ABSTRACT
Journal based metrics is known not to be ideal for the measurement of the quality of individual researcher's scientific output. In the current report 16 contributors from Hong Kong SAR, India, Korea, Taiwan, Russia, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Belgium, France, Italy, UK, The Netherlands, Malaysia, and USA are invited. The following six questions were asked: (I) is Web of Sciences journal impact factor (IF) and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) citation the main academic output performance evaluation tool in your institution? and your country? (II) How does Google citation count in your institution? and your country? (III) If paper is published in a non-SCI journal but it is included in PubMed and searchable by Google scholar, how it is valued when compared with a paper published in a journal with an IF? (IV) Do you value to publish a piece of your work in a non-SCI journal as much as a paper published in a journal with an IF? (V) What is your personal view on the metric measurement of scientific output? (VI) Overall, do you think Web of Sciences journal IF is beneficial, or actually it is doing more harm? The results show that IF and ISI citation is heavily affecting the academic life in most of the institutions. Google citation and evaluation, while is being used and convenient and speedy, has not gain wide 'official' recognition as a tool for scientific output evaluation.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To inquire into a question of an overestimation of arterial involvement in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Radiology data were compared with the findings from 51 standard, 58 extended and 17 total pancreaticoduodenectomies; 9 distal resections with celiac artery (CA) excision; and 28 palliations for PC. The survival of 11 patients with controversial computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound data with regard to arterial invasion, after R0/R1 procedures (false-positive CT results, Group A), was compared to survival after eight R2 resections (false-negative CT results, Group B) and after 12 bypass procedures for locally advanced cancer (true-positive CT results, Group C). RESULTS: In all of the cases in group A, operative exploration revealed no arterial invasion, which was predicted by CT. The one-year survival in Group A was 88.9%, and the two-year survival was 26.7%, with a median follow-up of 22 mo. One-year survival was not attained in groups B and C, with a significant difference in survival (P a-b = 0.0029, P b-c = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Arterial encasement on CT does not necessarily indicate arterial invasion. Whenever PC is considered unresectable, endoUS should be used. In patients with controversial CT an EUS data for peripancreatic arteries involvement radical resection might be possible, providing survival benefits as compared to R2- resections or palliative surgery.
ABSTRACT
Reported here are two cases of a modified Appleby operation for borderline resectable ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic body, in one of which a R0 distal resection was attended to by excision, not only of the celiac axis, but also of the common and left hepatic arteries in the presence of arterial anatomic variation Michels, type VIIIb. The possibility and avenues of the maintenance of the blood supply to the left hepatic lobe after surgical aggression of this kind are demonstrated employing computed tomography (CT) and 3-D CT angiography. Furthermore, both cases highlight all important worrisome aspects of pancreatic cancer resectability prediction.
