Current surgical management of pancreatic cancer
Review Article
Current surgical management of pancreatic cancer
Charles B. Kim, Shuja Ahmed, Eddy C. Hsueh
Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Corresponding author: Eddy C. Hsueh. Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University, 3635 Vista at Grand Blvd., St. L ouis, M issouri 6 3110, USA. Tel: 1-314-577-8566; Fax: 1-314-771-1945. Email: hsuehec@slu.edu.
Abstract
Jump to Section
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Operative considerations
Conclusion
References
En bloc resection is the treatment of choice for localized pancreatic cancer. While the perioperative mortality associated with resection is low, it still carries a significant morbidity rate of up to 50% in certain high-risk subsets of patients. With advances in perioperative care, radical resection with inclusion of adjacent vascular structure to achieve negative margin status can be performed with comparable mortality and morbidity in high-volume centers. Early results with the use of minimally invasive technique in pancreatic surgery are promising. Recent data on perioperative care to decrease morbidity with pancreatic surgery will also be discussed.
Key words
pancreaticodoudenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery
J Gastrointest Oncol 2011; 2: 126-135. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2011.029
Introduction
Jump to Section
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Operative considerations
Conclusion
References
Worldwide, over 200,000 people die annually of pancreatic cancer. In the United States, pancreatic cancer is the 4th leading cause of cancer death, and in Europe it is the 6th (1). Great majority of patients present with locally advanced or metastatic disease (2). Surgical resection remains the only potentially curative intervention for select patients who present with localized disease. In 1912, Walter Kausch reported the first successful resection of duodenum and a portion of the pancreas for periampullary tumor (3). In 1935 Whipple redefined the procedure as a two stage operation consisting of gastric and biliary bypass in the first stage followed by pancreaticoduodenectomy (4,5). In 1978, Traverso and Longmire introduced the pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (6). During the 1960s, many centers reported operative mortality following pancreaticoduodenectomy to be 20-40%, with postoperative morbidity at 40-60% (7). With advances in surgical techniques and perioperative care, the mortality rates associated with the procedure has reduced to less than 5%, while morbidity rate approached 40% even in highvolume centers (8-11).
Approximately 15-20% of patients initially diagnosed with pancreatic caner are amenable to resection (12,13). Great majority of pancreatic cancer (90%) are ductal in origin located predominantly in the head (>75%) (14). Unresectable lesions are those involving SMA or celiac axis (T4) or those with distant metastases (M1). Controversy exists regarding the definition of borderline resectable lesions. Generally, tumor abutment of visceral arteries or short-segment occlusion of the superior mesenteric vein is considered anatomically borderline resectable lesion (15). Recent Consensus Conference sponsored by Americas HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association, Society for the Surgery of Alimentary Tract, and Society of Surgical Oncology provided a more precise definition for clinical trial design and literature comparison (16) : (i) tumorassociated deformity of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) or portal vein (PV) (Figure 1); (ii) abutment of the SMV or PV>=1800; (iii) short-segment occlusion of the SMV or PV amenable to resection and venous reconstruction; (iv) short-segment involvement of the hepatic artery or its branches amenable to resection and reconstruction (Figure 2); and (v) abutment of the superior mesenteric artery (<1800). Outcome following resection is influenced by R0 resection (10,11,17), nodal involvement (10,11), histologic grade (11,18), elevated CA19-9 levels (18-20), high Body Mass Index (21), and operative blood loss (17,22).
Operative techniques for head of pancreas cancer include the standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure) and pylorus -preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy and superior mesenteric vein and/or portal vein resection have recently been evaluated for maximal surgical clearance of disease. The type of pancreatic anastomosis has also been examined, including pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy. Several institutions have repor ted their results for laparoscopic pancreatic resection with comparable results to open resection. Various post operative strategies have been evaluated for reduction of post-operative complication rates, including the use of octreotide (somatostatin analogue) , pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, erythromycin and nutritional support. The purpose of this article is to review the preoperative, operative, and post operative management strategies in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.
Determination of resectability
Paramount to the decision for performing pancreaticoduodenectomy is the accurate identification of patients who have resectable disease. Various imaging modalities are available to accurately stage a patient with pancreatic cancer, including CT, PET/CT, ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound, mesenteric angiography, and MRCP. CT scan has been the main imaging modality for determination of resectability. With advances in medical imaging and improvement in the resolution capability, the role of diagnostic laparoscopy is now limited in the initial evaluation of resectability. In a recent study of 298 patients, Mayo et al reported 87% resection rate in this cohort where CT was performed in 98% of the study patients, EUS in 32%, and laparoscopy in 29% (23). In the laparoscopy group, 27% had findings that precluded resection. In a recent review of their experience at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center, White et al reported an yield of diagnostic laparoscopy of 14% overall, but only with 8% yield in patients with in-house pre-operative imaging versus 17% with external imaging (24). The same group proposed a judicious use of diagnostic laparoscopy with the combination of pre-operative CA19-9 as a stratification factor to consider laparoscopy in those with resectable disease on imaging and elevated CA19-9 level (25).
Preoperative Biliary Drainage
Because of the predominant location of pancreatic cancer in the head of pancreas, obtructive jaundice is a common presenting symptom. Several cohort studies have been published regarding the detrimental effect of pre-operative biliary instrumentation/stenting on the post-operative course with higher infectious complications in the stented group (26-31). No difference in survival was observed. However, others have reported no impact on post-operative complications with pre-operative biliary drainage (32,33) In a recent multicenter randomized trial comparing early surgery versus preoperative biliary drainage followed by surgery, 202 patients were enrolled. The rates of serious complications were 39% (37 of 96 patients) in the earlysurgery group and 74% (75 of 106 patients) in the biliarydrainage group (P<0.001) (34). A follow-up report from the same trial showed that there was a significant delay in time to surgery (1 week versus 5 week). However, the delay did not influence survival (35). While there is an increase in overall infectious complications following surgery in the stented group, the detrimental effect of pre-operative biliary stenting is likely limited to those with subsequent bacterial colonization of the biliary tree from stent placement (36). Jagannath et al found no difference in post-operative complications between the un-complicated pre-operative stent group compared with unstented group. The adverse outcome was associated with positive intraoperative bile culture. Further adding to the controversy of pre-operative biliary stenting, while high pre-operative bilirubin was associated with worse survival outcome, resolution of jaundice following pre-operative biliary stenting appeared to counter the adverse survival effect of bilirubinemia (37). Thus, pre-operative biliary drainage should be used judiciously in symptomatic patients.
Fig 1 Arrow points toward the deformity of superior mesenteric vein by tumor.
Fig 2 Arrow points toward the deformity of portal vein and abutment of tumor on the common hepatic artery.
Operative considerations
Jump to Section
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Operative considerations
Conclusion
References
Pancreaticoduodenectomy
The traditional pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) consists of resection of the pancreatic head, duodenum, distal common bile duct, gallbladder, and gastric antrum (4,5). A more recent modification of this procedure involves preservation of the pylorus and gastric antrum, referred to as the pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD)(6). Resection is then followed by re-establishing gastrointestinal continuity. The jejunum is typically used for each anastomosis, consisting of pancreaticojejunostomy, hepaticojejunostomy, and gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy in the case of PPPD. During the 1960s and 1970s, mortality associated with PD approached 25%. Over the past 3 decades, experience performing PD has increased with associated decrease in perioperative mortality rate to less than 5% (38-41). However, it is still a technically challenging procedure with significant perioperative morbidity. Cameron reported his personal series of 1000 PD performed over a span of 34 years with 1% perioperative mortality (41). Perioperative morbidity was observed in 41% of the cohort including delayed gastric emptying (18%), pancreatic fistula (12%), wound infection (7%), intra-abdominal abscess (6%), cardiac event (3%), pancreatitis (2%), bile leak (2%), pneumonia (2%), hemobilia (2%), and reoperation in 2.7%. To minimize postoperative morbidity, various strategies for reconstruction have been under intense investigation. The predominant controversy regarding standard PD versus PPPD or pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction has been extensively studied (42-44). No significant superiority of one variant of PD over another has been convincingly demonstrated. Surgeon's experience with the specific variant of PD appeared to be the determining factor in achieving optimal surgical outcome.
Distal pancreatectomy
Distal pancreatectomy is the standard procedure for cancer of the body or tail of pancreas. It entails the resection of distal portion of pancreas extending from the left of the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein axis to the tail with en bloc resection of surrounding lymphatic tissue. Spleen is conventionally removed with the procedure. Spleensparing distal pancreatectomy (Warshaw operation) can be performed safely without increase in complication rate, operative time or in-hospital stay (45). While cancer of the body and tail tends to present at an advanced stage due to the lack of early symptoms and tends not to be amenable to complete resection on presentation, there is no survival difference when compared with cancer of the head of pancreas stage by stage (46,47).
Laparoscopic pancreatic resection
With the publication of COST trial, minimally invasive surgical approach has been evaluated in increasing frequency for cancer resection (48). For the surgical management of pancreatic neoplasm, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is rapidly becoming the surgical procedure of choice in place of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for tumor of the body/tail of pancreas. While several groups have published their results with LDP, the majority of the publication did not specifically address the oncologic outcome following LDP for pancreatic cancer (49-59). Overall, when compared with ODP, LDP is associated with a longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay. Conversion rate from laparoscopic approach to open varies between 0 to 30%. In their institutional experience, Baker et al noted a lower number of lymph nodes harvested in 27 LDP patients (mean=5) compared with 85 ODP patients (mean=9) (57). Kooby et al performed a matched analysis of 23 LDP patients with 189 ODP patients from a database with pooled data from 9 academic centers (58). There was no difference in positive margin rates, number of lymph nodes examined, or overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. Jayaraman et al reviewed their results of 343 distal pancreatectomies over a 7-year study period at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center : 107 were attempted laparoscopically and 236 ODP (59). The conversion rate was 30%. Similar complication rates were observed in both groups. They also observed significantly less blood loss, longer operative times, and shorter hospital stays in favor of LDP group. The number of lymph nodes examined (LDP = 7 vs. ODP = 7) and margin positivity (LDP = 3% vs ODP = 4%) were similar between both groups. They observed a higher conversion rate in patients with larger tumor, higher BMI, and tumor proximity to celiac axis. No survival data were provided. Based on these data, LDP appeared to be an appropriate oncologic surgical approach in select patients with cancer of the body/tail of pancreas.
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) was first described by Gagner and Pomp in 1994 (60). Due to the complexity of the operation and lack of apparent advantages, reports regarding LPD contained case reports and small series. Series containing 10 or more successful LPD are listed in Table 1. While these reports demonstrated the safety and feasibility of performing LPD, larger prospective trials are needed to further define the advantage, if any, of LPD.
Role of extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy
Nodal status is a significant prognostic variable in pancreatic cancer. The number of nodes involved with metastases, the ratio of lymph node involvement, and the minimum number of lymph nodes examined had all been shown to have prognostic significance (67-69). Because of the importance of nodal staging, extended lymphadenectomy (EL) during pancreaticoduodenectomy was proposed to improve the surgical outcome of pancreatic cancer patients. The definition of EL is not uni form. Commonly EL refer red to the dissect ion of additional lymph nodes along the aorta from the diaphragmatic hiatus to the inferior mesenteric artery and laterally to the renal hila with circumferential clearance of the celiac trunk (70). While several groups from Japan had reported favorable outcome following EL during pancreaticoduodenectomy (71-73), multiple randomized trials had not demonstrated an improvement in overall survival following EL (70,74-76). Yeo et al also observed a significantly higher complication rate associated with the radical surgery group (43%) compared with the standard pancreaticoduodenectomy group (29%) (74). Higher rates of delayed gastric emptying and pancreatic fistula and longer hospital stay were observed in the radical surgery group. The higher morbidity associated with EL was also reported in a meta-analysis on standard versus radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (77). The authors also did not find a difference in survival between the standard versus radical pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Portal vein and superior mesenteric vein resection
Because achieving an R0 resection had prognostic significance for patient outcome, vascular resection during PD had been evaluated. The great majority of vascular resection during PD involved portal vein and superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction. Yekebes et al reported equivalent perioperative morbidity and mortality between the standard PD group and the group with vascular resection (78). The median survival was 15 months in patients with histopathologic proven vascular invasion and 16 months in those without (P=0.86). Riedeger and colleagues also reported similar results with regard to portal vein/superior mesenteric vein resection (79). In their study cohort of 222 pancreaticoduodenectomy patients, 53 required portal vein and/or superior mesenteric vein resection while 169 did not. There was no significant difference in morbidity or mortality between the two groups. Kanoeka and colleagues demonstrated that the length of portal vein / superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) resected had an inverse correlation with survival (80). PV/SMV resections that are < 3 cm were associated with a 5-year survival rate of 39% vs. 4% for resections that are >=3 cm in length (P=0.017). Chua and Saxena performed a systematic review of published reports on extended pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection (81). Twenty-eight retrospective studies were included in the review comprising of 1458 patients. The median R0 resection rate was 75% (range, 14%-100%). The median mortality rate was 4% (range, 0-17%). Based on the reports from high-volume centers (>20 pancreaticoduodenectomy/year), the median survival associated with extended pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection was 15 months (range, 9-23 months). Therefore, in select patient where R0 resection can be achieved, PV/SMV resection/reconstruction can be performed with comparable morbidity and survival outcome to standard pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Post operative considerations
While the perioperative mortality for pancreaticoduodenectomy has dropped to 5% in recent times due to advances in surgical techniques, the morbidity rate remains high at 40%. Pancreatic fistula remains the most serious complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy and occurs in up to 20% of patients. Other major complications include delayed gastric emptying and hemorrhage. In an effort to identify independent risk factors for post operative morbidity, Adam and colleagues prospectively studied 301 patients who underwent pancreatic head resections (82). Three pre-operative risk factors were found to independently correlate with increased complication rate: presence of portal vein/splenic vein thrombosis or hypertension, elevated pre-operative creatinine, and the absence of pre-operative biliary drainage. In contrast, other studies (including a prospective randomized controlled trial) have reported a statistically significantly higher complication rate for patients undergoing pre-operative biliary drainage (26-31,34). Patients undergoing operation after 1998 were also noted to have fewer complications, suggesting that increased experience and improved patient selection has led to improvement in perioperative care. The requirement for resection of additional organs also correlated with a higher complication rate.
Patient's age and its impact on morbidity, mortality, and survival have been intensely investigated (83-87). The majority of studies used age 70 or 80 as the cutoff. In their systematic review of literature, Riall et al found that higher morbidity and/or mortality was observed in the elderly population (87). Makary et al reviewed their single institutional experience with 2,698 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy over a 35 year period (83). When compared to the younger group (<80), patients in the 80-89 group had statistically significant higher morbidity and mortality rates (p<0.05). Haigh et al identified 2610 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy from 1/2005 through 12/2007 in the American College of Surgeons- National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (88). Elderly patients (>70 years old) had a higher likelihood of developing at least 1 morbidity compared with that of younger patients (40.7% vs 34.0%; P = .01). Furthermore, elderly patients had a higher perioperative mortality rate compared with that of younger patients (4.3% vs 1.7%; P = .01).
The efficacy of octreotide, a somatostatin analogoue, in decreasing complication associated with pancreatic resection is controversial. The rationale for using octreotide is that it can decrease pancreatic enzyme secretion thereby decreasing the rate of pancreatic fistula formation (89). Multiple randomized multicenter trials comparing octreotide or vaprotide, another somatostatin analogue, to placebo in patients undergoing pancreatic resection have been performed (89-97). The use of somatostatin analogues did not impact mortality in patients undergoing pancreatic resection. While some studies demonstrated a statistically significantly decrease in the development of pancreatic leak/stula with the use of somatostatin analogue, others showed no difference.
Delayed gastric emptying is another leading cause of morbidity in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (98). The occurrence of delayed gastric emptying resulted in prolonged nasogastric tube decompression, initiation of enteral or parenteral nutrition, and prolonged hospital stay. The pathogenesis of delayed gastric emptying has been attributed to decrease gastric motility secondary to decreased levels of motilin (99). Motilin induces contractions of intestinal smooth muscles, initiates phase III of the gastric migrating motor complex, and improves gastric emptying in patients with diabetic gastroparesis (100,101). Yeo and colleagues performed a prospective randomized trial evaluating the effects of erythromycin on delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, randomizing 118 patients to erythromycin lactobionate 200 mg every 6 hours or saline. The erythromycin group had reduced incidence of delayed gastric emptying (19% vs. 30%), need for nasogastric tube re-insertion (6 vs 15 patients, p<0.05), and retention of liquids and solids on radionucleotide gastric emptying study (p<0.01) (102). Thus, the use of erythromycin can reduce the occurrence of delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Patients with pancreatic cancer who are deemed candidates for curative resection are frequently malnourished pre-operatively (103,104). Serum albumin level is a significant prognostic indicator of post operative mortality. Winter and colleagues categorized patients into 3 groups based on pre-operative serum albumin level (>3.5, 2.6-3.5, <2.6). Post operative mortality was 7% in the group with lowest serum albumin level compared with 3% for the intermediate group, and 0.9% for the >3.5 group (105). Okabayashi and colleagues evaluated the benef it of early post operative enteral nutrition (EPEN) vs. late post operative enteral nutrition (LPEN) in pat ients undergoing pancreat icoduodenectomy (106). Twenty-three patients received TPN followed by the initiation of oral intake during the late post operative period (LPEN group). Sixteen patients were initiated on enteral feeds via jejunostomy tube on post-operative day 1 (EPEN group). The EPEN group had significantly lower rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula and shorter length of hospital stay. Brennan and colleagues performed a prospective randomized trial in patients undergoing major pancreatic resection, comparing patients receiving parenteral nutrition with patients who did not (107). They found that the group receiving parenteral nutrition had significantly higher complication rate with increased rate of intra-abdominal infection and longer duration of hospitalizaion.
Continuous infusion of nutrients has been demonstrated to cause a delay in gastric emptying. Elevated levels of cholecystokinin (CCK) is a known cause of delayed gastric emptying (108,109). Van Berge Henegouwen and others performed a prospective randomized study comparing continuous (CON) feeding protocol (1500 kCal/24hrs) with cyclic (CYC) feeding protocol (1125 kCal/18hr) (110). They found that patients in the CYC group were able to tolerate a normal diet sooner than the CON group. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the CYC group. Levels of CCK were lower in the CYC group, suggesting that lower levels of CCK plays a role in reducing delayed gastric emptying.
Enteral nutrition formulas containing immunomodulating agents (arginine, RNA, Omega-3 fatty acids) have been investigated in patients undergoing cancer surgery. Braga and colleagues performed a prospective randomized double blind clinical trial comparing standard enteral feeds with enteral feeds enriched with arginine, RNA, and Omega-3 fatty acids post operatively in patients undergoing curative resection for neoplasms of the colorectum, stomach, or pancreas (111). Patients receiving immunomodulating agents had a statistically significant decrease in post operative infection rate and length of post operative stay. The use of probiotics has been shown to stabilize the intestinal barrier, increase intestinal motility, and enhance the innate immune system. Rayes and colleagues performed a randomized double blind study in 80 patients undergoing pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. One group received early post-operative enteral feeds with lactobacillus, and the other group received placebo (112). The incidence of post operative infections was significantly lower in the group receiving lactobacillus compared with placebo group(12.5% vs. 40% p=0.005).
Conclusion
Jump to Section
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Operative considerations
Conclusion
References
While resection of pancreatic cancer can be performed with low perioperative mortality, the associated perioperative morbidity can be significant. Recent advances in surgical instrumentation have made wide spread adoption of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy possible. Similar to experience in other cancer types, the initial oncologic outcome with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy appear comparable to open distal pancreatectomy. The advantage of minimally invasive surgery in terms of less blood loss and shorter hospital stay was also observed. The advances in surgical techniques also allow more aggressive surgical resection to be performed with acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity. With the advances in systemic treatment of pancreatic cancer, the ability to achieve negative resection margin will improve the outcome of patients with this aggressive disease.
References
Jump to Section
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Operative considerations
Conclusion
References
  • Michaud DS. Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. Minerva Chir 2004;59:99-111.[LinkOut]
  • Conlon KC, Klimstra DS, Brennan MF. Long-term survival after curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clinicopathologic analysis of 5-year survivors . Ann Surg 1996;223:273-9.[LinkOut]
  • Kausch W. Das carcinom der papilla duodeni und seine radikale. Entfeinung. Beitr Z Clin Chir 1912;78:439-86.
  • Whipple AO, Parsons WB, Mullins CR. Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of vater. Ann Surg 1935;102:763-79.[LinkOut]
  • Whipple AO. Present day surgery of the pancreas. N Engl J Med 1942;226:515-26.[LinkOut]
  • Traverso LW, Longmire WP Jr. Preser vation of the pylorus in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978;146:959-62.[LinkOut]
  • Stojadinovic A, Brooks A, Hoos A, Jaques DP, Conlon KC, Brennan MF. An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:954-64.[LinkOut]
  • Buchler MW, Wagner M, Schmied BM, Uhl W, Friess H, Z'graggen K. Changes in morbidity after pancreatic resection: toward the end of completion pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 2003;138:1310-4; discussion 1315.[LinkOut]
  • Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1128-37.[LinkOut]
  • Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, Belcher KA. One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 2006;244:10-5.[LinkOut]
  • Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, A rnold MA, Chang DC, Coleman J, et al. 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience. J Gast rointest Surg 2006;10:1199-210; discussion 1210-1.[LinkOut]
  • Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Ko CY, Ritchey J, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, et al. Validation of the 6th edition AJCC Pancreatic Cancer Staging System: report from the National Cancer Database. Cancer 2007;110:738-44.[LinkOut]
  • Zuckerman DS, Ryan DP. Adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: a review. Cancer 2008;112:243-9.[LinkOut]
  • Sener SF, Fremgen A, Menck HR, Winchester DP. Pancreatic cancer: a report of treatment and survival trends for 100,313 patients diagnosed from 1985-1995, using the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg 1999;189:1-7.[LinkOut]
  • Katz MH, Pisters PW, Evans DB, Sun CC, Lee JE, Fleming JB, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: the importance of this emerging stage of disease. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:833-46;discussion 846-8.[LinkOut]
  • Abrams RA, Lowy AM, O'Reilly EM, Wolff RA, Picozzi VJ, Pisters PW. Combined modality treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreas cancer: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:1751-6.[LinkOut]
  • Fatima J, Schnelldorfer T, Barton J, Wood CM, Wiste HJ, Smyrk TC, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: implications of positive margin on survival. Arch Surg 2010;145:167-72.[LinkOut]
  • Barugola G, Partelli S, Marcucci S, Sartori N, Capelli P, Bassi C, et al. Resectable pancreatic cancer: who really benefits from resection? Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3316-22.[LinkOut]
  • Barton JG, Bois JP, Sarr MG, Wood CM, Qin R, Thomsen KM, et al. Predictive and prognostic value of CA 19-9 in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:2050-8.[LinkOut]
  • Ferrone CR, Finkelstein DM, Thayer SP, Muzikansky A, Fernandez-delCastillo C, Warshaw AL. Perioperative CA19-9 levels can predict stage and survival in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2897-902.[LinkOut]
  • Fleming JB, Gonzalez RJ, Petzel MQ, Lin E, Morris JS, Gomez H, et al. Influence of obesity on cancer-related outcomes after pancreatectomy to treat pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Arch Surg 2009;144:216-21.[LinkOut]
  • Kazanjian KK, Hines OJ, Duffy JP, Yoon DY, Cortina G, Reber HA. Improved survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the influence of operative blood loss. Arch Surg 2008;143:1166-71.[LinkOut]
  • Mayo SC, Austin DF, Sheppard BC, Mori M, Shipley DK, Billingsley KG. Evolving preoperative evaluation of patients with pancreatic cancer: does laparoscopy have a role in the current era? J Am Coll Surg 2009;208:87-95.[LinkOut]
  • White R, Winston C, Gonen M, D'Angelica M, Jarnagin W, Fong Y, et al. Current utility of staging laparoscopy for pancreatic and peripancreatic neoplasms. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:445-50.[LinkOut]
  • Maithel SK, Maloney S, Winston C, Gonen M, D'Angelica MI, Dematteo RP, et al. Preoperative CA 19-9 and the yield of staging laparoscopy in patients with radiographically resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:3512-20.[LinkOut]
  • Povoski SP, Karpeh MS Jr, Conlon KC, Blumgart LH, Brennan MF. Association of preoperative biliary drainage with postoperative outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 1999;230:131-42.[LinkOut]
  • Pisters PW, Hudec WA, Hess KR, Lee JE, Vauthey JN, Lahoti S, et al . Effect of preoperative biliary decompression on pancreaticoduodenectomy-associated morbidity in 300 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 2001;234:47-55.[LinkOut]
  • Hodul P, Creech S, Pickleman J, A ranha GV. The effect of preoperative biliary stenting on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2003;186:420-5.[LinkOut]
  • Sewnath ME, Birjmohun RS, Rauws EA, Huibregtse K, Obertop H, Gouma DJ. The effect of preoperative biliary drainage on postoperative complications af ter pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2001;192:726-34.[LinkOut]
  • Mezhir JJ, Brennan MF, Baser RE, D'Angelica MI, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, et al. A matched case-control study of preoperative biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: routine drainage is not justied. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:2163-9.[LinkOut]
  • Limongelli P, Pai M, Bansi D, Thiallinagram A, Tait P, Jackson J, et al. Correlation between preoperative biliary drainage, bile duct contamination, and postoperative outcomes for pancreatic surgery. Surgery 2007;142:313-8.[LinkOut]
  • Coates JM, Beal SH, Russo JE, Vanderveen KA, Chen SL, Bold RJ, et al. Negligible effect of selective preoperative biliary drainage on perioperative resuscitation, morbidity, and mortality in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 2009;144:841-7.[LinkOut]
  • Saleh MM, Norregaard P, Jorgensen HL , Andersen PK, Matzen P. Preoperative endoscopic stent placement before pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of the effect on morbidity and mortality. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:529-34.[LinkOut]
  • van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, Bruno MJ, van der Harst E, Kubben FJ, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas. N Engl J Med 2010;362:129-37.[LinkOut]
  • Eshuis WJ, van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, Bruno MJ, Kuipers EJ, et al. Therapeutic delay and survival after surgery for cancer of the pancreatic head with or without preoperative biliary drainage. Ann Surg 2010;252:840-9.[LinkOut]
  • Jagannath P, Dhir V, Shrikhande S, Shah RC, Mullerpatan P, Mohandas KM. Effect of preoperative biliary stenting on immediate outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2005;92:356-61.[LinkOut]
  • Smith RA, Dajani K, Dodd S, Whelan P, Raraty M, Sutton R, et al. Preoperative resolution of jaundice following biliary stenting predicts more favourable early survival in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:3138-46.[LinkOut]
  • Trede M, Schwall G, Saeger HD. Survival after pancreatoduodenectomy. 118 consecutive resections without an operative mortality. Ann Surg 1990;211:447-58.[LinkOut]
  • Fernandez-del Castillo C, Rattner DW, Warshaw AL. Standards for pancreatic resection in the 1990s. Arch Surg 1995;130:295-9;discussion 299-300.[LinkOut]
  • Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M, Brennan MF. Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 1995;222:638-45.[LinkOut]
  • Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, Belcher KA. One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 2006;244:10-5.[LinkOut]
  • Thomas RM, Ahmad SA. Current concepts in the surgical management of pancreatic cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2010;19:335-58.[LinkOut]
  • Lai EC, Lau SH, Lau WY. Measures to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a comprehensive review. Arch Sur 2009;144:1074-80.[LinkOut]
  • Wente MN, Shrikhande SV, Muller MW, Diener MK, Seiler CM, Friess H, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2007;193:171-83.[LinkOut]
  • Rodriguez JR, Madanat MG, Healy BC, Thayer SP, Warshaw AL, Fernandez-del Castillo C. Distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation revisited. Surgery 2007;141:619-25.[LinkOut]
  • Brennan MF, Moccia RD, Klimstra D. Management of adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas. Ann Surg 1996;223:506-11;discussion 511-2.[LinkOut]
  • Katz MH, Wang H, Fleming JB, Sun CC, Hwang RF, Wolff RA, et al. Long-term survival after multidisciplinary management of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:836-47.[LinkOut]
  • Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2050-9.[LinkOut]
  • Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, Bassi C, Delvaux G, Weerts J, et al. Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 2005;137:597-605.[LinkOut]
  • Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, Casetti L, Bassi C, Mullineris B, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg 2007;246:77-82.[LinkOut]
  • Eom BW, Jang JY, Lee SE, Han HS, Yoon YS, Kim SW. Clinical outcomes compa red between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1334-8.[LinkOut]
  • Fernandez-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L, Levi S, Lopez-Boado MA, Navarro S. Curative laparoscopic resection for pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg 2007;11:1607-21;discussion 1621-2.[LinkOut]
  • Taylor C, O'Rourke N, Nathanson L, Martin I, Hopkins G, Layani L, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the Brisbane experience of forty-six cases. HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:38-42.[LinkOut]
  • Laxa BU, Carbonell AM 2nd, Cobb WS, Rosen MJ, Hardacre JM, Mekeel KL, et al. Laparoscopic and hand-assisted distal pancreatectomy. Am Surg 2008;74:481-6;discussion 486-7.[LinkOut]
  • Sa Cunha A, Rault A, Beau C, Laurent C, Collet D, Masson B. A singleinstitution prospective study of laparoscopic pancreatic resection. Arch Surg 2008;143:289-95;discussion 295.[LinkOut]
  • Kooby DA, Gillespie T, Bentrem D, Nakeeb A, Schmidt MC, Merchant NB, et al. Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg 2008;248:438-46.[LinkOut]
  • Baker MS, Bent rem DJ, Ujiki MB, Stocker S, Talamonti MS. A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 2009;146:635-43;discussion 643-5.[LinkOut]
  • Kooby DA, Hawkins WG, Schmidt CM, Weber SM, Bentrem DJ, Gillespie TW, et al. A multicenter analysis of distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: is laparoscopic resection appropriate? J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:779-85,786-7.[LinkOut]
  • Jayaraman S, Gonen M, Brennan MF, D'Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: evolution of a technique at a single institution. J Am Coll Surg 2010;211:503-9.[LinkOut]
  • Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 1994;8:408-10.[LinkOut]
  • Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: Is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg 1997;1:20-5;discussion 25-6.[LinkOut]
  • Dulucq JL , Wintringer P, Mahajna A . Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and malignant diseases. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1045-50.[LinkOut]
  • Palanivelu C, Jani K, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajapandian S, Madhankumar MV. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: technique and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 2007;205:222-30.[LinkOut]
  • Pugliese R, Scandroglio I, Sansonna F, Maggioni D, Costanzi A, Citterio D, et al. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective review of 19 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2008;18:13-8.[LinkOut]
  • Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M, Takiguchi N, Shimada H, Kainuma O, et al. Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease. Am J Surg 2009;198:445-9.[LinkOut]
  • Kendrick ML, Cusati D. T Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg 2010;145:19-23.[LinkOut]
  • Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, Hayashidani Y, Hashimoto Y, Nakashima A, et al. Number of metastatic lymph nodes, but not lymph node ratio, is an independent prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2010;211:196-204.[LinkOut]
  • Riediger H, Keck T, Wellner U, zur Hausen A, Adam U, Hopt UT, et al. The lymph node ratio is the strongest prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:1337-44.[LinkOut]
  • Schwarz RE, Smith DD. Extent of lymph node retrieval and pancreatic cancer survival: information from a large US population database. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:1189-200.[LinkOut]
  • Pedrazzoli S, DiCarlo V, Dionigi R, Mosca F, Pederzoli P, Pasquali C, et al. Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Lymphadenectomy Study Group. Ann Surg 1998;228:508-17.[LinkOut]
  • Ishikawa O, Ohhigashi H, Sasaki Y, Kabuto T, Fukuda I, Furukawa H, et al. Practical usefulness of lymphatic and connective tissue clearance for the carcinoma of the pancreas head. Ann Surg 1988;208:215-20.[LinkOut]
  • Kawarada Y, Yokoi H, Isaji S, Naganuma T, Tabata M, Machishi H, et al. Modified standard pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of pancreatic head cancer. Digestion 1999;60:s120-5.[LinkOut]
  • Nakao A, Takeda S, Inoue S, Nomoto S, Kanazumi N, Sugimoto H, et al. Indications and techniques of extended resection for pancreatic cancer. World J Surg 2006;30:976-82;discussion 983-4.[LinkOut]
  • Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sohn TA, Campbell KA, Sauter PK, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma, part 2: randomized controlled trial evaluating survival, morbidity, and mortality. Ann Surg 2002;236:355-66;discussion 366-8.[LinkOut]
  • Riall TS, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Campbell KA, Sauter PK, Coleman J, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma--part 3: update on 5-year survival. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9:1191-204;discussion 1204-6.[LinkOut]
  • Farnell MB, Pearson RK, Sarr MG, DiMagno EP, Burgart LJ, Dahl TR, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery 2005;138:618-28;discussion 628-30.[LinkOut]
  • Michalski CW, Kleeff J, Wente MN, Diener MK, Buchler MW, Friess H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 2007;94:265-73.[LinkOut]
  • Yekebas EF, Bogoevski D, Cataldegirmen G, Kunze C, Marx A, Vashist YK, et al. En bloc vascular resection for locally advanced pancreatic malignancies infiltrating major blood vessels: perioperative outcome and long-term survival in 136 patients. Ann Surg 2008;247:300-9.[LinkOut]
  • Riediger H, Makowiec F, Fischer E, Adam U, Hopt UT. Postoperative morbidity and long-term survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy with superior mesenterico-portal vein resection. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:1106-15.[LinkOut]
  • Kaneoka Y, Yamaguchi A, Isogai M. Portal or superior mesenteric vein resection for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: prognostic value of the length of venous resection. Surgery 2009;145:417-25.[LinkOut]
  • Chua TC, Saxena A. Extended pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 2010;14:1442-52.[LinkOut]
  • Adam U, Makowiec F, Riediger H, Schareck WD, Benz S, Hopt UT. Risk factors for complications after pancreatic head resection. Am J Surg 2004;187:201-8.[LinkOut]
  • Makary MA, Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Chang D, Cunningham SC, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the very elderly. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:347-56.[LinkOut]
  • Bathe OF, Levi D, Caldera H, Franceschi D, Raez L, Patel A, et al. Radical resection of periampullary tumors in the elderly: evaluation of long-term results. World J Surg 2000;24:353-8.[LinkOut]
  • Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Talamini MA, Hruban RH, et al. Should pancreat icoduodenectomy be per formed in octogenarians? J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:207-16.[LinkOut]
  • Fong Y, Blumgart LH, Fortner JG, Brennan MF. Pancreatic or liver resection for malignancy is safe and effective for the elderly. Ann Surg 1995;222:426-34;discussion 434-7.[LinkOut]
  • Riall TS. What is the effect of age on pancreatic resection? Adv Surg 2009;43:233-49.[LinkOut]
  • Haigh PI , Bilimoria KY, Difronzo LA. Early postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in the elderly. Arch Surg 2011;146:715-23.[LinkOut]
  • Gouillat C. Somatostatin for the prevention of complications following pancreatoduodenectomy. Digestion 1999;60:s59-63.[LinkOut]
  • Shan YS, Sy ED, Lin PW. Role of somatostatin in the prevention of pancreatic stump-related morbidity following elective pancreaticoduodenectomy in high-risk patients and elimination of surgeon-related factors: prospective, randomized, controlled trial. World J Surg 2003;27:709-14.[LinkOut]
  • Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Falconi M, Camboni MG. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of complications of elective pancreatic surgery. Italian Study Group. Br J Surg 1994;81:265-9.[LinkOut]
  • Montorsi M, Zago M, Mosca F, Capussotti L, Zotti E, Ribotta G, et al. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic resections: a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. Surgery 1995;117:26-31.[LinkOut]
  • Friess H, Beger HG, Sulkowski U, Becker H, Hofbauer B, Dennler HJ, et al. Randomized controlled multicentre study of the prevention of complications by octreotide in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1995;82:1270-3.[LinkOut]
  • Lowy AM, Lee JE, Pisters PW, Davidson BS, Fenoglio CJ, Stanford P, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease. Ann Surg 1997;226:632-41.[LinkOut]
  • Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Sohn TA, et al. Does prophylactic octreotide decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg 2000;232:419-29.[LinkOut]
  • Sarr MG; Pancreatic Surgery Group. The potent somatostatin analogue vapreotide does not decrease pancreas-specific complications after elective pancreatectomy: a prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:556-64;discussion 564-5;author reply 565.[LinkOut]
  • Suc B, Msika S, Piccinini M, Fourtanier G, Hay JM, Flamant Y, et al. Octreotide in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications following elective pancreatic resection: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 2004;139:288-294;discussion 295.[LinkOut]
  • Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2007;142:761-8.[LinkOut]
  • Tanaka M, Sarr MG. Role of the duodenum in the control of canine gastrointestinal motility. Gastroenterology 1988;94:622-9.[LinkOut]
  • Itoh Z, Nakaya M, Suzuki T, Arai H, Wakabayashi K. Erythromycin mimics exogenous motilin in gastrointestinal contractile activity in the dog. Am J Physiol 1984;247:688-94.[LinkOut]
  • Janssens J, Peeters TL, Vantrappen G, Tack J, Urbain JL, De Roo M, et al. Improvement of gastric emptying in diabetic gastroparesis by erythromycin. Preliminary studies. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1028-31.[LinkOut]
  • Yeo CJ, Barry MK, Sauter PK, Sostre S , Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, et al. Erythromycin accelerates gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. A prospective, randomized, placebocontrolled trial. Ann Surg 1993;218:229-37;discussion 237-8.[LinkOut]
  • Gupta R, Ihmaidat H. Nutritional effects of oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic carcinoma. Eur J Oncol 2003;29:634-43.[LinkOut]
  • Fearon KC, Barber MD, Falconer JS, McMillan DC, Ross JA, Preston T. Pancreatic cancer as a model: inflammatory mediators, acute-phase response, and cancer cachexia. World J Surg 1999;23:584-8.[LinkOut]
  • Winter JM, Cameron JL , Yeo CJ , Alao B , Lillemoe KD, Campbell KA, et al . Biochemical markers predict morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:1029-36;discussion 1037-8.[LinkOut]
  • Okabayashi T, Kobayashi M, Nishimori I, Sugimoto T, Akimori T, Namikawa T, et al. Benefits of early postoperative jejunal feeding in patients undergoing duodenohemipancreatectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:89-93.[LinkOut]
  • Brennan MF, Pisters PW, Posner M, Quesada O, Shike M. A prospective randomized trial of total parenteral nutrition after major pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 1994;220:436-441;discussion 441-4.[LinkOut]
  • Debas HT, Farooq O, Grossman MI. Inhibition of gastric emptying is a physiological action of cholecystokinin. Gastroenterology 1975;68:1211-7.[LinkOut]
  • Kleibeuker JH, Beekhuis H, Jansen JB, Piers DA, Lamers CB. Cholecystokinin is a physiological hormonal mediator of fat-induced inhibition of gastric emptying in man. Eur J Clin Invest 1988;18:173-7.[LinkOut]
  • van Berge Henegouwen MI, Akkermans LM, van Gulik TM, Masclee AA, Moojen TM, Obertop H, et al. Prospective, randomized trial on the effect of cyclic versus continuous enteral nutrition on postoperative gastric function after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 1997;226:677-85;discussion 685-7.[LinkOut]
  • Braga M, Gianotti L, Radaelli G, Vignali A, Mari G, Gentilini O, et al. Perioperative immunonutrition in patients undergoing cancer surgery: results of a randomized double-blind phase 3 trial. Arch Surg 1999;134:428-33.[LinkOut]
  • Rayes N, Seehofer D, Theruvath T, Mogl M, Langrehr JM, Nussler NC, et al. Effect of enteral nutrition and synbiotics on bacterial infection rates after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: a randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Surg 2007;246:36-41.[LinkOut]
Cite this article as: Kim C, Ahmed S, Hsueh E. Current surgical management of pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2011;2(3):126-135. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2011.029

Article Options

Download Citation

Share