Shukla A, Kalayarasan R, Sai Krishna P, Pottakkat B. Remnant pancreatic carcinoma: The current status. World J Clin Oncol 2025; 16(5): 107039 [PMID: 40503403 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v16.i5.107039]
Reader's ID:
05458931
Submitted on:
May 23, 2025, 12:00
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
Shukla et al.'s comprehensive review on remnant pancreatic carcinoma (RPC) brings much-needed attention to a rare but clinically formidable entity increasingly recognized in the era of improved surgical outcomes and long-term survival following partial pancreatectomy. Their work, titled "Remnant Pancreatic Carcinoma: The Current Status", outlines the epidemiology, risk factors, surveillance strategies, and therapeutic challenges of RPC, providing a valuable clinical framework for a condition historically relegated to case reports and small series.
The authors astutely emphasize the evolving landscape of RPC, shaped by the growing volume of patients undergoing distal or proximal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant lesions. The incidence of RPC is likely underestimated, given limited long-term follow-up in most cohorts. As such, the article's call for structured postoperative surveillance protocols is particularly timely. Importantly, Shukla et al. underscore that remnant pancreatic malignancies may arise de novo or as recurrences, and often present with more aggressive histological and molecular profiles, reinforcing the need for tailored risk stratification.
A notable strength of this review is its discussion on the putative mechanisms underlying RPC, including genetic predisposition, field cancerization, and chronic inflammation of the residual gland. These insights are crucial for identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from enhanced surveillance or prophylactic strategies. However, while the authors reference KRAS and TP53 mutations, a more extensive exploration of genomic drivers and their potential as surveillance biomarkers would have added translational depth.
Surgically, re-resection remains the mainstay of curative intent in selected patients with adequate functional reserve. The article appropriately highlights the technical and oncological complexities of completion pancreatectomy. Nonetheless, future perspectives might benefit from the integration of evolving minimally invasive approaches and neoadjuvant strategies tailored to RPC biology.
One of the article’s understated yet significant contributions is its implication that RPC represents a failure of current surveillance paradigms. Given the shift towards parenchyma-sparing resections and increased survivorship, integrating longitudinal imaging and biomarker monitoring—such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or CA 19-9 kinetics—may optimize early detection. Moreover, data on long-term outcomes post-remnant resection remain sparse, and prospective registries are needed to define survival benchmarks and refine selection criteria.
In conclusion, Shukla et al. succeed in framing RPC not merely as a post-surgical curiosity, but as a distinct oncological entity warranting multidisciplinary attention. Their review lays the foundation for future clinical and translational studies in a domain poised to grow in relevance. Establishing consensus on definitions, risk stratification algorithms, and surveillance protocols will be essential to improving outcomes in this uniquely challenging subset of pancreatic cancer.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Second, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor and submit it online to World Journal of Clinical Oncology at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for a Letter to the Editor. In addition, the article processing charge will be exempted for this Letter to the Editor. As with all articles published by the Baishideng Publishing Group, the Letter to the Editor will be published online after completing peer review. The guidelines for a Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219.
Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor, which will promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.
Author's Reply:
Replied on May 24, 2025, 01:54
Thank you for highlighting the important aspects of our article.