Automatic quantification of tumor-stroma ratio as a prognostic marker for pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to introduce an innovative multi-step pipeline for automatic tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) quantification as a potential prognostic marker for pancreatic cancer, addressing the limitations of existing staging systems and the lack of commonly used prognostic biomarkers. METHODS: The proposed approach involves a deep-learning-based method for the automatic segmentation of tumor epithelial cells, tumor bulk, and stroma from whole-slide images (WSIs). Models were trained using five-fold cross-validation and evaluated on an independent external test set. TSR was computed based on the segmented components. Additionally, TSR's predictive value for six-month survival on the independent external dataset was assessed. RESULTS: Median Dice (inter-quartile range (IQR)) of 0.751(0.15) and 0.726(0.25) for tumor epithelium segmentation on internal and external test sets, respectively. Median Dice of 0.76(0.11) and 0.863(0.17) for tumor bulk segmentation on internal and external test sets, respectively. TSR was evaluated as an independent prognostic marker, demonstrating a cross-validation AUC of 0.61±0.12 for predicting six-month survival on the external dataset. CONCLUSION: Our pipeline for automatic TSR quantification offers promising potential as a prognostic marker for pancreatic cancer. The results underscore the feasibility of computational biomarker discovery in enhancing patient outcome prediction, thus contributing to personalized patient management.

Identification of tumour regression in neoadjuvantly treated pancreatic cancer is based on divergent and nonspecific criteria.

AIMS: Following the increased use of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer, grading of tumour regression (TR) has become part of routine diagnostics. However, it suffers from marked interobserver variation, which is mainly ascribed to the subjectivity of the defining criteria of the categories in TR grading systems. We hypothesized that a further cause for the interobserver variation is the use of divergent and nonspecific morphological criteria to identify tumour regression. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty treatment-naïve pancreatic cancers and 20 pancreatic cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were reviewed by three experienced pancreatic pathologists who, blinded for treatment status, categorized each tumour as treatment-naïve or neoadjuvantly treated, and annotated all tissue areas they considered showing tumour regression. Only 50%-65% of the cases were categorized correctly, and the annotated tissue areas were highly discrepant (only 3%-41% overlap). When the prevalence of various morphological features deemed to indicate TR was compared between treatment-naïve and neoadjuvantly treated tumours, only one pattern, characterized by reduced cancer cell density and prominent stroma affecting a large area of the tumour bed, occurred significantly more frequently, but not exclusively, in the neoadjuvantly treated group. Finally, stromal features, both morphological and biological, were investigated as possible markers for tumour regression, but failed to distinguish TR from native tumour stroma. CONCLUSION: There is considerable divergence in opinion between pathologists when it comes to the identification of tumour regression. Reliable identification of TR is only possible if it is extensive, while lesser degrees of treatment effect cannot be recognized with certainty.

Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. RESULTS: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.

Prognostic impact of resection margin status on survival after neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A greater than 1 mm tumour-free resection margin (R0 >1 mm) is a prognostic factor in upfront-resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. After neoadjuvant treatment (NAT); however, the prognostic impact of resection margin (R) status remains controversial. METHODS: Randomised and non-randomised studies assessing the association of R status and survival in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after NAT were sought by systematic searches of MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL. Hazard ratios (HR) and their corresponding 95% CI were collected to generate log HR using the inverse-variance method. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed and the results presented as weighted HR. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to account for different surgical procedures and varying length of follow-up, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with a total of 4929 patients were included. Based on univariable data, R0 greater than 1 mm was significantly associated with prolonged overall survival (OS) (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.57-1.97; P<0.00001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.39-1.97; P<0.00001). Using adjusted data, R0 greater than 1 mm was significantly associated with prolonged OS (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.39-1.97; P<0.00001) and DFS (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.30-2.39; P=0.0003). Results for R1 direct were comparable in the entire cohort; however, no prognostic impact was detected in sensitivity analysis including only partial pancreatoduodenectomies. CONCLUSION: After NAT, a tumour-free margin greater than 1 mm is independently associated with improved OS as well as DFS in patients undergoing surgical resection for pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer (NORPACT-1): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49-71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62-84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2-34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6-not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00-2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46-67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55-83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2-34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4-not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99-2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven. FUNDING: Norwegian Cancer Society, South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority, The Sjöberg Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital Research Grants.

Performance and safety of diagnostic EUS FNA/FNB and therapeutic ERCP in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer - results from a population-based, prospective cohort study.

Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS FNA/FNB) and potential endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary decompression are indicated in patients with pancreatic cancer before initation of primary chemotherapy. This study aims to investigate the performance and safety of these two procedures in patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods: Endoscopy and pathology reports, and hospital records of consecutive patients with a radiological diagnosis of BRPC/LAPC included in a population based, protocol-driven study (NORPACT-2) were reviewed. Results: Of 251 patients, 223 (88.9%) underwent EUS-FNA/FNB, and 133 (53%) underwent ERCP. Repeated EUS attempts were performed in 33 (14.8%), eight (3.6%), and four (1.8%) patients. FNA was performed in 155 procedures, FNB in 30, and combined EUS-FNA/FNB in 83. Diagnostic accuracy was 86.1% for first EUS-FNA/FNB. The cumulative diagnostic accuracy for all attempts was 96%. False positive rate for malignancy was 0.9%. Of a total of 149 ERCP procedures, 122 (81.9%) were successful, and 27 (18.1%) were unsuccessful. Success rate of first ERCP attempt was 80.5% (107/133). Sixteen patients (12%) underwent a second attempt with a success rate of 93.8% (15 of 16). Combined EUS and ERCP was performed in 41 patients. Complications occurred in eight procedures (3%) after EUS-FNA/FNB, 23 procedures (15.3%) after ERCP, and four (9.8%) patients after combined EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP. Conclusion: EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP with biliary stenting in patients with BRPC/LAPC demonstrated acceptable performance and safety. Repeat procedures were performed with high success rates. Same session EUS-FNA/FNB and ERCP for biliary decompression is safe.

Resection rates and intention-to-treat outcomes in borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: real-world data from a population-based, prospective cohort study (NORPACT-2).

BACKGROUND: Systemic chemotherapy is the initial treatment strategy for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer to facilitate curative resection. The aim of this study was to investigate the resection rates and overall survival in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Consecutive patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer/locally advanced pancreatic cancer discussed by Oslo University Hospital multidisciplinary team between 2018 and 2020, serving a population of 3.1 million within a geographically defined area in south-eastern Norway, were included in this prospective Norwegian Pancreatic Cancer Trial-2 study, according to intention-to-treat principles. The total number of patients with pancreatic cancer was sought from the Cancer Registry of Norway. RESULTS: A total of 1178 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, of whom 618 were referred to Oslo University Hospital. After multidisciplinary team evaluation, 230 patients were considered to have borderline resectable pancreatic cancer/locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The final study group consisted of 188 patients (borderline resectable pancreatic cancer n = 96, locally advanced pancreatic cancer n = 92) who were fit to receive primary chemotherapy. Resection rates were 46.9% (45 of 96) for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and 13% (12 of 92) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (P <0.001). Median overall survival was 14.6 months (borderline resectable pancreatic cancer 16.4 months; locally advanced pancreatic cancer 13.7 months, (P = 0.2)). Adjusted for immortal time bias, median overall survival for patients undergoing resection versus only chemotherapy was 24.4 months versus 10.1 months (P <0.001) for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and 28.4 months versus 12.6 months for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Resection rates and survival in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated at a high-volume centre in a universal healthcare system compare well with those treated at international expert centres.Registration number: NCT04423731 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Fatty acids abrogate the growth-suppressive effects induced by inhibition of cholesterol flux in pancreatic cancer cells.

BACKGROUND: Despite therapeutic advances, the prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains extremely poor. Metabolic reprogramming is increasingly recognized as a key contributor to tumor progression and therapy resistance in PDAC. One of the main metabolic changes essential for tumor growth is altered cholesterol flux. Targeting cholesterol flux appears an attractive therapeutic approach, however, the complex regulation of cholesterol balance in PDAC cells remains poorly understood. METHODS: The lipid content in human pancreatic duct epithelial (HPDE) cells and human PDAC cell lines (BxPC-3, MIA PaCa-2, and PANC-1) was determined. Cells exposed to eight different inhibitors targeting different regulators of lipid flux, in the presence or absence of oleic acid (OA) stimulation were assessed for changes in viability, proliferation, migration, and invasion. Intracellular content and distribution of cholesterol was assessed. Lastly, proteome profiling of PANC-1 exposed to the sterol O-acyltransferase 1 (SOAT1) inhibitor avasimibe, in presence or absence of OA, was performed. RESULTS: PDAC cells contain more free cholesterol but less cholesteryl esters and lipid droplets than HPDE cells. Exposure to different lipid flux inhibitors increased cell death and suppressed proliferation, with different efficiency in the tested PDAC cell lines. Avasimibe had the strongest ability to suppress proliferation across the three PDAC cell lines. All inhibitors showing cell suppressive effect disturbed intracellular cholesterol flux and increased cholesterol aggregation. OA improved overall cholesterol balance, reduced free cholesterol aggregation, and reversed cell death induced by the inhibitors. Treatment with avasimibe changed the cellular proteome substantially, mainly for proteins related to biosynthesis and metabolism of lipids and fatty acids, apoptosis, and cell adhesion. Most of these changes were restored by OA. CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals that disturbing the cholesterol flux by inhibiting the actions of its key regulators can yield growth suppressive effects on PDAC cells. The presence of fatty acids restores intracellular cholesterol balance and abrogates the alternations induced by cholesterol flux inhibitors. Taken together, targeting cholesterol flux might be an attractive strategy to develop new therapeutics against PDAC. However, the impact of fatty acids in the tumor microenvironment must be taken into consideration.

Pancreatic stellate cell-induced gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer is associated with LDHA- and MCT4-mediated enhanced glycolysis.

BACKGROUND: Profound resistance to chemotherapy remains a major challenge in achieving better clinical outcomes for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Recent studies indicate that gemcitabine (GEM) resistance is promoted both by pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs) and through increased glycolysis. However, it remains unknown whether PSCs affect GEM sensitivity via glycolytic regulation. METHODS: Human pancreatic cancer cell (PCC) lines (BxPC-3, Capan-2, HPAF-II, Mia PaCa-2, Panc-1, SW-1990) were exposed to three different PSC-conditioned media (PSC-CM; PSC-1, PSC-2, HPaSteC), following either pre-treatment with glycolysis inhibitor NV-5440 or transfection for transient silencing of key glycolytic regulators (LDHA and MCT4). Proliferation, glucose transport, extracellular lactate, and GEM sensitivity were assessed. Protein expression was determined by Western blot and immunostaining. Moreover, secreted proteins in PSC-CMs were profiled by mass spectrometry (MS). RESULTS: While exposure to PSC-CMs did not affect glucose transport in PCCs, it increased their lactate release and proliferation, and reduced the sensitivity for GEM. Both NV-5440 treatment and transient silencing of LDHA and MCT4 inhibited these PSC-induced changes in PCCs. MS analysis identified 688 unique proteins with differential expression, of which only 87 were common to the three PSC-CMs. Most PSC-secreted proteins were extracellular matrix-related, including SPARC, fibronectin, and collagens. Moreover, exposure to PSC-CMs increased the phosphorylation of ERK in PCCs, but the treatment of PCCs with the MEK/ERK inhibitor PD98059 resulted in a reduction of PSC-CM-induced glycolysis and improved GEM sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that PSC-secreted factors promote both glycolysis and GEM resistance in PCCs, and that glycolysis inhibition by NV-5440 and blocking of ERK phosphorylation by PD98059 protect PCCs from PSC-CM-induced loss of GEM sensitivity. Taken together, PSCs appear to promote GEM resistance in PDAC via glycolysis. Thus, targeting glycolysis may improve the effect of chemotherapy in PDAC.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with an altered metabolic profile and increased cancer stemness in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

The modest clinical benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are associated with a lack of robust data on treatment-induced changes in the tumor. To this end, comparative proteomic profiling of tumor tissue samples from treatment-naïve (TN, n = 20) and NAT-treated (n = 22) PDACs was performed. Differentially expressed proteins were identified and correlation with overall survival (OS) was performed. Tumors were also examined for histopathological changes and expression of cancer stem cell (CSC) markers. Serum from 33 matched patients was analyzed for metabolic markers. Cytotoxicity, proliferation, and expression of CSC markers were assessed in chemoresistant Panc-1 and Mia PaCa-2 cells. Of the 2265 proteins identified, 227 and 144 proteins showed significantly altered expression and differential phosphorylation, respectively, in NAT compared with TN samples. The majority of these were metabolism-related proteins, and 14 of these correlated moderately with OS. NAT-treated tumors and chemoresistant cancer cells showed increased expression of CSC markers. Serum ALDH1A1 was higher in NAT compared with TN. Differentially phosphorylated proteins were mainly involved in cytoskeleton organization, cell locomotion, motility, and migration, and 17 of these showed a strong positive correlation with OS. This study provides evidence of the effects of NAT on PDAC metabolism at both the tumor and the systemic levels. NAT-treated tumors showed significantly lower expression of metabolic proteins, and patients who underwent NAT showed reduced serum lactate and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. Lastly, cancer cells that survived cytotoxic treatment expressed higher CSC markers, both in vivo and in vitro.

The genetic risk factor CEL-HYB1 causes proteotoxicity and chronic pancreatitis in mice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The CEL gene encodes the digestive enzyme carboxyl ester lipase. CEL-HYB1, a hybrid allele of CEL and its adjacent pseudogene CELP, is a genetic variant suggested to increase the risk of chronic pancreatitis (CP). Our aim was to develop a mouse model for CEL-HYB1 that enables studies of pancreatic disease mechanisms. METHODS: We established a knock-in mouse strain where the variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) region of the endogenous mouse Cel gene was substituted with the mutated VNTR of the human CEL-HYB1 allele. Heterozygous and homozygous Cel-HYB1 mice and littermate wildtype controls were characterized with respect to pancreatic pathology and function. RESULTS: We successfully constructed a mouse model with pancreatic expression of a humanized CEL-HYB1 protein. The Cel-HYB1 mice spontaneously developed features of CP including inflammation, acinar atrophy and fatty replacement, and the phenotype became more pronounced as the animals aged. Moreover, Cel-HYB1 mice were normoglycemic at age 6 months, whereas at 12 months they exhibited impaired glucose tolerance. Immunostaining of pancreatic tissue indicated the formation of CEL protein aggregates, and electron microscopy showed dilated endoplasmic reticulum. Upregulation of the stress marker BiP/GRP78 was seen in pancreatic parenchyma obtained both from Cel-HYB1 animals and from a human CEL-HYB1 carrier. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a new mouse model for CP that confirms the pathogenicity of the human CEL-HYB1 variant. Our findings place CEL-HYB1 in the group of genes that increase CP risk through protein misfolding-dependent pathways.

Histopathological tumour response scoring in resected pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: international interobserver study (ISGPP-1).

BACKGROUND: Most tumour response scoring systems for resected pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy score tumour regression. However, whether treatment-induced changes, including tumour regression, can be identified reliably on haematoxylin and eosin-stained slides remains unclear. Moreover, no large study of the interobserver agreement of current tumour response scoring systems for pancreatic cancer exists. This study aimed to investigate whether gastrointestinal/pancreatic pathologists can reliably identify treatment effect on tumour by histology, and to determine the interobserver agreement for current tumour response scoring systems. METHODS: Overall, 23 gastrointestinal/pancreatic pathologists reviewed digital haematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of pancreatic cancer or treated tumour bed. The accuracy in identifying the treatment effect was investigated in 60 patients (30 treatment-naive, 30 after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT)). The interobserver agreement for the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) tumour response scoring systems was assessed in 50 patients using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). An ICC value below 0.50 indicated poor reliability, 0.50 or more and less than 0.75 indicated moderate reliability, 0.75 or more and below 0.90 indicated good reliability, and above 0.90 indicated excellent reliability. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for identifying NAT effect were 76.2 and 49.0 per cent respectively. After NAT in 50 patients, ICC values for both tumour response scoring systems were moderate: 0.66 for CAP and 0.71 for MDACC. CONCLUSION: Identification of the effect of NAT in resected pancreatic cancer proved unreliable, and interobserver agreement for the current tumour response scoring systems was suboptimal. These findings support the recently published International Study Group of Pancreatic Pathologists recommendations to score residual tumour burden rather than tumour regression after NAT.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Status on Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. While surgical resection is the only treatment option with curative intent, most patients die of locoregional and/or distant recurrence. The prognostic impact of the resection margin status has received much attention. However, the evidence is almost exclusively related to pancreatoduodenectomies, while corresponding data for distal pancreatectomy specimens are limited. The key data, such as the rate of microscopic margin involvement ("R1"), the site of margin involvement, and the impact of R1 on patient outcome, are divergent between studies and do not currently allow any general conclusions. The main reasons for the variability in the published data are the small size of the study cohorts and their heterogeneity, as well as the marked divergence in pathology examination practices. The latter is a consequence of the lack of concrete guidance, both for grossing and microscopic examination. The increasing administration of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy introduces a further factor of uncertainty as the conventional definition of a tumour-free margin ("R0") based on 1 mm clearance is inadequate for these specimens. This review discusses the published data regarding the prognostic impact of margin status in distal pancreatectomy specimens along with the challenges and uncertainties that are related to the assessment of the margins.

Tumour Size and T-Stage in Pancreatic Cancer Resection Specimens Depend on the Pathology Examination Approach.

In the eighth edition of the TNM classification for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), stages T1 to T3 are defined by tumour size, size measurement being deemed objective and accurate. This study investigated whether various, currently used approaches to tumour measurement result in different tumour sizes and differences in T-stage assignment. In a series of 315 resected PDAC, tumour sizes were measured as follows: macroscopically in a single or in two perpendicular planes and with or without microscopic corroboration. Comparison of the resulting tumour sizes showed that both macroscopic measurement in two planes and microscopic corroboration gave significantly different results (p < 0.001). Compared to the most simple approach (macroscopic measurement in one plane), the comprehensive approach (macroscopic measurement in two planes with microscopic corroboration) resulted in a larger tumour size in 263 (83%) cases (mean absolute size difference: 10 mm; mean relative size change: 36%). T-stage assignment differed in 142 (45%) cases between the simple and comprehensive approach and affected 87%, 38% and 48% of the cases deemed to be stage T1, T2 and T3, respectively. In conclusion, tumour size and T-stage are highly approach-dependent. Consensus on an accurate method is required to ensure comparability of these basic data.

Paraduodenal pancreatitis - problem in the groove.

BACKGROUND: Paraduodenal pancreatitis (PDP) is a particular form of chronic pancreatitis (CP) occurring in and around the duodenal wall. Despite its low prevalence, this rare condition presents a significant challenge in clinical practice. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the electronic medical charts of all patients with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and identified those with PDP, between January 1999 and December 2020. RESULTS: There were 35 patients diagnosed with PDP (86% males and 14% females); median age of 56 ± 11 (range 38-80). Alcohol overconsumption was reported in 81% and smoking in 90% of patients. Abdominal pain was the leading symptom (71%), followed by weight loss, nausea and vomiting, jaundice, and diarrhoea. In 23 patients (66%), recurrent acute pancreatitis attacks were noted. Focal duodenal wall thickening was present in 34 patients (97%), cystic lesions in 80%, pancreatic duct dilatation in 54% and common bile duct dilatation in 46%. Endoscopic treatment was performed on nine patients (26%) and five patients (14%) underwent surgery. Complete symptom relief was reported in 12 patients (34%), partial symptom relief in three (9%), there was no improvement in five (14%), data were not available in three (9%) and 12 (34%) patients died before data analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PDP is a rare form of pancreatitis, most commonly occurring in the 5th or 6th decade of life, with a predominance in males and patients with a history of smoking and high alcohol consumption. Focal thickening and cystic lesions of the duodenal wall are the most common imaging findings, followed by pancreatic duct and common bile duct dilatation. A minority of patients requires surgery.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Status in Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Resection margin status is considered one of the few surgeon-controlled parameters affecting prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While studies mostly focus on resection margins in pancreatoduodenectomy, little is known about their role in distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to investigate resection margins in DP for PDAC. METHODS: Patients who underwent DP for PDAC between October 2004 and February 2020 were included (n = 124). Resection margins and associated parameters were studied in two consecutive time periods during which different pathology examination protocols were used: non-standardized (period 1: 2004-2014) and standardized (period 2: 2015-2020). Microscopic margin involvement (R1) was defined as ≤1 mm clearance. RESULTS: Laparoscopic and open resections were performed in 117 (94.4%) and 7 (5.6%) patients, respectively. The R1 rate for the entire cohort was 73.4%, increasing from 60.4% in period 1 to 83.1% in period 2 (p = 0.005). A significantly higher R1 rate was observed for the posterior margin (35.8 vs. 70.4%, p < 0.001) and anterior pancreatic surface (based on a 0 mm clearance; 18.9 vs. 35.4%, p = 0.045). Pathology examination period, poorly differentiated PDAC, and vascular invasion were associated with R1 in the multivariable model. Extended DP, positive anterior pancreatic surface, lymph node ratio, perineural invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not R1, were significant prognostic factors for overall survival in the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Pathology examination is a key determinant of resection margin status following DP for PDAC. A high R1 rate is to be expected when pathology examination is meticulous and standardized. Involvement of the anterior pancreatic surface affects prognosis.

Surgery in Autoimmune Pancreatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a disease that may mimic malignant pancreatic lesions both in terms of symptomatology and imaging appearance. The aim of the present study is to analyze experiences of surgery in patients with AIP in one of the largest European cohorts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study of patients diagnosed with AIP at the Department of Abdominal Diseases at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, between January 2001 and October 2020. RESULTS: There were 159 patients diagnosed with AIP, and among them, 35 (22.0%) patients had surgery: 20 (57.1%) males and 15 (42.9%) females; median age at surgery was 59 years (range 37-81). Median follow-up period after surgery was 50 months (range 1-235). AIP type 1 was diagnosed in 28 (80%) patients and AIP type 2 in 7 (20%) patients. Malignant and premalignant lesions were diagnosed in 8 (22.9%) patients for whom AIP was not the primary differential diagnosis, but in all cases, it was described as a simultaneous finding and recorded in retrospective analysis in histological reports of surgical specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of AIP is not always straightforward, and in some cases, it is not easy to differentiate it from the malignancy. Surgery is generally not indicated for AIP but might be considered in patients when suspicion of malignant/premalignant lesions cannot be excluded after complete diagnostic workup.

Pathology reporting of margin status in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: challenges and uncertainties.

Chemo(radio)therapy is becoming the new standard for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In case of tumor regression on imaging, surgical resection can be undertaken, albeit often with the need for extended procedures. Reevaluation of the current routine pathology procedures is required to establish the appropriate histopathological approach of the resulting specimens. This review focusses on margin status, which is universally considered a core data item of the pathology report, of relevance to both the management of the individual patient and the evaluation of the result of surgery in this particular patient group. As explained in this review, due to the cytoreductive effect of neoadjuvant therapy, the conventional definition of a tumor-free margin ("R0") based on 1 mm clearance is not adequate. Furthermore, the complexity of many of the specimens following extended or multivisceral en bloc surgical resection make margin assessment challenging. These large specimens require extensive sampling, which is not always easily implemented in daily practice. At present, there is marked divergence in pathology practice, and consequently, neither the true R0-rate nor the exact prognostic effect of the margin status have been definitively established for resected locally advanced pancreatic cancer. A concerted effort towards uniform and optimal margin assessment is unfortunately still lacking.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP. METHODS/DESIGN: DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-ß), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. DISCUSSION: The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Dataset for the reporting of carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

AIMS: Current guidelines for pathology reporting on pancreatic cancer differ in certain aspects, resulting in divergent reporting practices and a lack of comparability of data. Here, we report on a new international dataset for pathology reporting on resection specimens with cancer of the exocrine pancreas (ductal adenocarcinoma and acinar cell carcinoma). The dataset was produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), which is a global alliance of major (inter)national pathology and cancer organisations. METHODS AND RESULTS: According to the ICCR's rigorous process for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pancreatic pathologists, a pancreatic surgeon and an oncologist produced a set of core and non-core data items based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or non-core element and its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the document was finalised and ratified, and the dataset, which includes a synoptic reporting guide, was published on the ICCR website. CONCLUSIONS: This first international dataset for cancer of the exocrine pancreas is intended to promote high-quality, standardised pathology reporting. Its widespread adoption will improve the consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance the comparability of data, all of which will help to improve the management of pancreatic cancer patients.