Notably, as strengthened repeatedly in the original report, 1 findings from observational studies can only suggest associations, but cannot infer causality before being further supported by prospective and/or randomized studies. Furthermore, the underlying report 1 suggested quality metrics for lymph node examination to address stage migration and stratify patient survival at the population level, and the management of each individual case should be personalized: that is, while overall examining more lymph nodes was numerically associated with higher survival, not every PaC case necessarily benefited from examination of lymph nodes more than the determined thresholds. For clinical decisionmaking, models that can predict individualized benefits and harms from dissecting a certain number of lymph nodes may be needed in this regard. Also as highlighted in the original report, 1 the number of ELNs results from the joint efforts of both surgeons and pathologists. Based on meticulous and thorough lymph node examination, the correspondence between the number of ELNs and the extent of lymphadenectomy should be carefully determined. I would strongly agree that surgical safety, which is a very important issue in major surgery especially pancreatectomy and which can greatly impact patient survival, should always be taken into account when planning treatment for patients with PaC, and benefits and harms should be always carefully weighted when considering a specific treatment modality.