Pancreatic Cancer — Resectability, Triplets and Selection: PRODIGE-24, NAPOLI-3, Fistula and Surveillance Arithmetic

Definition and framing — a lethal ductal cancer decided by resectability

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is frequently a lethal disease with an aggressive tumour biology, often presenting with non-specific symptoms — and only a small subset of patients are candidates for surgery.^[2] Surgical resection remains the only treatment that offers a potential chance of long-term survival, yet about 80% of patients treated with curative intent will develop recurrence.^[48] The fellowship frame follows directly: resectability plus fitness plus biology (CA19-9, nodal status, response) chooses the operation and its timing, and every staging, neoadjuvant and adjuvant step below exists to select the patients surgery can actually cure.^[12][6][7] The reference spine is the NCCN pancreatic-adenocarcinoma guideline, which provides recommendations for diagnosis, evaluation, treatment and follow-up, carried globally alongside the ESMO express update for metastatic disease.^[36][35]

Epidemiology — sixty thousand cases, rising incidence, late presentation

The American count anchors the scale: approximately 60,430 new diagnoses were expected in 2021 in the US, incidence is increasing by 0.5% to 1.0% per year, and pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second-leading cause of cancer-related mortality by 2030.^[1] The global trajectory concurs: incidence is projected to reach 18.6 per 100,000 in 2050 at 1.1% average annual growth — a significant public-health burden.^[3] The stage split explains the mortality: 30-35% present locally advanced and 50-55% metastatic, leaving only 10-15% resectable at presentation.^[1] Median survival sits near 4 months with 5-year survival at 13%.^[2] Board-ready inference: assume advanced disease until cross-sectional staging proves otherwise — the resectable-feeling story is the exception, not the rule.^[1][2]

Precursors and genetics — PanIN, IPMN, MCN and the BRCA minority

Name the three precursors — pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and mucinous cystic neoplasm — and their genetic order: KRAS mutation is the early event whose frequency rises with dysplasia grade, while TP53 mutation and SMAD4/DPC4 inactivation are late events seen in PanIN3, carcinomatous IPMN change and MCN carcinoma only.^[4] The germline minority is examinable and actionable: 5-7% of metastatic pancreatic cancer carries a BRCA pathogenic germline variant, comprehensive germline testing is recommended for all patients, and NCCN advises clinicians to consider germline testing for every pancreatic-cancer patient.^[1][37] Precursor biology is what justifies surveillance of familial and high-risk cohorts — hunting high-grade dysplastic precursors and T1N0M0 cancers — rather than population screening.^[38]

Presentation — vague, late, wasted, and obstructed

Most disease announces itself late and vaguely: aggressive biology plus a silent retroperitoneal location means advanced stage or even metastasis at diagnosis, with no typical early symptoms.^[9] Price the wasting from the first visit: more than 80% of patients suffer significant weight loss at diagnosis and tend toward severe cachexia, and exocrine insufficiency is difficult to test — so it is often detected clinically, especially outside specialist centres, and treated empirically.^[5] Head lesions obstruct — jaundice, pruritus, cholangitis — while body/tail lesions declare themselves with pain, weight loss and sometimes new diabetes; gastric outlet obstruction complicates roughly 15-20% of cases.^[2][43] The tempo rule the viva rewards: painless jaundice in an older adult is pancreatic head cancer until staged otherwise, and every presentation gets pancreas-protocol imaging before any reassurance.^[1][6]

Imaging and staging — CT classifies, EUS sees and samples, scans lie after chemotherapy

Stage with pancreas-protocol CT first and read it in NCCN language: across 616 patients, R0 resection rates were 73% for CT-resectable, 55% for borderline and 16% for unresectable disease — with tumours over 4 cm and portomesenteric-vein abutment independently counting against R0.^[6] Then distrust the same scan after neoadjuvant therapy: in 64 post-FOLFIRINOX patients, R0 ran 67-73% with no significant difference across CT resectable, borderline or unresectable categories — CT cannot portray response, so re-stage then explore despite imaging.^[7][11] EUS is the essential locoregional tool — for diagnosis and assessment of extension and resectability — and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is the golden standard for tissue diagnosis.^[8][9]

Screening boundary — no population test, high-risk programmes only

State the fence plainly: there are currently no biomarkers with sufficient sensitivity and specificity for clinical diagnosis, let alone screening — and with low incidence plus no accurate, cheap, non-invasive test, population screening is not reasonable.^[9][8] High-risk subpopulations are the suitable targets: one EUS/CT programme found neoplasms in 8 of 78 high-risk subjects against none in 149 controls, and EUS remains essential for diagnosis, extension and resectability assessment in that setting.^[8] The CAPS consortium sets the programme rules by Delphi: goals are high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions and T1N0M0 cancers; familial-risk surveillance starts no earlier than age 50 or 10 years before the youngest affected relative; preferred tests are EUS plus MRI/MRCP.^[38]

CA19-9 — the only approved marker, fenced on all sides

CA19-9 is the only serum biomarker approved by the US Food and Drug Administration — and simultaneously of limited specificity, with combinations and novel markers (circulating tumour cells and DNA, microRNAs, exosomes) still investigational.^[9] Use it for prognosis and response, never for diagnosis alone: pre-neoadjuvant CA19-9 above 400 U/ml was the only independent pre-treatment prognostic factor in a borderline-resectable chemoradiation cohort, and in MPACT higher baseline CA19-9 (with neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio) tracked worse survival.^[10][28] After induction chemotherapy for locally advanced disease, CA19-9 response adds to RECIST staging in predicting resectability — precisely because CT alone cannot portray response.^[11]

Resectability classification — NCCN anatomy with biological and conditional dimensions

Quote the IAP anatomic cutoffs: superior mesenteric or coeliac contact under 180 degrees without stenosis or deformity, common-hepatic contact sparing proper-hepatic and coeliac, and superior-mesenteric/portal contact including bilateral narrowing or occlusion — framed inside three dimensions: anatomic, biological and conditional.^[12] The ISGPS supports the NCCN criteria for the borderline definition, giving the examiner one shared language.^[13] Classify every stem on the spot: resectable means no arterial contact with reconstructible venous involvement; borderline means the IAP contacts above; locally advanced means encasement or unreconstructible vessels — with CA19-9, nodal burden and chemotherapy response co-deciding operability alongside anatomy.^[12][10][11]

Surgery — centralize it, price it, grade every fistula

Pancreatectomy is high-risk surgery with a volume rule: across 9,566 German patients, risk-adjusted 1-year mortality ran significantly higher in the three lowest-volume quintiles than the highest — odds ratios 1.73, 1.53 and 1.37 — and European reviews confirm higher in-hospital mortality in low-volume clinics, so centralization in high-volume centres is the examined system answer.^[16][17] Quote the national reality to the patient: 58,003 German inpatient episodes carried 10.1% in-hospital mortality overall, ranging from 7.3% for distal pancreatectomy to 22.9% for total pancreatectomy — with relaparotomy in 16% and mortality climbing steeply once severe complications land.^[15] Then grade every leak in ISGPS 2016 language: a clinically relevant fistula is any measurable drain output with amylase over 3 times the institutional normal plus a directly related clinical condition; the old grade A is now a "biochemical leak" with no clinical importance and no longer a true fistula; grade B demands a management change — drains beyond 3 weeks or endoscopic/percutaneous repositioning; grade C means reoperation, organ failure or death.^[14]

Adjuvant therapy — mFOLFIRINOX for the fit, GemCap for the rest

Give six months of adjuvant chemotherapy to every resected patient fit for it: the standard of care is six months of mFOLFIRINOX in patients fit enough for the protocol, otherwise six months of gemcitabine and capecitabine on the ESPAC-4 basis.^[47] Quote PRODIGE-24 for the fit (493 patients): mFOLFIRINOX against gemcitabine — disease-free survival 21.6 versus 12.8 months (HR 0.58), 3-year DFS 39.7% versus 21.4%; overall survival 54.4 versus 35.0 months (HR 0.64), 3-year OS 63.4% versus 48.6% — at the price of grade 3-4 toxicity in 75.9% versus 52.9%.^[18] Quote ESPAC-4 for the unfit-for-triplet (730 analysed): gemcitabine plus capecitabine against gemcitabine — overall survival 28.0 versus 25.5 months (HR 0.82, p=0.032), which the authors called the new post-resection standard; at 104-month follow-up the gap held at 31.6 versus 28.4 months (HR 0.83), widening to 49.9 versus 32.2 months (HR 0.63) in R0 patients.^[19][20] The network meta-analysis ranks mFOLFIRINOX most likely best (98.9% for DFS, 89.6% for OS), and Dutch real-world data confirm GemCap beats gemcitabine alone outside trials (31.4 versus 22.1 months, HR 0.71) in triplet-ineligible patients.^[22][23] On margins, stay honest: R1 independently predicted poorer survival under gemcitabine (HR 1.97) but lost significance under mFOLFIRINOX (HR 1.46, p=0.114) — chemotherapy blunts margin risk without erasing the need for a clear resection.^[21] Transcriptomic GemPred signatures predict gemcitabine sensitivity retrospectively, but they remain research — never a bedside regimen test.^[24]

Neoadjuvant and borderline strategy — treat, re-stage, explore

Borderline disease earns neoadjuvant therapy first: PREOPANC's long-term results (246 resectable-plus-borderline patients) give neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy over upfront surgery a hazard ratio of 0.73 — medians separated by only 1.4 months (15.7 versus 14.3) while 5-year survival split 20.5% against 6.5%.^[25] The pooled fence (7 trials, 938 patients, all gemcitabine-based and none with adjuvant FOLFIRINOX): neoadjuvant therapy improved survival (HR 0.66, median 19 to 29 months) with no significant benefit in the resectable subgroup — the borderline benefit is the load-bearing one.^[26] So the exam tactic is fixed: clearly resectable disease goes to surgery plus adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX; borderline disease gets neoadjuvant therapy, CA19-9-tracked re-staging, and exploration despite imaging — because post-chemotherapy scans understate R0 odds.^[26][7][11]

Metastatic first-line — three regimens, fitness chooses

Fit patients get combination chemotherapy — FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel mark an important improvement over gemcitabine monotherapy, the standard for many years.^[47] Quote the three primaries: ACCORD-11 (342 patients, ECOG 0-1) — FOLFIRINOX over gemcitabine, 11.1 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.57).^[27] MPACT long-term (861 patients, Karnofsky 70-plus) — nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine over gemcitabine, 8.7 versus 6.6 months (HR 0.72), with over-three-year survivors in the combination arm only (4%).^[28] NAPOLI-3 (770 patients) — NALIRIFOX over nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, 11.1 versus 9.2 months (HR 0.83, p=0.036), a possible reference first-line regimen.^[29] Individual-patient-data meta-analysis (7 trials, 2,581 patients) confirms the ordering: progression-free survival 7.4 months NALIRIFOX and 7.3 FOLFIRINOX against 5.7 for gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, with overall survival indistinguishable between the two triplets (11.7 versus 11.1) — and the class benefit over single-agent gemcitabine is 2 to 6 months.^[30][1] Fence the outlier: Japan's GENERATE interim stopped for futility with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine numerically ahead (17.1 versus 14.0 and 13.6 months) — first-line choice follows fitness, toxicity and access, and ESMO now frames sequencing around the NALIRIFOX approval.^[31][35]

Second-line and maintenance — sequence it, fence the PARP win

After gemcitabine-based first-line therapy, nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin became the first FDA-approved second-line regimen (November 2015) — so gemcitabine-first sequences to nal-IRI/5-FU, while triplet-first sequences back to a gemcitabine doublet.^[32][35] For the 5-7% with a BRCA germline variant whose disease has not progressed on platinum, maintenance olaparib 300 mg twice daily extended progression-free survival from 3.8 to 7.4 months (HR 0.53) in 154 randomised of 3,315 screened — but final overall survival was identical at 19.0 versus 19.2 months (HR 0.83, p=0.35), a progression-free win only.^[1][33][34]

Palliation and nutrition — metal first, scope the outlet, feed early, replace enzymes

Palliation for malignant biliary obstruction should be minimally invasive, cost-effective and aimed at quality of life through multidisciplinary planning.^[44] For the obstructed bile duct, endoscopy-guided stenting is preferred — plastic and metal relieve jaundice equally, metal stays open longer, and a metal stent is the first choice — with EUS-guided drainage as the fallback when ERCP fails.^[45] For gastric outlet obstruction, uncovered metal enteral stents suit short life expectancy (under 2-6 months) while surgical bypass serves longer expectancy with better durable relief; for pain, EUS-guided coeliac neurolysis matches traditional methods and cuts narcotics when done early — while relieving pain only to a limited degree and for a short duration, so it is a bridge, not a plan.^[43][45] Feed every patient: nutritional therapy is mandatory for any surgical patient at nutritional risk especially in upper-gastrointestinal surgery, early oral feeding is preferred, and pancreatic enzyme replacement starts empirically given that testing is cumbersome — because over 80% arrive already wasted toward severe cachexia.^[46][5]

Surveillance payoff, recurrence arithmetic, and exam pearls

Surveillance of high-risk individuals finds smaller, earlier cancers and longer lives: 26 screened patients against 1,504 registry controls — tumours 2.5 versus 3.6 cm, stage I in 38.5% versus 10.3%, 5-year mortality 43% versus 86%, median survival 61.7 versus 8.0 months with 5-year survival 50% versus 9%.^[39] Counsel the cost beside the benefit: across 1,551 familial high-risk subjects, significant-yield pathology ran only 1.4%, 6% underwent surgery, and 68.1% of that surgery was unnecessary — surveillance is offered, never oversold.^[40] After resection, recurrence is the rule: 76.7% recurred at median 11.7 months — 57.8% distant-only against 23.7% local-only, liver-only early (25.2% at 6.9 months) and lung-only late (14.7% at 18.6 months), with lymph-node ratio above 0.2 predicting distant failure and adjuvant therapy stretching recurrence-free survival to 18.0/17.2 months.^[41] The 17,313-patient meta-analysis weights the sites — locoregional 20.8%, liver 26.5%, lung 11.4%, peritoneal 13.5% — with survival longest for lung (30.4 months) and shortest for peritoneal relapse (14.1), and R1, perineural invasion and positive lavage cytology flagging peritoneal failure.^[42]

Revision summary

Pancreatic cancer counts ~60,430 US cases rising 0.5-1.0% yearly toward the second cancer killer, with only 10-15% resectable, 4-month median and 13% 5-year survival — KRAS-early/TP53-late precursors plus a 5-7% BRCA germline minority earning universal testing.^[1][2][3][4] Stage by NCCN CT (R0 73/55/16%) but explore despite post-chemotherapy scans (R0 ~70% regardless); diagnose by EUS-FNA gold standard with CA19-9 fenced to prognosis and response; classify borderline by IAP three-dimension/NCCN-ISGPS rules.^{[6][7][9][12][13]} Operate centrally (10.1% national mortality, 1.73 low-volume penalty) grading every fistula by ISGPS biochemical-leak/B/C rules; give adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX fit (54.4 versus 35.0 months) or GemCap unfit (28.0 versus 25.5, R0 49.9 versus 32.2 long-term), with R1 significance dissolving under triplets.^{[15][16][14][18][19][20][21]} Borderline disease goes neoadjuvant (PREOPANC HR 0.73, 5-year 20.5 versus 6.5%) while resectable goes straight to surgery; metastatic first-line is FOLFIRINOX (11.1 versus 6.8), nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (8.7 versus 6.6) or NALIRIFOX (11.1 versus 9.2) by fitness, then nal-IRI second-line or olaparib maintenance for BRCA (PFS-only 7.4 versus 3.8).^{[25][27][28][29][32][33][34]} Palliate bile with metal first, outlet by life expectancy, pain with early but short-lived coeliac block, and wasting with early feeding plus empirical enzymes; survey high-risk kindreds (50% versus 9% 5-year survival, 68% unnecessary-surgery fence) and quote recurrence by site — liver early, lung late, peritoneum worst.^{[45][43][46][39][40][41][42]}

References48ShowHide

1. [1]Park W, O'Reilly EM, et al. Pancreatic Cancer: A Review. JAMA, 2021.PMID 34547082
2. [2]Stoop TF, Besselink MG, et al. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet, 2025.PMID 40187844
3. [3]Hu JX, Gao F, et al. Pancreatic cancer: A review of epidemiology, trend, and risk factors. World J Gastroenterol, 2021.PMID 34366606
4. [4]Yonezawa S, Goto M, et al. Precursor lesions of pancreatic cancer. Gut Liver, 2008.PMID 20485640
5. [5]Pezzilli R, Falconi M, et al. Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer. Cancers (Basel), 2020.PMID 31979186
6. [6]Hong SB, Kim SC, et al. Pancreatic Cancer CT: Prediction of Resectability according to NCCN Criteria. Radiology, 2018.PMID 30251929
7. [7]Jang JK, Lee MG, et al. CT-determined resectability of borderline resectable and unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma following FOLFIRINOX therapy. Eur Radiol, 2021.PMID 32845389
8. [8]Helmstaedter L, Riemann JF, et al. Pancreatic cancer--EUS and early diagnosis. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2008.PMID 18247044
9. [9]Yang J, You L, et al. Early screening and diagnosis strategies of pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive review. Cancer Commun (Lond), 2021.PMID 34331845
10. [10]Masui T, Hatano E, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy on borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with arterial abutment; a prospective, open-label, phase II study in a single institution. BMC Cancer, 2022.PMID 35093003
11. [11]van Veldhuisen E, Besselink MG, et al. Added value of CA19-9 response in predicting resectability of locally advanced pancreatic cancer following induction chemotherapy. HPB (Oxford), 2018.PMID 29475787
12. [12]Isaji S, Wolfgang CL, et al. International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017. Pancreatology, 2018.PMID 29191513
13. [13]Bockhorn M, Izbicki JR, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery, 2014.PMID 24856119
14. [14]Bassi C, Buchler M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery, 2017.PMID 28040257
15. [15]Nimptsch U, Grützmann R, et al. Nationwide In-hospital Mortality Following Pancreatic Surgery in Germany is Higher than Anticipated. Ann Surg, 2016.PMID 26978570
16. [16]Alsfasser G, Klar E, et al. Volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg, 2016.PMID 26505976
17. [17]Polonski A, Uzunoglu FG, et al. Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery in Europe. J Gastrointest Surg, 2019.PMID 31037503
18. [18]Conroy T, Bachet JB, et al. FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 30575490
19. [19]Neoptolemos JP, Büchler MW, 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.PMID 28129987
20. [20]Palmer DH, Neoptolemos JP, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Long-Term Outcomes of Adjuvant Therapy in the ESPAC4 Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol, 2025.PMID 39637340
21. [21]Lambert A, Conroy T, et al. Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Recurrence and Survival After Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the PRODIGE 24-CCTG PA-6 Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg, 2026.PMID 39041211
22. [22]de Jesus VHF, Riechelmann RP, et al. Comparative efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus capecitabine and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Ecancermedicalscience, 2021.PMID 34567261
23. [23]de Jong EJM, de Vos-Geelen J, et al. Real-world evidence of adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Int J Cancer, 2022.PMID 34935139
24. [24]Nicolle R, Cros J, et al. Prediction of Adjuvant Gemcitabine Sensitivity in Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Using the GemPred RNA Signature: An Ancillary Study of the PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 Clinical Trial. J Clin Oncol, 2024.PMID 37963313
25. [25]Versteijne E, van Eijck CHJ, et al. Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Long-Term Results of the Dutch Randomized PREOPANC Trial. J Clin Oncol, 2022.PMID 35084987
26. [26]van Dam JL, Groot Koerkamp B, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer, 2022.PMID 34838371
27. [27]Conroy T, Ducreux M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med, 2011.PMID 21561347
28. [28]Goldstein D, Von Hoff DD, et al. nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: long-term survival from a phase III trial. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2015.PMID 25638248
29. [29]Wainberg ZA, O'Reilly EM, et al. NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet, 2023.PMID 37708904
30. [30]Nichetti F, Niger M, et al. NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and Gemcitabine With Nab-Paclitaxel as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open, 2024.PMID 38190183
31. [31]Ohba A, Ueno M, et al. Modified Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin or S-1, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Versus Nab-Paclitaxel + Gemcitabine in Metastatic or Recurrent Pancreatic Cancer (GENERATE, JCOG1611): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II/III Trial. J Clin Oncol, 2025.PMID 40720715
32. [32]Chiang NJ, Chen LT, et al. Development of nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI, MM-398, PEP02) in the management of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother, 2016.PMID 27140876
33. [33]Golan T, Kindler HL, et al. Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer. N Engl J Med, 2019.PMID 31157963
34. [34]Kindler HL, Golan T, et al. Overall Survival Results From the POLO Trial: A Phase III Study of Active Maintenance Olaparib Versus Placebo for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2022.PMID 35834777
35. [35]Conroy T, Ducreux M, et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline Express Update on the management of metastatic pancreatic cancer. ESMO Open, 2025.PMID 40287191
36. [36]Tempero MA, George GV, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2021.PMID 33845462
37. [37]Tempero MA, et al. NCCN Guidelines Updates: Pancreatic Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2019.PMID 31117041
38. [38]Goggins M, Bruno M, et al. Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. Gut, 2020.PMID 31672839
39. [39]Blackford AL, Goggins M, et al. Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance and Survival of High-Risk Individuals. JAMA Oncol, 2024.PMID 38959011
40. [40]Paiella S, Bassi C, et al. Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer in familial high-risk individuals: A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis of screening results. Pancreatology, 2018.PMID 29709409
41. [41]Groot VP, He J, et al. Patterns, Timing, and Predictors of Recurrence Following Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg, 2018.PMID 28338509
42. [42]Tanaka M, Hackert T, et al. Meta-analysis of recurrence pattern after resection for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg, 2019.PMID 31454073
43. [43]Gohil VB, Klapman JB, et al. Endoscopic Palliation of Pancreatic Cancer. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol, 2017.PMID 28795293
44. [44]Aadam AA, Liu K, et al. Endoscopic palliation of biliary obstruction. J Surg Oncol, 2019.PMID 31055849
45. [45]Zhu J, Jin Z, et al. Interventional Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. Gastrointest Tumors, 2016.PMID 27904860
46. [46]Weimann A, Bischoff SC, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in surgery - Update 2025. Clin Nutr, 2025.PMID 40957230
47. [47]Springfeld C, Neoptolemos JP, et al. Chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Presse Med, 2019.PMID 30879894
48. [48]Fenocchio E, Aglietta M, et al. Is There a Standard Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Pancreatic Cancer? Cancers (Basel), 2019.PMID 31614884