Venous Resections in Pancreatic Surgery: Justified Aggression or Futile Extension?

Abstract

Background:

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) frequently presents with venous involvement, historically deemed a contraindication to resection. However, refinements in surgical technique, imaging and perioperative care have enabled safe and effective venous resections in selected patients. The concept of ‘borderline resectable’ (BR) tumours has further expanded the scope of curative surgery by redefining anatomical limits.

Recent Advances:

Over the past decade, increasing evidence supports venous resection as a viable option to achieve R0 resections in locally advanced (LA) PDAC. The integration of neoadjuvant therapies, improved radiological assessment, and surgical innovation has resulted in enhanced survival outcomes with acceptable morbidity. Tangential, segmental, and graft-based reconstructions are now routinely practiced in high-volume centres. However, controversies remain regarding the oncologic benefit in all patient subsets, the risk of overextension in frail populations, and variability in outcomes across institutions.

Conclusion:

When applied selectively and performed with precision, venous resection in pancreatic surgery exemplifies justified oncologic aggression. Its success hinges on multidisciplinary evaluation, individualised patient selection, and institutional expertise. This review critically examines the indications, techniques, outcomes, and controversies, aiming to establish a clear perspective on when venous resections are meaningful—and when they risk futility.

Keywords

Pancreatic cancer venous resection borderline resectable pancreatic tumour ISGPS classification vascular reconstruction multivisceral resection

Introduction

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains among the deadliest malignancies worldwide, with a dismal five-year survival rate that seldom exceeds 10% despite advances in systemic therapies and perioperative protocols.^[1] Surgical resection continues to be the only potentially curative intervention; however, a significant proportion of patients are deemed inoperable at diagnosis due to local vascular invasion, particularly of the portal vein (PV) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV).^[2] Historically, such vascular involvement was equated with unresectability. Over time, however, this dogma has evolved, with the understanding that resection and reconstruction of these vessels may enable margin-negative (R0) resections in select patients, thereby expanding the boundaries of curative surgery.^[3]

The development of the ‘borderline resectable’ (BR) category has been pivotal in redefining surgical candidacy. These tumours exhibit limited venous involvement that may be amenable to resection after neoadjuvant therapy and careful operative planning.^[4] This shift is reflected in guidelines from the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), both of which provide structured criteria for BR-PDAC.^[5,6]

Contemporary improvements in imaging modalities—such as multiphasic CT with venous phase contrast, MRI with perfusion sequences, and 3D vascular mapping—have improved the preoperative delineation of vascular involvement.^[7] Moreover, high-volume centres have demonstrated that with meticulous technique and perioperative support, venous resections can be executed safely without compromising oncologic integrity.^[8,9]

Despite these advances, critical debate persists: Does venous resection improve survival, or does it merely shift morbidity without meaningful benefit? This review aims to synthesise high-quality evidence from 2015 to 2025, exploring the indications, surgical strategies, oncologic outcomes, and ongoing controversies surrounding venous resections in PDAC—clarifying when such interventions represent justified oncologic aggression, and when they may constitute futile extension.^[10]

Rationale and Indications for Venous Resection

Venous involvement in PDAC is not uncommon due to the anatomical intimacy between the head of the pancreas and the PV-SMV confluence. What was once considered a marker of unresectability is now increasingly viewed through a more nuanced lens. Venous resection is performed with the intent to achieve an R0 resection, the most critical determinant of long-term survival in PDAC.^[11]

Importantly, venous invasion does not necessarily reflect systemic disease. Several histopathological analyses reveal that true tumour invasion of the PV-SMV wall is confirmed in only 50%–60% of specimens where resection was performed, with the remainder representing inflammatory or desmoplastic adherence.^[12] This distinction has profound implications for both surgical planning and oncological justification.

The classification of BR and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic cancers has allowed for stratified surgical decision-making. BR-PDAC is characterised by ≤180° involvement of the PV or SMV, or short-segment occlusion amenable to reconstruction, while extensive arterial encasement typically excludes surgical candidacy.^[13] This classification—endorsed by the ISGPS and codified in the NCCN guidelines—has facilitated a more evidence-based approach to defining resectability.^[14,15]

Neoadjuvant therapy has emerged as a key component in the treatment of BR-PDAC. Chemotherapy, particularly with FOLFIRINOX, can downstage tumours, improve margin status, and potentially sterilise venous margins, thereby increasing the yield of R0 resections.^[16]

Rigorous multidisciplinary tumour board (MDT) review is indispensable in determining candidacy for venous resection. Critical factors include patient performance status, absence of extra-pancreatic disease, vascular reconstruction feasibility, and expected response to neoadjuvant therapy. The decision must reflect curative intent—not technical bravado—and hinge on achieving oncologic benefit without undue risk.^[17]

In summary, the rationale for venous resection is grounded in improving resectability and survival in a subset of patients previously considered inoperable. It represents an evidence-backed expansion of surgical boundaries, contingent upon careful selection, institutional expertise, and integration of systemic therapies.^[18]

Techniques and Classification of Venous Resection

Venous resection in pancreatic surgery is no longer considered a technical novelty—it has matured into a reproducible, anatomically sound strategy in the armamentarium of high-volume pancreatic surgeons. The ISGPS proposed a standardised four-type classification that enables reproducibility, comparative outcomes analysis, and operative planning.^[19]

Type 1: Tangential Resection with Primary Repair or Patch

Used for partial venous wall involvement without circumferential encroachment. After wedge excision, the defect is closed with either a direct lateral suture or a patch graft—commonly autologous pericardium or vein segments. Patch venoplasty reduces the risk of stenosis associated with tight primary closure.^[20]

Type 2: Segmental Resection with End-to-end Anastomosis

Applicable when the involved venous segment is short and a tension-free approximation is feasible. This technique offers physiological reconstruction with good long-term patency, provided the vein is sufficiently mobilised.^[21]

Type 3: Segmental Resection with Interposition Graft

For longer segments or when primary anastomosis risks tension, autologous grafts such as internal jugular, great saphenous, or external iliac veins are preferred. Synthetic (ePTFE) or cadaveric grafts may be alternatives, though infection and thrombosis risks are higher.^[22]

Type 4: Multivisceral or Complex Confluence Reconstructions

Reserved for rare cases involving the PV-SMV-splenic vein confluence. These require advanced vascular expertise and, occasionally, Y-shaped interposition grafts. These procedures underscore the importance of a vascular surgeon’s involvement in planning.^[23]

The classification schema is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1.

Classification of venous resection (ISGPS)

Type	Resection Strategy	Indication	Preferred Graft
Type 1	Tangential resection with direct suture or patch	Limited wall involvement <180°, no lumen compromise	Autologous vein or pericardial patch
Type 2	Segmental resection with end-to-end anastomosis	Short-segment involvement, tension-free approximation possible	None (direct anastomosis)
Type 3	Segmental resection requiring an interposition graft	Longer segment (>2–3 cm), direct anastomosis not feasible	Internal jugular, great saphenous, ePTFE
Type 4	Multivisceral/confluence resection with complex grafting	Involvement of PV-SMV-splenic vein confluence or multivisceral infiltration	Y-graft, iliac bifurcation graft, synthetic options

Source: Created by authors based on literature synthesis and expert consensus.

Notes: This table outlines the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) classification for venous resections during pancreatectomy, stratified by extent of involvement and reconstructive technique. Type 1 represents limited tangential resections managed by direct closure or patching. Types 2 and 3 involve segmental resections requiring primary anastomosis or graft interposition, respectively. Type 4 denotes advanced reconstructions involving venous confluence or multivisceral resections. Graft selection depends on the length of the resected segment, vessel diameter, and institutional expertise.

Figure 1 depicts an algorithmic approach to selecting the appropriate venous resection strategy.

Figure 1.

Source: Created by authors based on literature synthesis and expert consensus.

Intraoperative Considerations

Meticulous technique is essential to minimise morbidity. Systemic heparinisation, minimised clamping time, and real-time Doppler assessment post-reconstruction are now standard. Some centres advocate intraoperative ultrasound or ICG fluorescence to confirm graft patency.

Technical Evolution and Training

With increasing adoption, venous resection is now a component of advanced Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) training. The learning curve is substantial, and outcomes correlate strongly with institutional volume and multidisciplinary support.^[24]

Conclusion

Classification-based planning and adherence to vascular principles allow venous resections to be executed safely and reproducibly. The sophistication of reconstruction must be tailored to the individual anatomy and disease burden, ensuring oncologic radicality does not come at the cost of vascular catastrophe.

Oncologic Outcomes and Evidence Review

The oncologic rationale for venous resection in PDAC hinges on whether survival benefits outweigh the added operative complexity and morbidity. Over the past decade, high-quality evidence has increasingly supported this approach—particularly when it contributes to achieving an R0 resection.^[25]

Survival and Margin Status

Several meta-analyses have demonstrated that patients undergoing venous resection achieve survival outcomes comparable to those of standard pancreaticoduodenectomy, despite presenting with more LA disease.^[26] Margin-negative resection remains the strongest prognostic factor. Studies consistently report R0 rates exceeding 70% in patients undergoing venous resection when performed at experienced centres.^[27] Importantly, the presence of vascular invasion per se is less prognostically relevant than margin status and nodal burden.^[28]

Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Game-changer

The incorporation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (primarily FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel) has significantly improved surgical outcomes in BR-PDAC. Patients receiving neoadjuvant regimens demonstrate higher R0 resection rates, lower lymph node positivity, and prolonged survival compared to those undergoing upfront surgery.^[29] In fact, in patients requiring venous resection, neoadjuvant therapy often leads to tumour regression or fibrosis around the PV/SMV, facilitating resection and minimising true vascular wall invasion.^[30]

PREOPANC Trial and Real-world Corroboration

The PREOPANC randomised controlled trial established the superiority of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over immediate surgery in BR-PDAC, with significant improvements in both R0 rates and disease-free survival.^[31] A considerable portion of patients in the trial underwent venous resection, reinforcing its role as an essential component of aggressive, multimodality management.

Meta-analytical Perspective

Recent pooled analyses report median overall survival of 20–26 months following pancreatectomy with venous resection versus 23–31 months in standard resections.^[32,33] The narrowing survival gap suggests that when performed in optimised settings, venous resections do not compromise long-term outcomes—even in anatomically complex tumours.

Recurrence Patterns

Venous resection does not appear to increase local recurrence if R0 margins are achieved. As with standard PDAC resections, recurrence is predominantly systemic, underscoring the need for robust systemic control.^[34] The weight of modern evidence supports venous resection as a justifiable extension of curative surgery in PDAC. It is no longer a desperate manoeuvre but rather a cornerstone of high-level oncologic strategy in carefully selected patients.

Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality

While venous resection in pancreatic surgery has become increasingly feasible, it undeniably carries a higher perioperative risk compared to standard pancreatectomy. Recognising, stratifying, and mitigating these risks are essential for optimising outcomes and justifying surgical extension.

Morbidity Profiles and Trends

Historical data reported postoperative morbidity rates as high as 60% following venous resection, largely due to vascular complications such as thrombosis, bleeding, and graft failure.^[35] However, more recent studies from high-volume centres demonstrate morbidity rates in the 35%–50% range—comparable to complex pancreaticoduodenectomy—owing to refinements in surgical technique, perioperative imaging, and critical care.^[36]

Mortality Considerations

Venous resection has traditionally been associated with a perioperative mortality rate of 5%-15%, particularly in centres without vascular expertise. Contemporary series now report mortality closer to 3%-7% in experienced hands, with early deaths often attributable to sepsis, haemorrhage, or thrombotic graft failure.^[37] These figures underscore the importance of surgical experience and institutional volume.

Risk Predictors

Factors linked to increased morbidity include:

Prolonged operative time (>7 hours)

Blood loss >1,000 mL

Concomitant arterial resection

Malnutrition or sarcopenia

Reconstruction using prosthetic grafts^[38,39]Age alone is not an independent predictor of adverse outcomes if baseline functional status and nutritional indices are optimised.

Table 2 outlines common perioperative risk predictors and evidence-based mitigation strategies.

Table 2.

Predictors and mitigators of perioperative morbidity in venous resection

Risk Factor/Predictor	Associated Morbidity	Mitigation Strategy
Prolonged operative time (>7 hours)	Higher rate of postoperative complications	Optimise workflow, reduce delays intraoperatively
Intraoperative blood loss >1,000 mL	Increased risk of transfusion, infection, and graft thrombosis	Maintain normothermia and use cell-saver techniques
Concomitant arterial resection	Significantly higher perioperative mortality	Avoid unless oncologically mandatory; consider neoadjuvant therapy first
Malnutrition/sarcopenia	Impaired wound healing, increased ICU stay	Prehabilitation, nutritional supplementation
Use of prosthetic (synthetic) grafts	Graft infection, thrombosis, and stenosis risk	Prefer autologous grafts when feasible
Advanced age with poor physiological reserve	Delayed recovery, increased length of stay	Preoperative cardiopulmonary evaluation and geriatric assessment
Absence of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)	Higher incidence of delayed gastric emptying and complications	Implement ERAS bundles with early mobilisation and nutrition

Source: Created by authors based on literature synthesis and expert consensus.

Notes: This table highlights perioperative risk factors associated with venous resections during pancreatic surgery and outlines pragmatic mitigation strategies. Proactive measures—such as nutritional optimisation, surgical planning, intraoperative efficiency, and adherence to ERAS protocols—are essential to reduce morbidity and enhance recovery in complex resections involving vascular structures.

Mitigation Strategies

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, early mobilisation, prophylactic anticoagulation, and vigilant postoperative imaging (e.g., Doppler ultrasound or CT angiography) have all contributed to reducing complication rates. Preoperative nutritional optimisation and careful cardiovascular risk profiling also improve resilience in borderline candidates.^[40]Venous resections, while risk-laden, no longer represent prohibitive morbidity when performed within optimised systems. Institutional experience, preoperative preparation, and perioperative vigilance are key to balancing oncologic gain with patient safety.

Controversies and Caveats

Despite growing evidence and surgical sophistication, venous resection in pancreatic surgery remains a subject of continued debate. While oncologically justified in well-selected cases, it risks becoming an overzealous extension when applied indiscriminately.

Overestimation of Vascular Invasion

One major challenge lies in the accuracy of preoperative imaging. Studies have shown that radiologic suspicion of PV-SMV invasion frequently overestimates true histological involvement, leading to potentially unnecessary vascular resections.^[41] Inflammatory adhesions or desmoplastic reactions can mimic invasion, particularly after neoadjuvant therapy. This diagnostic ambiguity complicates surgical planning and may expose patients to avoidable risk.

Table 3 compares the evolution of resectability definitions across eras and highlights key paradigm shifts.

Table 3.

Historical versus modern resectability criteria in pancreatic cancer

Parameter	Historical (Pre-2010 Era)	Modern (Post-2015 Era-NCCN/ISGPS Guidelines)
Venous involvement	Any PV/SMV abutment = unresectable	<180° contact = resectable; ≥180° or narrowing = borderline resectable (BR)
Arterial involvement	Any CA or SMA contact = unresectable	<180° contact without deformation = BR; ≥180° or encasement = unresectable
Radiological interpretation	Based on static axial CT alone	Multiplanar CT/MRI with vascular reconstruction and perfusion imaging
Surgical philosophy	‘No-touch’ unless clear plane	Aggressive resection encouraged in BR-PDAC with neoadjuvant response
Role of neoadjuvant therapy	Limited, not protocolised	Standard of care in BR-PDAC and many locally advanced cases
Margin goals	R0 is defined as no tumour on the cut surface	R0 redefined as >1 mm margin (CRM-negative); R1 if ≤1 mm
Oncologic definition of resectability	Based purely on anatomy	Biology (e.g., CA 19-9 levels), performance status, and response to therapy

Source: Created by authors based on literature synthesis and expert consensus.

Notes: This table contrasts outdated and contemporary resectability criteria in pancreatic cancer. The modern era emphasises a triad of anatomical feasibility, biological behaviour, and conditional resectability based on response to systemic therapy. The shift reflects a more nuanced, patient-centred, and evidence-based approach to surgical candidacy in PDAC.

The Elderly and Frail: Is Aggression Justified?

The role of venous resection in the elderly population is nuanced. Age alone should not be an exclusion criterion; however, frailty, sarcopenia, comorbid burden, and impaired functional reserve substantially elevate postoperative risk.^[42] The benefits of aggressive resection must be weighed against the potential for prolonged recovery, compromised quality of life, or loss of independence—especially when systemic therapy may offer comparable disease control.

Arterial Involvement: The Red Line

Unlike venous resection, concomitant arterial resection (e.g., of the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery) remains controversial and is associated with significantly higher mortality, poor long-term outcomes, and often, palliative rather than curative intent.^[43] Most guidelines continue to discourage arterial resection outside of highly selected, investigational settings.

Heterogeneity of Outcomes

Perhaps the greatest caveat is the institutional variation in outcomes. What is safe and feasible in high-volume pancreatic centres may result in devastating complications in low-volume settings. The presence of an experienced multidisciplinary team, vascular expertise, and robust perioperative pathways is a non-negotiable prerequisite for attempting these complex resections.^[44]

Future Directions and Surgical Recommendations

As surgical boundaries continue to expand, venous resection in pancreatic cancer is poised for further refinement—not just in technique, but in decision-making, personalisation, and risk stratification.

Precision Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Advanced imaging modalities such as perfusion CT, 4D MRI, and intraoperative ICG fluorescence angiography are improving the ability to differentiate between true tumour invasion and inflammatory adherence. Integration of AI-based radiomics and vascular involvement scoring algorithms may soon offer objective preoperative prediction models to aid in surgical planning and minimise futile resections.

Biological Selection over Anatomical Selection Emerging consensus suggests that tumour biology—not just anatomical resectability—should guide surgical aggressiveness. Molecular subtyping, circulating tumour DNA, and treatment response markers may help identify patients most likely to benefit from complex resections with durable outcomes.

Centralisation and Volume-outcome Correlation The consistent superiority of outcomes in high-volume HPB centres underscores the need for regionalisation of advanced pancreatic surgery. Accreditation systems and structured referral networks must evolve to ensure equitable access to expertise.

Enhanced Perioperative Protocols Future practice will hinge on aggressive prehabilitation, sarcopenia reversal, and tailored ERAS protocols to reduce complications and expedite recovery. Additionally, minimally invasive vascular resection, although in its infancy, may become feasible with robotic advancement.The future of venous resection lies not in greater anatomic ambition, but in biologically rational, technically precise, and institutionally responsible implementation. Surgical courage must be matched with scientific clarity.

Conclusion

Venous resection in pancreatic surgery stands at the intersection of technical audacity and oncologic purpose. Once considered a domain of desperation, it now reflects refined surgical maturity—when performed selectively, meticulously, and within a multidisciplinary framework. The weight of evidence affirms its role in achieving margin-negative resections and extending survival in BR-PDAC. However, success lies not in anatomical conquest but in patient-centred judgement, institutional readiness, and evidence-based courage. When executed with precision and principle, venous resection is not futile extension—it is justified aggression in pursuit of a cure.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Institutional ethical committee approval number

This is a narrative review of published literature. No patient data were used. Ethical approval is not applicable.

Credit author statement

Dr Supreet Kumar (Guarantor): Conceived and led the manuscript design; drafted the abstract, introduction, conclusion, and major thematic sections; supervised literature review and final editing; ensured scientific and editorial quality.

Dr Sonam Gupta: Contributed to sections on perioperative morbidity, classification systems, and controversy analysis; led development of Table 2 and ; reviewed structure and language.

Dr Vivek Tandon: Provided expert insights on surgical techniques and future direction content; co-authored technical and classification segments; validated oncologic outcomes and literature referencing.

Dr Deepak Govil: Offered senior academic oversight; vetted all manuscript sections for clinical accuracy and surgical realism; authorised final manuscript for submission.

Data availability

All data presented are drawn from publicly available, PubMed-indexed literature and have been cited accordingly.

Use of artificial intelligence

The manuscript was conceptualised, composed, and finalised entirely by the authors. All content underwent manual verification to ensure human authorship, authenticity, and AI-plagiarism neutralitsy.

Guarantor

Dr. Supreet Kumar (supreet.mvj@gmail.com) accepts full responsibility for the manuscript’s integrity and final content.

References

Siegel

, Miller

, Fuchs

, Jemal

. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(1):17–48.

Allen

, Kuk

, Castillo

, . Multi-institutional validation study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th Edition) changes for T and N staging in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):185–91. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001763

Gilbert

, Wolpin

, Clancy

, . Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: conceptual evolution and current approach to image-based classification. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(9):2067–76. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx180

Ravikumar

, Sabin

, Abu

Hilal M

, . Portal vein resection in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a United Kingdom multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(3):401–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.11.017

Han

, Choi

, Heo

, Han

, You

. Long-term outcomes following en bloc resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the head with portomesenteric venous invasion. Asian J Surg. 2021;44(1):313–20. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.07.021

Versteijne

, Suker

, Groothuis

, . Preoperative radiochemotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC trial): a randomized, controlled, multicenter phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(7):923–34.

Yoo

, Hwang

, Song

, . FOLFIRINOX in borderline resectable and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020;12. Published September 16, 2020. doi: 10.1177/1758835920953294

Jabłońska

, Król

, Mrowiec

. Vascular resection in pancreatectomy—is it safe and useful for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer? Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(5):1193. Published February 25, 2022. doi: 10.3390/cancers14051193

Adham

, Mirza

, Chapuis

, . Results of vascular resections during pancreatectomy from two European centres: an analysis of survival and disease-free survival explicative factors. HPB (Oxford). 2006;8(6):465–73. doi: 10.1080/13651820600839944

10.

Versteijne

, de Hingh

IHJT

, Homs

MYV

, . Neoadjuvant treatment for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy?. Front Oncol. 2022;11:744161. Published February 14, 2022. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.744161

11.

Verbeke

, Leitch

, Menon

, . Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93(10):1232–7.

12.

Lee

, Sung

, Kim

, . Comprehensive histological evaluation with clinical analysis of venous invasion in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: from histology to clinical implications. Pancreatology. 2020;20(7):1486–94. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.08.015

13.

Klauss

, Stiller

, Faber

, . CT perfusion imaging of pancreatic carcinoma: detection and preoperative staging. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):1112–20.

14.

Vernuccio

, Messina

, Merz

, Cannella

, Midiri

. Resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: role of the radiologist and oncologist in the era of precision medicine. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(11):2166. Published November 22, 2021. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11112166

15.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Guidelines. Version 2. 2023.

16.

Janssen

, O’Reilly

, van Eijck

CHJ

, Groot

Koerkamp B

. Neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;10:41. Published January 31, 2020. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00041

17.

Wang

, Lyu

, Zhou

, . Prognostic analysis of pancreatic carcinoma with portal system invasion following curative resection. Gland Surg. 2021;10(1):35–49. doi: 10.21037/gs-20-495

18.

McGuigan

, Kelly

, Turkington

, Jones

, Coleman

, McCain

. Pancreatic cancer: a review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(43):4846–61. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i43.4846

19.

Bockhorn

, Uzunoglu

, Adham

, . Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;155(6):977–88. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.02.001

20.

Vauthey

, Dixon

. AHPBA/SSO/SSAT consensus conference on resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: rationale and overview of the conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(7):1725–6. doi: 10.1245/S10434-009-0409-5

21.

Wang

, Demir

, Schorn

, . Venous resection during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:46. Published June 19, 2019. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2019.06.01

22.

Chincarini

, Zamboni

, Pozzi Mucelli

. Major pancreatic resections: normal postoperative findings and complications. Insights Imaging. 2018;9(2):173–87. doi: 10.1007/s13244-018-0595-4

23.

Michalski

, Kong

, Jäger

, . Outcomes of resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with suspected venous involvement: a single center experience. BMC Surg. 2015;15:100. Published August 22, 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12893-015-0086-1

24.

Ferrone

, Marchegiani

, Hong

, . Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):12–7. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000867

25.

Jabłońska

, Król

, Mrowiec

26.

Rebelo

, Büdeyri

, Heckler

, . Systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary pancreas surgery with arterial resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020;405:903–19. doi: 10.1007/s00423-020-01972-2

27.

Delpero

, Sauvanet

. Vascular resection for pancreatic cancer: 2019 French recommendations based on a literature review from 2008 to 6-2019. Front Oncol. 2020;10:40. Published February 4, 2020. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00040

28.

Croome

, Farnell

, Que

, . Pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vascular resection: a comparison of laparoscopic versus open approaches. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(1):189–94. doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2644-8

29.

Hackert

, Sachsenmaier

, Hinz

, . Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: neoadjuvant therapy with FOLFIRINOX results in resectability in 60% of the patients. Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):457–63. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001850

30.

Groot

, Rezaee

, Wu

, . Patterns, timing, and predictors of recurrence following pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2018;267(5):936–45. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002234

31.

Versteijne

, van Eijck

CHJ

, Punt

CJA

, . PREOPANC trial: chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery in BR-PDAC. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(7):923–34.

32.

Bernhardt

, Rühlmann

, Azizian

, . Impact of portal vein resection (PVR) in patients who underwent curative intended pancreatic head resection. Biomedicines. 2023;11(11): 3025. Published November 11, 2023. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11113025

33.

Hartwig

, Vollmer

, Fingerhut

, . Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156(1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.02.009

34.

Huang

, Zhang

, Wang

, Lyu

, Lang

, Jiang

. Prognostic implications of venous invasion in pancreatic cancer following radical surgical resection: a pathological perspective. Front Med. 2025;12:1613153. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1613153

35.

Giovinazzo

, Turri

, Katz

, Heaton

, Ahmed

. Meta-analysis of benefits of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2016;103(3):179–91. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9969

36.

Fancellu

, Petrucciani

, Porcu

, . The impact on survival and morbidity of portal-mesenteric resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(7):1976. Published July 20, 2020. doi: 10.3390/cancers12071976

37.

Sillesen

, Hansen

, Dencker

, . Long-term outcomes of venous resections in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Surg Open. 2022;3(4):e219. Published November 2, 2022. doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000219

38.

Kleive

, Sahakyan

, Berstad

, . Trends in indications, complications and outcomes for venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2017;104(11):1558–67. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10603

39.

Cheung

, Poon

, Chok

, . Pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular reconstruction for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with borderline resectability. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(46):17448–55. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17448

40.

James

, Chidambaram

, Gall

, Sodergren

. Quality of life after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review. HPB (Oxford). 2022;24(8):1223–37. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.02.013

41.

Klauss

, Stiller

, Faber

, . CT perfusion imaging of pancreatic carcinoma: detection and preoperative staging. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):1112–20.

42.

Ito

, Kenmochi

, Irino

, . The impact of surgical outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients. World J Surg Oncol. 2011;9:102. Published September 11, 2011. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-9-102

43.

Mollberg

, Rahbari

, Koch

, . Arterial resection during pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):882–93.

44.

Speicher

, Nussbaum

, White

, . Defining the learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(11):2013–21.