Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Controversies in Pathology Reporting and Staging

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
Pancreatic Cancer

  • 106 Accesses

Abstract

Following surgery for pancreatic cancer, it is the histopathologist who examines, dissects, and samples the resection specimen for microscopic (histologic) assessment, with the aim of producing a final pathology report that includes all the relevant prognostic information and accurate tumor staging. However, there is no universally agreed pathology protocol for the handling and sampling of pancreatic cancer resection specimens, particularly pancreatoduodenectomy specimens, and pathologists have differing opinions over what is a resection margin and when it should be considered involved. The increasing use of neoadjuvant therapy has also led to new challenges for the pathologist. Differences in interpretation of the TNM staging system can mean that two pathologists stage the same pancreatic cancer resection specimen quite differently. This chapter discusses the pathology reporting and staging of pancreatic cancer resection specimens, with particular emphasis on the challenges and areas of controversy for the pathologist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cameron JL, He J. Two thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:530–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. IARC, Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Tniese ND. WHO classification of tumors of the digestive system. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carpelan-Holmstrom M, Nordling S, Pukkala E, Sankila R, Lüttges J, Klöppel G, et al. Does anyone survive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A nationwide study re-evaluating the data of the Finnish cancer registry. Gut. 2005;54:385–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Verbeke CS. Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer – are we there yet? Histopathology. 2008;52:787–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rau BM, Moritz K, Schuschan S, Alsfasser G, Prall F, Klar E. R1 resection in pancreatic cancer has significant impact on long-term outcome in standardized pathology modified for routine use. Surgery. 2012;152:S103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kamposioras K, Anthoney A, Fernández Moro C, Cairns A, Smith AM, Liaskos C, et al. Impact of intrapancreatic or extrapancreatic bile duct involvement on survival following pancreatoduodenectomy for common bile duct cancer. Br J Surg. 2014;101:89–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pomianowska E, Grzyb K, Westgaard A, Clausen OP, Gladhaug IP. Reclassification of tumour origin in resected periampullary adenocarcinomas reveals underestimation of distal bile duct cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:1043–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Janot MS, Kersting S, Belyaev O, Matuschek A, Chromik AM, Suelberg D, et al. Can the new RCP R0/R1 classification predict the clinical outcome in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head? Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2012;397:917–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV, McMahon MJ, Guillou PJ, Anthoney A. Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1232–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chandrasegaram MD, Goldstein D, Simes J, Gebski V, Kench JG, Gill AJ, et al. Meta-analysis of radical resection rates and margin assessment in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1459–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Feakins R, Campbell F, Verbeke CS. Survey of UK histopathologists’ approach to the reporting of resection specimens for carcinomas of the pancreatic head. J Clin Pathol. 2013;66:715–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F, Reiser C, Herpel E, Friess H, et al. Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1651–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell F, Smith RA, Whelan P, Sutton R, Raraty M, Neoptolemos JP, et al. Classification of R1 resections for pancreatic cancer: the prognostic relevance of tumour involvement within 1 mm of a resection margin. Histopathology. 2009;55:277–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jamieson NB, Foulis AK, Oien KA, Going JJ, Glen P, Dickson EJ, et al. Positive mobilization margins alone do not influence survival following pancreatico-duodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2010;251:1003–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Verbeke CS, Gladhaug IP. Dissection of pancreatic resection specimens. Surg Pathol. 2016;9:523–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Westgaard A, Laronningen S, Mellem C, Eide TJ, Clausen OP, Møller B, et al. Are survival predictions reliable? Hospital volume versus standardisation of histopathologic reporting for accuracy of survival estimates after pancreatoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:2850–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Verbeke CS, Gladhaug IP. Resection margin involvement and tumour origin in pancreatic head cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1036–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Luttges J, Zamboni G, Kloppel G. Recommendation for the examination of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas. A proposal for a standardized pathological staging of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens including a checklist. Dig Surg. 1999;16(4):291–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell F, Verbeke CS. Pathology of the pancreas – a practical approach. London: Springer; 2013. p. 27–43.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Hruban RH, Klimstra DS, Pitman MB. Tumors of the pancreas, AFIP atlas of tumor pathology. 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Registry of Pathology in collaboration with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Japan Pancreas Society. Classification of pancreatic cancer. 3rd ed. Tokyo: Kanehara; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Adsay V, Ohike N, Tajiri T, Kim GE, Krasinskas A, Balci S, et al. Ampullary region carcinomas: definition and site specific classification with delineation of four clinicopathologically and prognostically distinct subsets in an analysis of 249 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(11):1592–608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chatelain D, Fléjou JF. Pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: prognostic factors, recommendations for pathological reports. Ann Pathol. 2002;22:422–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cancer of the Exocrine Pancreas, Ampulla of Vater and Distal Common Bile Duct. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. 2014. Available from: https://www.rcpa.edu.au/

  27. Bockhorn M, Uzunoglu FG, Adham M, Imrie C, Milicevic M, Sandberg AA, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the international study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;155:977–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hruban RH, Adsay NV, Albores-Saavedra J, Compton C, Garrett ES, Goodman SN, et al. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a new nomenclature and classification system for pancreatic duct lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:579–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Agoff SN, Crispin DA, Bronner MP, Dail DH, Hawes SE, Haggitt RC. Neoplasms of the ampulla of Vater with concurrent pancreatic intraductal neoplasia: a histological and molecular study. Mod Pathol. 2001;14:139–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Campbell F, Verbeke CS. Pathology of the pancreas – a practical approach. London: Springer; 2013. p. 111–51.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Ang DC, Shia J, Tang LH, Katabi N, Klimstra DS. The utility of immunohistochemistry in subtyping adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:1371–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Washington K, Berlin J, Branton P, Burgart LJ, Carter DK, Compton CC, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas. College of American Pathologists. 2016. Available from: www.cap.org

  33. Raut CP, Tseng JF, Sun CC, Wang H, Wolff RA, Crane CH, et al. Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;246:52–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Staley CA, Cleary KR, Abbruzzese JL, Lee JE, Ames FC, Fenoglio CJ, Evans DB. The need for standardized pathologic staging of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens. Pancreas. 1996;4:373–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nagakawa T, Sanada H, Inagaki M, Sugama J, Ueno K, Konishi I, et al. Long-term survivors after resection of carcinoma of the head of the pancreas: significance of histologically curative resection. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg. 2004;11:402–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Campbell F, Foulis AK, Verbeke CS. Dataset for the histopathological reporting of carcinomas of the pancreas, ampulla of Vater and common bile duct. The Royal College of Pathologists. 2010. Available from: www.rcpath.org

  37. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. 2015. Available from: www.nccn.org/patients

  38. Quirke P, Dudley P, Dixon MF, Williams NS. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathologic study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet. 1986;2:996–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Quirke P, Dixon MF. The prediction of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma by histopathological examination. Int J Colorect Dis. 1988;3:127–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Verbeke CS, Knapp J, Gladhaug IP. Tumour growth is more dispersed in pancreatic head cancers than in rectal cancer: implications for resection margin assessment. Histopathology. 2011;59:1111–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chang DK, Johns AL, Merrett ND, Gill AJ, Colvin EK, Scarlett CJ, et al. Margin clearance and outcome in resected pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2855–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jamieson NB, Chan NI, Foulis AK, Dickson EJ, McKay CJ, Carter CR. The prognostic influence of resection margin clearance following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(3):511–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gebauer F, Tachezy M, Vashist YK, Marx AH, Yekebas E, Izbicki JR, et al. Resection margin clearance in pancreatic cancer after implementation of the Leeds pathology protocol (LEEPP): clinically relevant or just academic? World J Surg. 2015;39(2):493–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wittekind C, Compton CC, Greene FL, Sobin LH. TNM residual tumour classification revisited. Cancer. 2002;94:2511–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumours. 8th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Adsay NV, Basturk O, Saka B, Bagci P, Ozdemir D, Balci S, et al. Whipple made simple for surgical pathologists: orientation, dissection, and sampling of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens for a more practical and accurate evaluation of pancreatic, distal common bile duct, and ampullary tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:480–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Isaji S, Kawarada Y, Uemoto S. Classification of pancreatic cancer: comparison of Japanese and UICC classifications. Pancreas. 2004;28:231–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tanaka M, Fernández-del Castillo C, Adsay V, Chari S, Falconi M, Jang JY, et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012;12:183–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Adsay V, Mino-Kenudson M, Furukawa T, Basturk O, Zamboni G, Marchegiani G, et al. Pathologic evaluation and reporting of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas and other tumoral intraepithelial neoplasms of pancreatobiliary tract: recommendations of Verona consensus meeting. Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):162–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Sobin LH, Wittekind C. UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumours. 5th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lüttges J, Vogel I, Menke M, Henne-Bruns D, Kremer B, Klöppel G. The retroperitoneal resection margin and vessel involvement are important factors determining survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Virchows Arch. 1998;433:237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Adsay NV, Bagci P, Tajiri T, Oliva I, Ohike N, Balci S, et al. Pathologic staging of pancreatic, ampullary, biliary, and gallbladder cancers: pitfalls and practical limitations of the current AJCC/UICC TNM staging system and opportunities for improvement. Sem Diagn Pathol. 2012;29:127–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Saka B, Balci S, Basturk O, Bagci P, Postlewait LM, Maithel S, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is spread to the peripancreatic soft tissue in the majority of resected cases, rendering the AJCC T-stage protocol (7th edition) inapplicable and insignificant: a size-based staging system (pT1: ≤2, pT2: >2-≤4, pT3: >4 cm) is more valid and clinically relevant. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(6):2010–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Allen PJ, Kuk D, Castillo CF, Basturk O, Wolfgang CL, Cameron JL, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. House MG, Gönen M, Jarnagin WR, D'Angelica M, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, et al. Prognostic significance of pathologic nodal status in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11(11):1549–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Huebner M, Kendrick M, Reid-Lombardo KM, Que F, Therneau T, Qin R, et al. Number of lymph nodes evaluated: prognostic value in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(5):920–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sierzega M, Popiela T, Kulig J, Nowak K. The ratio of metastatic/resected lymph nodes is an independent prognostic factor in patients with node-positive pancreatic head cancer. Pancreas. 2006;33:240–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Berger AC, Watson JC, Ross EA, Hoffman JP. The metastatic/examined lymph node ratio is an important prognostic factor after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2004;70:235–40.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pawlik TM, Gleisner AL, Cameron JL, Winter JM, Assumpcao L, Lillemoe KD, et al. Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery. 2007;141:610–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Han SS, Jang JY, Kim SW, Kim WH, Lee KU, Park YH. Analysis of long-term survivors after surgical resection for pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2006;32:271–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tomlinson JS, Jain S, Bentrem DJ, Sekeris EG, Maggard MA, Hines OJ, et al. Accuracy of staging node-negative pancreas cancer: a potential quality measure. Arch Surg. 2007;142:767–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Valsangkar NP, Bush DM, Michaelson JS, Ferrone CR, Wargo JA, Lillemoe KD, et al. N0/N1, PNL, or LNR? The effect of lymph node number on accurate survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastroint Surg. 2013;17:257–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Pai RK, Beck AH, Mitchem J, Linehan DC, Chang DT, Norton JA, et al. Pattern of lymph node involvement and prognosis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: direct lymph node invasion has similar survival to node negative disease. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Buc E, Couvelard A, Kwiatkowski F, Dokmak S, Ruszniewski P, Hammel P, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: does prognosis depend on mode of lymph node invasion? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:1578–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Konstantinidis IT, Deshpande V, Zheng H, Wargo JA, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Thaver SP, et al. Does the mechanism of lymph node invasion affect survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? J Gastroint Surg. 2010;4:261–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Prenzel KL, Holscher AH, Drebber U, Bollschweiler E, Gutschow CA, Stipple DL, et al. Extracapsular lymph node spread as a negative prognostic factor of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and cancer of the papilla of Vater. Pancreas. 2014;43:64–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Luchini C, Veronese N, Pea A, Sergi G, Manzato E, Nottegar A, et al. Extranodal extension in N1-adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and papilla of Vater: a systematic review and meta-analysis of its prognostic significance. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;28:205–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Strobel O, Hinz U, Gluth A, Hank T, Hackert T, Bergmann F, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: number of positive nodes allows to distinguish several N categories. Ann Surg. 2015;261:961–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Basturk O, Saka B, Balci S, Postlewait LM, Knight J, Goodman M, et al. Substaging of lymph node status in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has strong prognostic correlations: proposal for a revised N classification for TNM staging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:S1187–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hermanek P. Staging of exocrine pancreatic carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1991;17(2):167–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Sobin LH, Wittekind C. UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumours. 6th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Chatterjee D, Katz MH, Rashid A, Estrella JS, Wang H, Varadhachary GR, et al. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and histological changes in non-neoplastic pancreas associated with neoadjuvant therapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology. 2013;63:841–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Verbeke C, Löhr M, Karlsson JS, Del Chiaro M. Pathology reporting of pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: challenges and uncertainties. Cancer Treatm Rev. 2015;41:17–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Hartman DJ, Krasinskas AM. Assessing treatment effect in pancreatic cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(1):100–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ishikawa O, Ohhigashi H, Sasaki Y, Imaoka S, Iwanaga T, Teshima T, et al. The histopathological effect of preoperative irradiation in adenocarcinoma of the periampullary region. Nippin Gan Chir Gakkai Shi. 1988;23:720–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Evans DB, Rich TA, Byrd DR, Cleary KR, Connelly JH, Levin B, et al. Preoperative chemoradiation and pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Arch Surg. 1992;127:1335–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Breslin TM, Hess KR, Harbison DB, Jean ME, Cleary KR, Dackiw AP, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: treatment variables and survival duration. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:123–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. White RR, Xie HB, Gottfried MR, Czito BG, Hurwitz HI, Morse MA, et al. Significance of histological response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:214–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Chatterjee D, Katz MH, Rashid A, Varadhachary GR, Wolff RA, Wang H, et al. Histologic grading of the extent of residual carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a predictor for patient outcome. Cancer. 2012;118:3182–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Zhao Q, Rashid A, Gong Y, Katz MH, Lee JE, Wolf R, et al. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is associated with a better prognosis. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2012;16:29–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Liu L, Katz MH, Lee SM, Fischer LK, Prakash L, Parker N, et al. Superior mesenteric artery margin of posttherapy pancreaticoduodenectomy and prognosis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:1395–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA. The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:481–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK

    Fiona Campbell

  2. Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Caroline Sophie Verbeke

Authors
  1. Fiona Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline Sophie Verbeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona Campbell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DMCCMC, University of Liverpool DMCCMC, Liverpool, United Kingdom

    John P. Neoptolemos

  2. Rochester, Minnesota, USA

    Raul Urrutia

  3. Dept. Gastrointestinal Medical Onco, Duke University Medical Center Dept. Gastrointestinal Medical Onco, Durham, North Carolina, USA

    James Abbruzzese

  4. Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus W. Büchler

Section Editor information

  1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    James L. Abbruzzese

  2. Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, 55905, Rochester, MN, USA

    Raul A. Urrutia

  3. Division of Surgery and Oncology, University of Liverpool, Daulby Street, Liverpool, UK

    John Neoptolemos

  4. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus W. Büchler

  5. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Thilo Hackert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Campbell, F., Verbeke, C.S. (2017). Controversies in Pathology Reporting and Staging. In: Neoptolemos, J., Urrutia, R., Abbruzzese, J., Büchler, M. (eds) Pancreatic Cancer. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6631-8_83-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6631-8_83-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6631-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6631-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Controversies in Pathology Reporting and Staging
    Published:
    26 August 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6631-8_83-2

  2. Original

    Controversies in Pathology Reporting and Staging
    Published:
    27 March 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6631-8_83-1

Search

Navigation