJ, Lacroix A, et al. Pancreatic cancer risk and ABO blood group alleles:
results from the pancreatic cancer cohort consortium. Cancer Res. 2010;70:1015–1023. [PMC free article]
17. Memba R, Duggan SN, Ni Chonchubhair HM, Griffin OM, Bashir Y, O’Connor DB, Murphy A,
McMahon J, Volcov Y, Ryan BM, et al. The potential role of gut microbiota in pancreatic disease: A
systematic review. Pancreatology. 2017;17:867–874. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Bosetti C, Lucenteforte E, Silverman DT, Petersen G, Bracci PM, Ji BT, Negri E, Li D, Risch HA,
Olson SH, et al. Cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer: an analysis from the International Pancreatic
Cancer Case-Control Consortium (Panc4) Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1880–1888. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
19. Iodice S, Gandini S, Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB. Tobacco and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a
review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2008;393:535–545. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Lynch SM, Vrieling A, Lubin JH, Kraft P, Mendelsohn JB, Hartge P, Canzian F, Steplowski E, Arslan
AA, Gross M, et al. Cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis from the pancreatic cancer
cohort consortium. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:403–413. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Rohrmann S, Linseisen J, Vrieling A, Boffetta P, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, Lowenfels AB, Jensen
MK, Overvad K, Olsen A, Tjonneland A, et al. Ethanol intake and the risk of pancreatic cancer in the
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Cancer Causes Control.
22. Lin Y, Tamakoshi A, Kawamura T, Inaba Y, Kikuchi S, Motohashi Y, Kurosawa M, Ohno Y. Risk of
pancreatic cancer in relation to alcohol drinking, coffee consumption and medical history: findings from
the Japan collaborative cohort study for evaluation of cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2002;99:742–746.
23. Genkinger JM, Spiegelman D, Anderson KE, Bergkvist L, Bernstein L, van den Brandt PA, English
DR, Freudenheim JL, Fuchs CS, Giles GG, et al. Alcohol intake and pancreatic cancer risk: a pooled
analysis of fourteen cohort studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:765–776.
24. Wang YT, Gou YW, Jin WW, Xiao M, Fang HY. Association between alcohol intake and the risk of
pancreatic cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:212.
25. 2015. WCRFI. Pancreatic cancer statistics | World Cancer Research Fund International. Available
from: URL: http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/pancreatic-cancer-statistics.
[Google Scholar]
26. Guo Y, Liu W, Wu J. Helicobacter pylori infection and pancreatic cancer risk: A meta-analysis. J
Cancer Res Ther. 2016;12:C229–C232. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Hruban RH, Canto MI, Goggins M, Schulick R, Klein AP. Update on familial pancreatic cancer. Adv
Surg. 2010;44:293–311. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Becker AE, Hernandez YG, Frucht H, Lucas AL. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: risk factors,
screening, and early detection. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:11182–11198. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
29. Permuth-Wey J, Egan KM. Family history is a significant risk factor for pancreatic cancer: results from
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fam Cancer. 2009;8:109–117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Chen F, Roberts NJ, Klein AP. Inherited pancreatic cancer. Chin Clin Oncol. 2017;6:58.
31. Del Chiaro M, Segersvärd R, Lohr M, Verbeke C. Early detection and prevention of pancreatic cancer:
is it really possible today? World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:12118–12131. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
32. Stevens RJ, Roddam AW, Beral V. Pancreatic cancer in type 1 and young-onset diabetes: systematic
review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:507–509. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Huxley R, Ansary-Moghaddam A, Berrington de González A, Barzi F, Woodward M. Type-II diabetes

and pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of 36 studies. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:2076–2083. [PMC free article]
34. Grote VA, Rohrmann S, Nieters A, Dossus L, Tjønneland A, Halkjær J, Overvad K, Fagherazzi G,
Boutron-Ruault MC, Morois S, et al. Diabetes mellitus, glycated haemoglobin and C-peptide levels in
relation to pancreatic cancer risk: a study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and
Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Diabetologia. 2011;54:3037–3046. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Cummings KM, Dresler CM, Field JK, Fox J, Gritz ER, Hanna NH, Ikeda N, Jassem J, Mulshine JL,
Peters MJ, et al. E-cigarettes and cancer patients. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:438–441. [PMC free article]
36. Samokhvalov AV, Rehm J, Roerecke M. Alcohol Consumption as a Risk Factor for Acute and Chronic
Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and a Series of Meta-analyses. EBioMedicine. 2015;2:1996–2002.
37. Machicado JD, Rebours V, Yadav D. Epidemiology of chronic pancreatitis. Pancreapedia. 2016:1–15.
[Google Scholar]
38. Raimondi S, Lowenfels AB, Morselli-Labate AM, Maisonneuve P, Pezzilli R. Pancreatic cancer in
chronic pancreatitis; aetiology, incidence, and early detection. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol.
39. El-Serag HB, Engels EA, Landgren O, Chiao E, Henderson L, Amaratunge HC, Giordano TP. Risk of
hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers after hepatitis C virus infection: A population-based study of US
veterans. Hepatology. 2009;49:116–123. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Walker MM, Talley NJ. Review article: bacteria and pathogenesis of disease in the upper
gastrointestinal tract--beyond the era of Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;39:767–779.
41. Luo J, Xiao L, Wu C, Zheng Y, Zhao N. The incidence and survival rate of population-based
pancreatic cancer patients: Shanghai Cancer Registry 2004-2009. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76052.
42. 2017. Society TAC. Key Statistics for Pancreatic Cancer. Available from: URL:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/about/key-statistics.html. [Google Scholar]
43. Vincent A, Herman J, Schulick R, Hruban RH, Goggins M. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2011;378:607–
620. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Cancer Research UK. 2017. Survival Pancreatic cancer. Cancer Research UK. Available from:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/pancreatic-cancer/survival. [Google Scholar]
45. Of U, Per C, Of U, Per D, Survival Y, Prevalence Y. 2013. Pancreas Cancer. [Google Scholar]
46. Feldmann G, Beaty R, Hruban RH, Maitra A. Molecular genetics of pancreatic intraepithelial
neoplasia. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:224–232. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
47. Jun SY, Hong SM. Nonductal Pancreatic Cancers. Surg Pathol Clin. 2016;9:581–593. [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
48. Luchini C, Capelli P, Scarpa A. Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Its Variants. Surg Pathol Clin.
49. Reid MD, Saka B, Balci S, Goldblum AS, Adsay NV. Molecular genetics of pancreatic neoplasms and
their morphologic correlates: an update on recent advances and potential diagnostic applications. Am J
Clin Pathol. 2014;141:168–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Verbeke C. Morphological heterogeneity in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas - Does it matter?
Pancreatology. 2016;16:295–301. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Hong SM, Park JY, Hruban RH, Goggins M. Molecular signatures of pancreatic cancer. Arch Pathol
Lab Med. 2011;135:716–727. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH TN. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System
WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System IARC Publications Website - WHO
Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. 2018;2:7–8. [Google Scholar]
53. Mohammed S, Van Buren G 2nd, Fisher WE. Pancreatic cancer: advances in treatment. World J
Gastroenterol. 2014;20:9354–9360. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Esposito I, Konukiewitz B, Schlitter AM, Klöppel G. Pathology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma:
facts, challenges and future developments. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:13833–13841.
55. Brune K, Abe T, Canto M, O’Malley L, Klein AP, Maitra A, Volkan Adsay N, Fishman EK, Cameron
JL, Yeo CJ, et al. Multifocal neoplastic precursor lesions associated with lobular atrophy of the pancreas in
patients having a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:1067–1076.
56. Hruban RH, Adsay NV, Albores-Saavedra J, Compton C, Garrett ES, Goodman SN, Kern SE, Klimstra
DS, Klöppel G, Longnecker DS, et al. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a new nomenclature and
classification system for pancreatic duct lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:579–586. [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
57. Basturk O, Hong SM, Wood LD, Adsay NV, Albores-Saavedra J, Biankin AV, Brosens LA, Fukushima
N, Goggins M, Hruban RH, et al. A Revised Classification System and Recommendations From the
Baltimore Consensus Meeting for Neoplastic Precursor Lesions in the Pancreas. Am J Surg Pathol.
58. Peters MLB, Eckel A, Mueller PP, Tramontano AC, Weaver DT, Lietz A, Hur C, Kong CY,
Pandharipande PV. Progression to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from pancreatic intraepithelial
neoplasia: Results of a simulation model. Pancreatology. 2018 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Lensing RJ, Bipat S. Incidences of Pancreatic Malignancy and Mortality in Patients With Untreated
Branch-Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms Undergoing Surveillance: A Systematic Review.
Pancreas. 2017;46:1098–1110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Tanaka M, Chari S, Adsay V, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Falconi M, Shimizu M, Yamaguchi K, Yamao
K, Matsuno S; International Association of Pancreatology. International consensus guidelines for
management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas.
Pancreatology. 2006;6:17–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Crippa S, Salvia R, Warshaw AL, Domínguez I, Bassi C, Falconi M, Thayer SP, Zamboni G, Lauwers
GY, Mino-Kenudson M, et al. Mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas is not an aggressive entity:
lessons from 163 resected patients. Ann Surg. 2008;247:571–579. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
62. European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas. European evidence-based guidelines on
pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut. 2018;67:789–804. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Tanaka M, Fernández-Del Castillo C, Kamisawa T, Jang JY, Levy P, Ohtsuka T, Salvia R, Shimizu Y,
Tada M, Wolfgang CL. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of
IPMN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2017;17:738–753. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Hruban RH, Maitra A, Goggins M. Update on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Clin Exp
Pathol. 2008;1:306–316. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Löhr M, Klöppel G, Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB, Lüttges J. Frequency of K-ras mutations in
pancreatic intraductal neoplasias associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and chronic
pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Neoplasia. 2005;7:17–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Bailey P, Chang DK, Nones K, Johns AL, Patch AM, Gingras MC, Miller DK, Christ AN, Bruxner TJ,
Quinn MC, et al. Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer. Nature.
67. Corbishley TP, Iqbal MJ, Wilkinson ML, Williams R. Androgen receptor in human normal and
malignant pancreatic tissue and cell lines. Cancer. 1986;57:1992–1995. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Kanda T, Jiang X, Yokosuka O. Androgen receptor signaling in hepatocellular carcinoma and
pancreatic cancers. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:9229–9236. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
69. Konduri S, Schwarz MA, Cafasso D, Schwarz RE. Androgen receptor blockade in experimental
combination therapy of pancreatic cancer. J Surg Res. 2007;142:378–386. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Georgiadou D, Sergentanis TN, Sakellariou S, Vlachodimitropoulos D, Psaltopoulou T, Lazaris AC,

Gounaris A, Zografos GC. Prognostic role of sex steroid receptors in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pathol
Res Pract. 2016;212:38–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Garrido-Laguna I, Hidalgo M. Pancreatic cancer: from state-of-the-art treatments to promising novel
therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:319–334. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. 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; 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. 2013;62:339–347.
73. Unger K, Mehta KY, Kaur P, Wang Y, Menon SS, Jain SK, Moonjelly RA, Suman S, Datta K, Singh R,
et al. Metabolomics based predictive classifier for early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Oncotarget. 2018;9:23078–23090. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Poley JW, Kluijt I, Gouma DJ, Harinck F, Wagner A, Aalfs C, van Eijck CH, Cats A, Kuipers EJ, Nio
Y, et al. The yield of first-time endoscopic ultrasonography in screening individuals at a high risk of
developing pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2175–2181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Yu J, Sadakari Y, Shindo K, Suenaga M, Brant A, Almario JAN, Borges M, Barkley T, Fesharakizadeh
S, Ford M, et al. Digital next-generation sequencing identifies low-abundance mutations in pancreatic
juice samples collected from the duodenum of patients with pancreatic cancer and intraductal papillary
mucinous neoplasms. Gut. 2017;66:1677–1687. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Zamboni G, Hirabayashi K, Castelli P, Lennon AM. Precancerous lesions of the pancreas. Best Pract
Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;27:299–322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Lu C, Xu CF, Wan XY, Zhu HT, Yu CH, Li YM. Screening for pancreatic cancer in familial high-risk
individuals: A systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:8678–8686. [PMC free article]
78. Mills K, Birt L, Emery JD, Hall N, Banks J, Johnson M, Lancaster J, Hamilton W, Rubin GP, Walter
FM. Understanding symptom appraisal and help-seeking in people with symptoms suggestive of
pancreatic cancer: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015682. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
79. Keane MG, Horsfall L, Rait G, Pereira SP. A case-control study comparing the incidence of early
symptoms in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005720. [PMC free article]
80. Xu J, Cao Z, Liu W, You L, Zhou L, Wang C, Lou W, Sun B, Miao Y, Liu X, et al. Plasma miRNAs
Effectively Distinguish Patients With Pancreatic Cancer From Controls: A Multicenter Study. Ann Surg.
81. Kim JE, Lee KT, Lee JK, Paik SW, Rhee JC, Choi KW. Clinical usefulness of carbohydrate antigen
19-9 as a screening test for pancreatic cancer in an asymptomatic population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
82. Fahrmann JF, Bantis LE, Capello M, Scelo G, Dennison JB, Patel N, Murage E, Vykoukal J, Kundnani
DL, Foretova L, et al. A Plasma-Derived Protein-Metabolite Multiplexed Panel for Early-Stage Pancreatic
Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Mayerle J, Kalthoff H, Reszka R, Kamlage B, Peter E, Schniewind B, González Maldonado S,

Pilarsky C, Heidecke CD, Schatz P, et al. Metabolic biomarker signature to differentiate pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma from chronic pancreatitis. Gut. 2018;67:128–137. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
84. Riva F, Dronov OI, Khomenko DI, Huguet F, Louvet C, Mariani P, Stern MH, Lantz O, Proudhon C,
Pierga JY, et al. Clinical applications of circulating tumor DNA and circulating tumor cells in pancreatic
cancer. Mol Oncol. 2016;10:481–493. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Princivalle A, Monasta L, Butturini G, Bassi C, Perbellini L. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma can be
detected by analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in alveolar air. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:529.
86. Kanda M, Sadakari Y, Borges M, Topazian M, Farrell J, Syngal S, Lee J, Kamel I, Lennon AM, Knight
S, et al. Mutant TP53 in duodenal samples of pancreatic juice from patients with pancreatic cancer or
high-grade dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:719–30.e5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
87. Zhou B, Xu JW, Cheng YG, Gao JY, Hu SY, Wang L, Zhan HX. Early detection of pancreatic cancer:
Where are we now and where are we going? Int J Cancer. 2017;141:231–241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Demir IE, Jäger C, Schlitter AM, Konukiewitz B, Stecher L, Schorn S, Tieftrunk E, Scheufele F,
Calavrezos L, Schirren R, et al. R0 Versus R1 Resection Matters after Pancreaticoduodenectomy, and Less
after Distal or Total Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Kim KS, Kwon J, Kim K, Chie EK. Impact of Resection Margin Distance on Survival of Pancreatic
Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49:824–833. [PMC free article]
90. Blamey SL, Fearon KC, Gilmour WH, Osborne DH, Carter DC. Prediction of risk in biliary surgery.
Br J Surg. 1983;70:535–538. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Wang Q, Gurusamy KS, Lin H, Xie X, Wang C. Preoperative biliary drainage for obstructive jaundice.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008:CD005444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, Bruno MJ, van der Harst E, Kubben FJ, Gerritsen JJ,
Greve JW, Gerhards MF, de Hingh IH, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the
pancreas. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:129–137. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Hua J, He Z, Qian D, Meng H, Zhou B, Song Z. Duct-to-Mucosa Versus Invagination

Pancreaticojejunostomy Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J
Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:1900–1909. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Cheng Y, Briarava M, Lai M, Wang X, Tu B, Cheng N, Gong J, Yuan Y, Pilati P, Mocellin S.
Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction for the prevention of postoperative
pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD012257.
95. Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Lidor AO, Makary MA, Wolfgang CL. Laparoscopic distal
pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2012;255:1048–1059. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Pericleous S, Middleton N, McKay SC, Bowers KA, Hutchins RR. Systematic review and meta-
analysis of case-matched studies comparing open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: is it a safe
procedure? Pancreas. 2012;41:993–1000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP. Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1774–1780. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Buchs NC, Chilcott M, Poletti PA, Buhler LH, Morel P. Vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer:
Imaging modalities, preoperative diagnosis and surgical management. World J Gastroenterol.
99. Mollberg N, Rahbari NN, Koch M, Hartwig W, Hoeger Y, Büchler MW, Weitz J. Arterial resection
during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2011;254:882–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Yu XZ, Li J, Fu DL, Di Y, Yang F, Hao SJ, Jin C. Benefit from synchronous portal-superior
mesenteric vein resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol.
101. Oettle H, Neuhaus P, Hochhaus A, Hartmann JT, Gellert K, Ridwelski K, Niedergethmann M, Zülke
C, Fahlke J, Arning MB, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and long-term outcomes among
patients with resected pancreatic cancer: the CONKO-001 randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1473–1481.
102. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Bassi C, Ghaneh P, Cunningham D, Goldstein D, Padbury R, Moore
MJ, Gallinger S, Mariette 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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103. Neoptolemos JP, Palmer DH, Ghaneh P, Psarelli EE, Valle JW, Halloran CM, Faluyi O, O’Reilly DA,
Cunningham D, Wadsley J, et al. Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine
monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label,
randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:1011–1024. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
104. Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M, Ben Abdelghani M, Wei AC, Raoul JL, Chone L, Francois E, Artru
P, Biagi JJ, et al. A multicenter international randomized phase III trial of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX versus
gemcitabine (gem) in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. J Clin Oncol.
2018;36:LBA4001–LBA4001. [Google Scholar]
105. Ghosn M, Kourie HR, El Rassy E, Haddad FG, Hanna C, El Karak F, Nasr D. Where does
chemotherapy stands in the treatment of ampullary carcinoma? A review of literature. World J Gastrointest
Oncol. 2016;8:745–750. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106. Altorki N, Harrison S. What is the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, and adjuvant
treatment in resectable esophageal cancer? Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;6:167–174. [PMC free article]
107. Labori KJ, Lassen K, Hoem D, Grønbech JE, Søreide JA, Mortensen K, Smaaland R, Sorbye H,
Verbeke C, Dueland S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery first for resectable pancreatic cancer
(Norwegian Pancreatic Cancer Trial - 1 (NorPACT-1)) - study protocol for a national multicentre
randomized controlled trial. BMC Surg. 2017;17:94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108. Zhan HX, Xu JW, Wu D, Wu ZY, Wang L, Hu SY, Zhang GY. Neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic
cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Cancer Med. 2017;6:1201–1219.
109. Lopez NE, Prendergast C, Lowy AM. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: definitions and
management. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:10740–10751. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
110. Versteijne E, Vogel JA, Besselink MG, Busch ORC, Wilmink JW, Daams JG, van Eijck CHJ, Groot
Koerkamp B, Rasch CRN, van Tienhoven G; Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Meta-analysis comparing
upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic
cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105:946–958. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111. Van Tienhoven G, Versteijne E, Suker M, Groothuis KBC, Busch OR, Bonsing BA, de Hingh IHJT,
Festen S, Patijn GA, de Vos-Geelen J, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery for
resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-1): A randomized, controlled,
multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:LBA4002–LBA4002. [Google Scholar]
112. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouché O, Guimbaud R, Bécouarn Y, Adenis A, Raoul JL,
Gourgou-Bourgade S, de la Fouchardière C, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic
pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–1825. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Mahaseth H, Brutcher E, Kauh J, Hawk N, Kim S, Chen Z, Kooby DA, Maithel SK, Landry J, El-
Rayes BF. Modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with improved safety and maintained efficacy in pancreatic
adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 2013;42:1311–1315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Chu QD, Sun G, Pope M, Luraguiz N, Curiel DT, Kim R, Li BD, Mathis JM. Virotherapy using a
novel chimeric oncolytic adenovirus prolongs survival in a human pancreatic cancer xenograft model.
Surgery. 2012;152:441–448. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Yamamoto Y, Hiraoka N, Goto N, Rin Y, Miura K, Narumi K, Uchida H, Tagawa M, Aoki K. A
targeting ligand enhances infectivity and cytotoxicity of an oncolytic adenovirus in human pancreatic
cancer tissues. J Control Release. 2014;192:284–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Rouanet M, Lebrin M, Gross F, Bournet B, Cordelier P, Buscail L. Gene Therapy for Pancreatic
Cancer: Specificity, Issues and Hopes. Int J Mol Sci. 2017:18. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]
Articles from World Journal of Gastroenterology are provided here courtesy of Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

Vergara Reading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vergara Reading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Reading on

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements in NCM 212 – RLE

IMMUNOLOGY AND CANCER ROTATION

MS. LOVELY EREDIANO, RN

VICTORIA GRACE U. VERGARA

BSN 3C- GROUP 2

August 15, 2021

Pancreatic cancer is a disease associated with poor outcomes and an increasing

World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Nov 21; 24(43): 4846–4861. PMCID: PMC6250924

Pancreatic cancer: A review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology,

Telephone: +44-28-90635009 Fax: +44-28-90235900

Factor Direction Strength of association Type of Related notable findings Ref.

Open in a separate window

BMI: Body mass index.

NON-MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS

Family history and genetic susceptibility

Gene Syndrome Increase relative risk vs general population

Chen et al[30] Del Chiaro et al[31]

MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS

Diet, nutrition, physical activity and pancreatic cancer

Decreases Increases risk

Adapted from World Cancer Research Fund Continuous Update Project[25].

PATHOLOGY OF PANCREATIC CANCER

Morphological variants of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, recognised in the World Health Organisation

Morphological Variant Characteristics

Mucinous cyst neoplasms

Molecular understanding of pancreatic adenocarcinoma pathogenesis

DIAGNOSIS AND SCREENING

BIOMARKERS FOR EARLY DETECTION

Pre-operative biliary drainage

Minimally invasive surgery

TREATMENT IN METASTATIC PATIENTS

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENT

SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology

Country of origin: United Kingdom

Peer-review report classification

Grade B (Very good): B, B

Peer-review started: September 25, 2018

First decision: October 14, 2018

Article in press: October 27, 2018

2. Ilic M, Ilic I. Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:9694–9705.

7. IARC. Globocan 2012; Available from: URL: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.

33. Huxley R, Ansary-Moghaddam A, Berrington de González A, Barzi F, Woodward M. Type-II diabetes

70. Georgiadou D, Sergentanis TN, Sakellariou S, Vlachodimitropoulos D, Psaltopoulou T, Lazaris AC,

83. Mayerle J, Kalthoff H, Reszka R, Kamlage B, Peter E, Schniewind B, González Maldonado S,

93. Hua J, He Z, Qian D, Meng H, Zhou B, Song Z. Duct-to-Mucosa Versus Invagination

You might also like