Artificial intelligence(AI)has demonstrated great potential in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer.It plays an important role in medical imaging analysis,pathological slide recognition,drug efficacy and prognosis prediction,as well as new drug development by leveraging deep learning algorithms.Despite challenges such as data acquisition and model interpretability,advancements in technology and data sharing are expected to further enhance its role in early screening,personalized treatment,and innovative drug discovery for pancreatic cancer,ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Artificial intelligence(AI)has demonstrated great potential in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer.It plays an important role in medical imaging analysis,pathological slide recognition,drug efficacy and prognosis prediction,as well as new drug development by leveraging deep learning algorithms.Despite challenges such as data acquisition and model interpretability,advancements in technology and data sharing are expected to further enhance its role in early screening,personalized treatment,and innovative drug discovery for pancreatic cancer,ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Objective:To evaluate the impact of resection margin status within a cut-off 1 mm clearance of cancer on the groove of portal/superior mesenteric vein and/or the top end of the uncinate process bordering on the superior mesenteric artery in pancreatic head adenocarcinoma patients after pancreatoduodenectomy.Methods:The clinical, pathological and followup data of 113 pancreatic head adenocarcinoma patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with or without vascular graft replacement were retrospectively analyzed.Results:Univariate analysis showed that resection margin 1mm clearance, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, T staging, N staging, TNM staging (AJCC), gender, and maximum tumor diameter were risk factors for survival . Multivariate analysis showed that surgical margin 1mm clearance, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, and gender were independent prognostic factors. In resection margin >1 mm group(83 cases), the mean survival time was 19.04 months, and the 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival rates were 78%, 50%, and 25%, respectively. In resection margin ≤1 mm group(30 cases), the mean survival time was 9.42 months, and the 1-year, 2-year and 3-year survival rates were 61%, 20% and 0, respectively. There was statistical significance between the two groups in survival time ( P=0.018). Conclusion:Resection margins 1 mm clearance of cancer off portal vein/superior mesenteric vein and superior mesenteric artery is independent prognostic factors in pancreatic head adenocarcinoma patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

Objective:To evaluate the clinical efficacy of different treatment methods for chronic pancreatitis based on M-ANNHEIM system.Methods:The retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 177 patients with chronic pancreatitis from two medical centers between July 2008 and July 2018 were collected, including 95 in the Sichuan Provincial People′s Hospital and 82 in the West China Hospital of Sichuan University. There were 100 males and 77 females, aged (49±5)years, with a range from 29 to 72 years. The M-ANNHEIM system was used to decide clinical stages of chronic pancreatitis. Patients in different clinical stages received drug, endoscopic or surgical treatment. Observation indicators: (1) general data and follow-up of patients; (2) treatment of patients in asymptomatic stage; (3) treatment of patients in stage Ⅰ; (4)treatment of patients in stage Ⅱ; (5) treatment of patients in stage Ⅲ; (6) treatment of patients in stage Ⅳ; (7) aggravation and new-onset of diabetes; (8) complications. Follow-up using outpatient examination, telephone, mail, and Sojump was performed to collect data for M-ANNHEIM system up to December 2018. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and comparison between groups was analyzed by the AVONA. Repeated measurement data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA. Count data were described as absolute numbers, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi-square test. Results:(1) General data and follow-up of patients: there were 11, 72, 55, 31, and 8 patients with chronic pancreatitis classified as asymptomatic stage, stage Ⅰ, stage Ⅱ, stage Ⅲ, stage Ⅳ of M-ANNHEIM system before treatment. Of the 177 patients, 49, 49, and 79 patients underwent drug, endoscopic and surgical treatment, respectively. All the 177 patients were followed up for (2.4±0.5)years. (2) Treatment of patients in asymptomatic stage: 11 patients in asymptomatic stage underwent drug treatment. The M-ANNHEIM score was 1.91±0.21 before treatment, and 1.27±0.14, 1.73±0.19, 2.09±0.16 at 1 month, 12 months, 24 months after treatment, respectively. (3) Treatment of patients in stage Ⅰ: of the 72 patients in stage Ⅰ, 13 underwent drug treatment, 26 underwent endoscopic treatment, and 33 underwent surgical treatment. The M-ANNHEIM score of patients undergoing drug treatment was 8.11±1.05 before treatment, and 6.31±0.31, 7.69±0.24, 10.00±0.23 at 1 month, 12 months, 24 months after treatment, respectively. The M-ANNHEIM score of patients undergoing endoscopic treatment was 8.42±0.93 before treatment, and 5.13±0.25, 6.89±0.20, 8.27±0.24 at 1 month, 12 months, 24 months after treatment, respectively. The M-ANNHEIM score of patients undergoing surgical treatment was 8.13±0.77 before treatment, and 4.79±0.15, 5.42±0.22, 7.76±0.20 at 1 month, 12 months, 24 months after treatment, respectively. There was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score before treatment between patients receiving different treatments ( F=1.23, P>0.05). For patients in M-ANNHEIM stage Ⅰ, at 1 month after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=2.94, 4.98, P<0.05); there was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=1.26, P>0.05). At 12 months after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment, between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=2.43, 5.99, 4.80, P<0.05). At 24 months after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=4.61, 6.29, P<0.05); there was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=1.63, P>0.05). (4) Treatment of patients in stage Ⅱ: of the 55 patients in stage Ⅱ, 8 underwent drug treatment, 15 underwent endoscopic treatment, and 32 underwent surgical treatment. The M-ANNHEIM score of patients undergoing drug treatment was 12.61±1.16 before treatment, and 11.63±0.26, 12.57±0.30, 14.50±0.27 at 1 month, 12 months, 24 months after treatment, respectively. The above indicators of patients undergoing endoscopic treatment was 12.42±1.43, 8.47±0.24, 11.07±0.21, 11.93±0.30, respectively. The above indicators of patients undergoing surgical treatment was 12.53±1.22, 8.78±0.15, 9.94±0.21, 11.00±0.24, respectively. There was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score before treatment between patients receiving different treatments ( F=1.38, P>0.05). For patients in M-ANNHEIM stage Ⅱ, at 1 month after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=8.37, 8.48, P<0.05); there was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=1.13, P>0.05). At 12 months after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment, between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=4.13, 8.48, 3.33, P<0.05). At 24 months after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment, between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=5.61, 6.83, 2.26, P<0.05). (5) Treatment of patients in stage Ⅲ: of the 31 patients in stage Ⅲ, 9 underwent drug treatment, 8 underwent endoscopic treatment, and 14 underwent surgical treatment. The M-ANNHEIM score of patients undergoing drug treatment was 17.25±0.89 before treatment, and 17.11±0.35, 18.44±0.41, 17.33±0.44 at 1 month, 12 months, 24 months after treatment, respectively. The above indicators of patients undergoing endoscopic treatment was 17.38±1.06, 15.00±0.53, 16.50±0.33, 16.88±0.44, respectively. The above indicators of patients undergoing surgical treatment was 17.63±1.06, 14.64±0.34, 16.00±0.35, 16.57±0.33, respectively. There was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score before treatment between patients receiving different treatments ( F=1.19, P>0.05). For patients in M-ANNHEIM stage Ⅲ, at 1 month after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=3.37, 4.82, P<0.05); there was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=0.59, P>0.05). At 12 months after treatment, there was a significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=3.63, 4.48, P<0.05); there was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=0.95, P>0.05). At 24 months after treatment, there was no significant difference in M-ANNHEIM score between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving endoscopic treatment, between patients receiving drug treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment, between patients receiving endoscopic treatment and patients receiving surgical treatment ( F=0.73, 1.41, 0.55, P>0.05). (6) Treatment of patients in stage Ⅳ: 8 patients in stage Ⅳ underwent drug treatment. The M-ANNHEIM score of patients was 17.94±0.59 before treatment, and 18.01±0.34, 17.54±0.19, 17.34±0.26, 17.88±0.43 at 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months after treatment, respectively. (7) Aggravation and new-onset of diabetes: of 49 patients undergoing endoscopic treatment, 17 had diabetes before treatment, 5 had aggravated diabetes and 11 had new-onset of diabetes after treatment. Of 79 patients undergoing surgical treatment, 31 had diabetes before treatment, 21 had aggravated diabetes and 7 had new-onset of diabetes after treatment. There were significant differences in the aggravation and new-onset of diabetes between the two groups ( χ2=2.07, 2.04, P<0.05). (8) Complications: 49 patients undergoing drug treatment had no treatment related complications. Of 49 patients undergoing endoscopic treatment, 4 patients with stent related complications were cured after replacing stent under endoscopy, 6 patients had acute pancreatitis, 2 had gastrointestinal bleeding including 1 patient was cured after endoscopic hemostasis, other patients with complications were improved after symptomatic and supportive treatment. Of 79 patients undergoing surgical treatment, 17 had pancreatic leakage (including 11 of biochemical leakage, 5 of grade B pancreatic leakage, and 1 of grade C pancreatic leakage), 3 had postoperative gastroparesis, 3 had intraabdominal infection, 1 had deep venous thrombosis, 2 had hemorrhage of which 1 combined with grade C pancreatic leakage was improved after open hemostasis and 1 was improved after interventional treatment, other patients with complications were improved after symptomatic and supportive treatment. Conclusions:For chronic pancreatitis, individualized treatment should be formulated according to the different stages. M-ANNHEIM score system can be used the evaluate clinical efficacies of drug treatment, endoscopic treatment, and surgical treatment.

Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of radical resection with individualized surgical approach for borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma.Methods The retrospective descriptive study was conducted.The clinicopathological data of 54 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma who underwent radical resection with individualized surgical approach in the West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2015 to January 2018 were collected.There were 37 males and 17 females,aged from 37 to 73 years,with a median age of 59 years.For venous type borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma,surgery for pancreatic head carcinoma and (or) pancreatic head and neck carcinoma was performed via inferior mesenteric vein,and surgery for pancreatic uncinate process carcinoma was performed via inferior colon artery.For arterial type borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma,surgery for pancreatic head carcinoma and (or) pancreatic head and neck carcinoma was performed via medial uncinate artery,and surgery for pancreatic uncinate process carcinoma was performed via left posterior artery.Observation indicators:(1) surgical situations;(2) postoperative complications;(3) postoperative pathological examination;(4) follow-up.Patients were followed up by outpatient examination or telephone interview once every 3 months to detect survival up to March 2019.Measurement data with normal distribution were represented by Mean ± SD.Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented by M (range),and count data were represented by absolute numbers or percentage.Kaplan-meier method was used to draw the survival curve and calculate the survival rate.Results (1) Surgical situations:all the 54 patients underwent expanded pancreatoduodenectomy combined with superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) resection,including 15 via inferior mesenteric vein,20 via inferior colon artery,12 via medial uncinate artery,and 7 via left posterior artery.The operation time was (320± 83)minutes,and the volume of intraoperative blood loss was (865±512) mL.(2) Postoperative complications:of 54 cases,28 had postoperative complications,including 13 with grade 1 Clavien-Dindo complications,12 with grade 2 ClavienDindo complications,3 with grade 3 or above Clavien-Dindo complications.One of the 28 patients with postoperative complications died and 27 were improved after symptomatic and supportive treatment.(3) Postoperative pathological examination:of 54 patients,31 had R0 resection and 23 had R1 resection.In the 23 patients with R1 resection,5 underwent surgery via the inferior mesenteric vein (4 with involvement of pancreatic anterior surface,1 with involvement of both pancreatic anterior and posterior surface),9 underwent surgery via the inferior colon artery (2 with involvement of both pancreatic anterior and posterior surface,2 with involvement of superior mesenteric artery margin,2 with involvement of pancreatic posterior surface,2 with involvement of pancreatic anterior surface,1 with involvement of superior mesenteric artery margin and pancreatic posterior surface),5 underwent surgery via the medial uncinate process artery (2 with involvement of superior mesenteric artery margin,2 with involvement of both pancreatic anterior and posterior surface,1 with involvement of pancreatic neck transected margin),and 4 underwent surgery via the left posterior artery (3 with involvement of superior mesenteric artery margin,1 with involvement of both pancreatic anterior and posterior surface).Of 54 patients,16 had no positive lymph nodes,26 had 1-3 positive lymph nodes,and 12 had 4 or more positive lymph nodes.The tumor diameter was (3.20±0.14)cm.There were 48 of 54 patients with nerve infiltration,41 with superior mesenteric vein and/or portal vein infiltration,and 11 with vascular thrombus.There were 17 of 54 patients with high differentiation and medium differentiation,and 37 with low differentiation and undifferentiation.(4) Follow-up:54 patients were followed up for 1-42 months,with a median time of 19 months.The 1-,3-year overall survival rate was 78.0％,11.4％.Condusion As for the borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer,individualized and customized surgical approach according to the location of tumor and the relationship with blood vessels is helpful to standardize the radical resection and avoid R2 resection.

Pancreatic cystic neoplasm is a general term for a large class of pancreatic tumors,including mucinous cystic neoplasm,serous cystic neoplasm,and pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm.Due to the limitations of the current techniques in differential diagnosis and disease staging,different centers have great discrepancies in their treatment.The 103rd annual meeting of American College of Surgeons (ACS)as a grand meeting in the field of surgery bringed together a large number of clinical research results every year.Therefore,authors selected and reviewed contents about pancreatic cystic neoplasm,with a view to provide new ideas in terms of its management and further research.

The borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is high a controversial hotspot in the field of pancreatic surgery,and the controversy mainly focuses on definition and treatment.Five famous experts and their teams in pancreatic surgery discussed present situation and dilemmas in treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer based on clinical experiences.Professor Hao Chunyi has reviewed and analyzed origin of the definition and treatment model of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer,and proposed that high-level pancreatic disease center and multidisciplinary collaboration diagnosis and treatment may be the best choice for resectable pancreatic cancer.Professor Liu Xubao suggested surgical treatment for most of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer,and whether or not tumor invades adjacent blood vessels and invasion level will be used to decide direct surgery or neoadjuvant therapy.Professor Sun Bei proposed 6 causes,and direct surgery may be more realistic and feasible option for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.Professors Liang Tingbo and Bai Xueli recommended that neoadjuvant therapy should be performed due to defeat hiding micrometastasis lesions and reduce tumor burden,and there was a higher R0 resection rate and lower lymph node metastasis rate after neoadjuvant therapy,meanwhile,it can also increase cure rate and is benefited to survival.

Objective To investigate clinical efficacy of pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with venous resection via inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) pathway for resectable pancreatic cancer with superior mesenteric vein (SMV) and / or anterior wall of portal vein (PV) involvements.Methods The retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted.The clinicopathological data of 38 resectable pancreatic cancer patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection via IMV pathway in the West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 2013 and January 2017 were collected.The tumors of 25 patients were BR-PV type (simplex SMV and / or PV involvements),and tumors of 13 patients were BR-A type (SMV,celiac trunk and / or hcpatic artcry involvements).The pancreaticoduodenectomy via IMV pathway was the same as traditional surgery in organs resection and lymph node dissection,the difference was cutting off the pancreas at a junction between IMV and splenic vein when using IMV pathway.Observation indicators:(1) intraoperative and postoperative situations;(2) results of postoperative pathological examination;(3) follow-up and survival situations.Follow-up using outpatient examination and telephone interview was performed to detect postoperative survival up to January 2018.Measurement data with skewed distribution were described as M (range).The survival curve was drawn by the Kaplan-Meir method,and Log-rank test was used for survival analysis.Results (1)Intraoperative and postoperative situations:38 patients underwent intraoperative segmental resection of PV and / or SMV,including 30 with end-to-end anastomosis in situ and 8 with artificial vessel interposition anastomosis.Two of 38 patients were intraoperatively combined with common hepatic artery resection and end-to-end anastomosis in situ.There was no intraoperative celiac trunk resection.The operation time and volume of intraoperative blood loss of 38 patients were respectively 320 minutes (range,280-520 minutes) and 530 mL (range,420-650 mL).The incidence of total complications (Clavien-Dindo Ⅲ and above) of 38 patients was 18.4％ (7/38),and some patients were combined with multiple complications,including 6 with pulmonary infection,4 with pancreatic fistula (B and C grade),4 with intra-abdominal infection,3 with delayed gastric emptying,2 with postoperative bleeding and 2 with venous thrombosis.Five patients were cured by postoperative symptomatic treatment,and 2 with postoperative bleeding died of worsened condition after reoperation.The mortality at 90 days postoperatively and duration of hospital stay were respectively 5.3％(2/38) and 12 days (range,9-52 days).(2) Results of postoperative pathological examination:the R0 resection rate of 38 patients was 81.6％ (31/38).The R0 resection rate of 25 patients in BR-PV type was 92.0％ (23/25),and resection margin of pancreatic leading edge ＜ 1 mm was in 2 patients without R0 resection;R0 resection rate of 13 patients in BR-A type was 8/13,and resection margin of pancreatic leading edge ＜ 1 mm was in 2 patients and resection margin of SMV ＜ 1 mm was in 4 patients (1 margined with resection margin of multiple sites ＜ 1 mm) of patients without R0 resection.The resection margins of pancreatic trailing edge,venous cut edge and pancreatic cut edge in patients with BR-PV type and BR-A type were more than and equal to 1mm.The venous infiltration rate in patients with BR-PV type and BR-A type was respectively 100.0％ (25/25) and 9/13.(3) Follow-up and survival situations:38 patients were followed up for 6-40 months,with a median time of 15 months,and survival time was 18 months (range,6-40 months).The survival time and 1-,2-and 3-year cumulative survival rates were respectively 23 months (range,8-40 months),89.5％,33.1％,22.1％ in 25 patients with BR-PV type and 16 months (range,6-25 months),83.9％,16.8％,0 in 13 patients with BR-A type.The tumor-free survival time and 1-and 2-year cumulative tumor-free survival rates were respectively 15 months (range,5-30 months),63.0％,7.5％ in patients with BR-PV type and 9 months (range,4-18 months),11.5％,0 in patients with BR-A type.Conclusion For resectable pancreatic cancer with SMV and / or anterior wall of PV involvements,pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with venous resection via IMV pathway could avoid injury of SMV and / or PV,and increase negative rates of venous and pancreatic resection margins.

Circular RNAs (circ RNAs) are a novel type of RNA that, unlike linear RNAs, form a covalently closed continuous loop and are highly represented in the eukaryotic transcriptome. They share a stable structure, high expression and often exhibit tissue/developmental-stage-specific expression. Emerging evidence indicates that circRNAs might play important roles in human disease, such as cancer, neurological disorders and atherosclerotic vascular disease risk. The huge potentials of circRNAs are recently being discovered from the laboratory to the clinic. CircRNAs might be developed as a potential novel and stable biomarker and potential drugs used in disease diagnosis and treatment. Here, we review the current understanding of the roles of circRNAs in human disease and their potential clinic significance in disease.
Biomarkers ; analysis ; Disease ; genetics ; Gene Expression Regulation ; Humans ; Neoplasms ; diagnosis ; genetics ; therapy ; RNA ; genetics ; RNA Stability ; Signal Transduction ; genetics

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are a group of heterogeneous tumors,including functional and nonfunctional ones.With the enhancement of clinicians' awareness about this disease and the improvement of imaging diagnostic techniques,the incidence of P-NETs has obviously increased in the past years.Based on the mitotic counting and Ki-67 positive index,the grading classification is of great value for the diagnosis,treatment and even prognosis of P-NETs.P-NETs are a group of malignant tumors with inert biological behaviors,whose surgical resection rate and long-term survival is much better than those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.P-NETs have different malignant potentials.Clinicians need to develop a comprehensive treatment plan in combination with the patient's symptoms,tumor grading classification and TNM staging information.Surgery is the only curable way to cure P-NETs.Even if radical resection is not suitable,palliative surgery may alleviate the patients,symptoms,and even prolong their survival time.According to the tumor location,size,quantity,degree of grading,local invasion and distant metastasis,different surgical procedures should be selected.