PurposePrimary mesenchymal tumors of the pancreas are rare, with leiomyosarcomas the most encountered entities among the pancreatic sarcomas. With few exceptions, single case reports published over the last six decades constitute the entire scientific literature on this topic. Thus, evidence regarding clinical decision-making is scant.MethodsBased on a case report and an extensive literature search in PubMed, we discuss the clinical aspects and current management of this rare malignancy.ResultsWe identified only two papers with more than a single case presentation; these institutional patient series were limited to five and nine patients. Additionally, a few papers sought to summarize the individual case reports published in the English and/or Chinese language. The clinical presentation is rather non-specific. Moreover, modern imaging modalities are insufficiently accurate to diagnose leiomyosarcoma of the pancreas. Treatment goals include a complete resection with free margins. Proper morphologic examination using immunohistochemistry and the application of a grading system are clinically important for prognostication. The efficacy of adjuvant treatments has not been established.ConclusionPrimary pancreatic leiomyosarcoma is extremely rare, and the scientific literature is primarily based on single case reports. Conclusions on management and prognosis should be drawn with caution. A multidisciplinary team consultation is warranted to discuss a thorough individual treatment plan based on the available scientific literature, despite its low evidence level.

Background Resection margin status is considered one of the few surgeon-controlled parameters affecting prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While studies mostly focus on resection margins in pancreatoduodenectomy, little is known about their role in distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to investigate resection margins in DP for PDAC. Methods Patients who underwent DP for PDAC between October 2004 and February 2020 were included (n = 124). Resection margins and associated parameters were studied in two consecutive time periods during which different pathology examination protocols were used: non-standardized (period 1: 2004–2014) and standardized (period 2: 2015–2020). Microscopic margin involvement (R1) was defined as ≤1 mm clearance. Results Laparoscopic and open resections were performed in 117 (94.4%) and 7 (5.6%) patients, respectively. The R1 rate for the entire cohort was 73.4%, increasing from 60.4% in period 1 to 83.1% in period 2 (p = 0.005). A significantly higher R1 rate was observed for the posterior margin (35.8 vs. 70.4%, p < 0.001) and anterior pancreatic surface (based on a 0 mm clearance; 18.9 vs. 35.4%, p = 0.045). Pathology examination period, poorly differentiated PDAC, and vascular invasion were associated with R1 in the multivariable model. Extended DP, positive anterior pancreatic surface, lymph node ratio, perineural invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not R1, were significant prognostic factors for overall survival in the entire cohort. Conclusions Pathology examination is a key determinant of resection margin status following DP for PDAC. A high R1 rate is to be expected when pathology examination is meticulous and standardized. Involvement of the anterior pancreatic surface affects prognosis.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and objective: Bariatric surgery with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is widely used to treat morbid obesity and present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The aim of this study was to describe diagnostic tools and challenges in performing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) on patients with altered anatomy after RYGB. Methods: Patients undergoing PD after RYGB from April 2015 to June 2022 at a tertiary referral center were identified. Preoperative workup, operative techniques, and outcomes were reviewed. A literature search was performed to identify articles reporting PD in post-RYGB patients. Results: Of a total of 788 PDs, six patients had previous RYGB. The majority were women (n = 5), and median age was 59 years. The patients most commonly presented with pain (50%) and jaundice (50%) with a median of 5.5 years after RYGB. The gastric remnant was resected in all cases, and reconstruction of the pancreatobiliary drainage was achieved using the distal part of the pre-existing pancreatobiliary limb in all patients. Median follow-up was 60 months. The Clavien–Dindo grade ⩾3 complications occurred in two patients (33.3%), and 90 days mortality occurred in one patient (16.6%). The literature search revealed 9 articles reporting a total of 122 cases, specifically addressing PD after RYGB. Conclusions: Reconstruction after PD in post-RYGB patients may be challenging. Resection of the gastric remnant and use of the pre-existing biliopancreatic limb may be a safe strategy, but surgeons should be prepared for other reconstruction options for creation of a new pancreatobiliary limb.