Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar;47(3):729-739.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-022-06818-0. Epub 2022 Nov 10.

Prognostic Impact of Positive Peritoneal Lavage Cytology on Resectable Pancreatic Body and Tail Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Affiliations

Prognostic Impact of Positive Peritoneal Lavage Cytology on Resectable Pancreatic Body and Tail Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Taro Mashiko et al. World J Surg. 2023 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The prognostic impact of positive peritoneal lavage cytology on pancreatic cancer is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate its impact in resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer.

Methods: Between January 2006 and December 2019, 97 patients with pancreatic body and tail cancer underwent peritoneal lavage cytology and curative resection at our institution. We analyzed the impact of positive peritoneal lavage cytology on clinicopathological factors and on the prognosis of pancreatic body and tail cancer.

Results: Malignant cells were detected in 14 patients (14.4%) using peritoneal lavage cytology. In these patients, the tumor diameter was significantly larger (p < 0.001) and anterior serosal invasion (p = 0.034), splenic artery invasion (p = 0.013), lympho-vessel invasion (p = 0.025), and perineural invasion (p = 0.008) were significantly more frequent. The R1 resection rate was also significantly higher in patients with positive peritoneal lavage cytology than in negative patients (p = 0.015). Positive peritoneal lavage cytology had a significantly poor impact on overall survival (p = 0.001) and recurrence-free survival (p < 0.001). This cytology was also an independent poor prognostic factor for recurrence (p = 0.022) and was associated with peritoneal dissemination and liver metastasis.

Conclusions: Positive peritoneal lavage cytology is considered to be indicative of more systemic disease in patients with resectable pancreatic body and tail cancer than in patients with negative peritoneal lavage cytology. Early detection of pancreatic cancer before it develops micrometastases is important to improve prognosis, and CY+ patients require more intensive multimodality treatment than standard treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of patients with resected pancreatic body and tail cancer
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Comparison of recurrence-free survival (RFS) between patients with positive lavage cytology (CY+ and negative lavage cytology (CY−) b Comparison of overall survival (OS) between patients with positive lavage cytology (CY+) and negative lavage cytology (CY−)

Similar articles

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, et al. Projection 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. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Katz MH, Wang H, Fleming JB, et al. Long-term survival after multidisciplinary management of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:836–847. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0295-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vincent A, Herman J, Schulick R, Hruban RH, Goggins M. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2011;378:607–620. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62307-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gupta R, Amanam I, Chung V. Current and future therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:25–34. doi: 10.1002/jso.24623. - DOI - PubMed