Need for a standard report and future directions in pancreatic resections for cancer

The ability to compare treatment results is essential for the proper evaluation of treatment protocols. Especially in the case of exocrine pancreatic cancer different classifications and documentation systems hinder the comparison between institutions and do not allow multicenter analysis across the world. This might explain the vastly different results of similar therapeutical trials and studies. In the classifications used at present, the features included, as well as terminology and description, vary greatly. First attempts to stage pancreatic malignancies according to UICC criteria were mentioned in the 1987 edition. These rules were predominantly based on the suggestions of the AJCC Cancer of the Pancreas Task Force of 1981 and have since not been changed. In Japan a different staging system has emerged and was first published by the Japanese Pancreatic Society (JPS) in 1986: General Rules for Surgical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Pancreas. The major difference between the two classifications concerns the evaluation of local tumor growth and the extent of lymph node involvement. Unfortunately most attempts to 'restage' Western patients postoperatively according to the JPS criteria, or vice versa, in order to compare treatment results have not added to a clearer understanding. Much in contrary, the results were frequently confusing since not comparable data were nevertheless retrospectively compared. Thus, a uniform standard report is needed, leading to prospective data acquisition and biometric analysis of outcome. The report should serve as a standard format for worldwide data acquisition and documentation and thereby become the common language to describe diagnosis, treatment, pathology and outcome of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing surgical therapy. It should enable: (1) inter-institutional data exchange from different staging systems; (2) comparisons between institutions on an international basis; (3) quality management in clinical practice and studies, and (4) reliable insight into tumor biology and differences in growth patterns.