Extended distal pancreatectomy with thoracic wall resection after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX: Is there a limit of resection for pancreatic cancer after downstaging?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indications and outcomes of extended pancreatectomies have been recently appraised by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. However, no definitive conclusions have been drawn, particularly in the setting of neoadjuvant treatments. We present here a case of 53-year-old man diagnosed with a bulky adenocarcinoma of the tail of the pancreas and infiltrating the adjacent organs and the thoracic wall. The patient was sent to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and he underwent 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX. Since a significant radiological response was observed after chemotherapy, the patient was scheduled for extended distal pancreatectomy with en bloc resection of the thoracic wall, in order to achieve a radical resection. The surgery is herein described with all technical details. The patient was discharged after an uneventful early post-operative course and subsequently readmitted for a late grade B post-operative pancreatic fistula, which was ultimately treated successfully. Pathology showed complete response. When performed in centers with ample experience in pancreatic surgery, extended pancreatic resections represent a viable curative option with acceptable surgical outcomes. In this setting, challenging tailored resections should be considered to achieve negative margins, particularly following maximized effective downstaging strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".