Surveillance for Pancreatic Cancer in High-Risk Individuals Leads to Improved Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent pancreatic cancer surveillance programs of high-risk individuals have reported improved outcomes. This study assessed to what extent outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in patients with a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant diagnosed under surveillance are better as compared with patients with PDAC diagnosed outside surveillance. METHODS: In a propensity score matched cohort using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we compared resectability, stage, and survival between patients diagnosed under surveillance with non-surveillance patients with PDAC. Survival analyses were adjusted for potential effects of lead time. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2020, 43,762 patients with PDAC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Thirty-one patients with PDAC under surveillance were matched in a 1:5 ratio with 155 non-surveillance patients based on age at diagnosis, sex, year of diagnosis, and tumor location. Outside surveillance, 5.8% of the patients had stage I cancer, as compared with 38.7% of surveillance patients with PDAC (odds ratio [OR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.19). In total, 18.7% of non-surveillance patients vs 71.0% of surveillance patients underwent a surgical resection (OR, 10.62; 95% CI, 4.56-26.63). Patients in surveillance had a better prognosis, reflected by a 5-year survival of 32.4% and a median overall survival of 26.8 months vs 4.3% 5-year survival and 5.2 months median overall survival in non-surveillance patients (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI 0.19-0.50). For all adjusted lead times, survival remained significantly longer in surveillance patients than in non-surveillance patients. CONCLUSION: Surveillance for PDAC in carriers of a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant results in earlier detection, increased resectability, and improved survival as compared with non-surveillance patients with PDAC.

Nationwide Impact of Centralization, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Minimally Invasive Surgery, and Standardized Pathology Reporting on R0 Resection and Overall Survival in Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons aim for R0 resection in patients with pancreatic cancer to improve overall survival. However, it is unclear whether recent changes in pancreatic cancer care such as centralization, increased use of neoadjuvant therapy, minimally invasive surgery, and standardized pathology reporting have influenced R0 resections and whether R0 resection remains associated with overall survival. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic cancer from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Database (2009-2019). R0 resection was defined as > 1 mm tumor clearance at the pancreatic, posterior, and vascular resection margins. Completeness of pathology reporting was scored on the basis of six elements: histological diagnosis, tumor origin, radicality, tumor size, extent of invasion, and lymph node examination. RESULTS: Among 2955 patients after PD for pancreatic cancer, the R0 resection rate was 49%. The R0 resection rate decreased from 68 to 43% (2009-2019, P < 0.001). The extent of resections in high-volume hospitals, minimally invasive surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, and complete pathology reports all significantly increased over time. Only complete pathology reporting was independently associated with lower R0 rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.83, P < 0.001). Higher hospital volume, neoadjuvant therapy, and minimally invasive surgery were not associated with R0. R0 resection remained independently associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.79, P < 0.001), as well as in the 214 patients after neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.87, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The nationwide rate of R0 resections after PD for pancreatic cancer decreased over time, mostly related to more complete pathology reporting. R0 resection remained associated with overall survival.

Nationwide treatment and outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most data on the treatment and outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) derives from expert centers. This study aimed to investigate the treatment and outcomes of all patients diagnosed with iCCA in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: Data on all patients diagnosed with iCCA between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: In total, 1747 patients diagnosed with iCCA were included. Resection was performed in 292 patients (17%), 548 patients (31%) underwent palliative systemic treatment, and 867 patients (50%) best supportive care (BSC). The OS median and 1-, and 3-year OS were after resection: 37.5 months (31.0-44.0), 79.2%, and 51.6%,; with systemic therapy, 10.0 months (9.2-10.8), 38.4%, and 5.1%, and with BSC 2.2 months (2.0-2.5), 10.4%, and 1.3% respectively. The resection rate for patients who first presented in academic centers was 33% (96/292) compared to 13% (195/1454) in non-academic centers (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Half of almost 1750 patients with iCCA over an 8 year period did not receive any treatment with a 1-year OS of 10.4%. Three-year survival was about 50% after resection, while long-term survival was rare after palliative treatment. The resection rate was higher in academic centers compared to non-academic centers.

Population-based impact of COVID-19 on incidence, treatment, and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has put substantial strain on the healthcare system of which the effects are only partly elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the impact on pancreatic cancer care. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2017 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients diagnosed and/or treated in 2020 were compared to 2017-2019. Monthly incidence was calculated. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were analyzed and compared using Chi-squared tests. Survival data was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests. RESULTS: In total, 11019 patients were assessed. The incidence in quarter (Q)2 of 2020 was comparable with that in Q2 of 2017-2019 (p = 0.804). However, the incidence increased in Q4 of 2020 (p = 0.031), mainly due to a higher incidence of metastatic disease (p = 0.010). Baseline characteristics, surgical resection (15% vs 16%; p = 0.466) and palliative systemic therapy rates (23% vs 24%; p = 0.183) were comparable. In 2020, more surgically treated patients received (neo)adjuvant treatment compared to 2017-2019 (73% vs 67%; p = 0.041). Median overall survival was comparable (3.8 vs 3.8 months; p = 0.065). CONCLUSION: This nationwide study found a minor impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pancreatic cancer care and outcome. The Dutch health care system was apparently able to maintain essential care for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Real-world evidence of adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

The added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP), in patients ineligible for mFOLFIRINOX, are lacking. Our study assessed whether adjuvant GEMCAP is superior to GEM in a nationwide cohort. Patients treated with adjuvant GEMCAP or GEM after resection of PDAC without preoperative treatment were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2019). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), measured from start of chemotherapy. The treatment effect of GEMCAP vs GEM was adjusted for sex, age, performance status, tumor size, lymph node involvement, resection margin and tumor differentiation in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the planned six adjuvant treatment cycles. Overall, 778 patients were included, of whom 21.1% received GEMCAP and 78.9% received GEM. The median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI 26.8-40.7) for GEMCAP and 22.1 months (95% CI 20.6-25.0) for GEM (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; logrank P = .004). After adjustment for prognostic factors, survival remained superior for patients treated with GEMCAP (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, logrank P = .009). Survival with GEMCAP was superior to GEM in most subgroups of prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was completed in 69.5% of the patients treated with GEMCAP and 62.7% with GEM (P = .11). In this nationwide cohort of patients with PDAC, adjuvant GEMCAP was associated with superior survival as compared to GEM monotherapy and number of cycles was similar.

Development and external validation of a prediction model for overall survival after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Various prognostic factors are associated with overall survival (OS) after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model for 3-year OS after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA. METHODS: The derivation cohort consisted of all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA in the Netherlands (2009-2016). Clinically relevant variables were selected based on the Akaike information criterion using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, with model performance being assessed by concordance index (C-index) and calibration plots. External validation was performed using patients from the Belgium Cancer Registry (2008-2016), and patients from two university hospitals of Southampton (U.K.) and Verona (Italy). RESULTS: Independent prognostic factors for OS in the derivation cohort of 454 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), pT (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.90) and pN category (pN1: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.32; pN2: HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.63-3.01), resection margin status (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.39-2.29) and tumour differentiation (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.62-2.53). The prediction model was based on these prognostic factors. The optimism-adjusted C-indices were similar in the derivation cohort (0.69), and in the Belgian (0.66) and Southampton-Verona (0.68) validation cohorts. Calibration was accurate in the Belgian validation cohort (slope = 0.93, intercept = 0.12), but slightly less optimal in the Southampton-Verona validation cohort (slope = 0.88, intercept = 0.32). Based on this model, three risk groups with different prognoses were identified (3-year OS of 65.4%, 33.2% and 11.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The prediction model for 3-year OS after resection of dCCA had reasonable performance in both the derivation and geographically external validation cohort. Calibration slightly differed between validation cohorts. The model is readily available via www. pancreascalculator.com to inform patients from Western European countries on their prognosis, and may be used to stratify patients for clinical trials.

Age and prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has an enormous impact on patients, and even more so if they are of younger age. It is unclear how their treatment and outcome compare to older patients. This study compares clinicopathological characteristics and overall survival (OS) of PDAC patients aged <60 years to older PDAC patients. METHOD: This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study using Netherlands Cancer Registry data of patients diagnosed with PDAC (1 January 2015-31 December 2018). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess OS. RESULTS: Overall, 10,298 patients were included, of whom 1551 (15%) were <60 years. Patients <60 years were more often male, had better performance status, less comorbidities and less stage I disease, and more often received anticancer treatment (67 vs. 33%, p < 0.001) than older patients. Patients <60 years underwent resection of the tumour more often (22 vs. 14%p < 0.001), more often received chemotherapy, and had a better median OS (6.9 vs. 3.3 months, p < 0.001) compared to older patients. No differences in median OS were demonstrated between both age groups of patients who underwent resection (19.7 vs. 19.4 months, p = 0.123), received chemotherapy alone (7.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.191), or received no anticancer treatment (1.8 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.600). Patients <60 years with stage-IV disease receiving chemotherapy had a somewhat better OS (7.5 vs. 6.3 months, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Patients with PDAC <60 years more often underwent resection despite less stage I disease and had superior OS. Stratified for treatment, however, survival was largely similar.

Outcomes After Major Surgical Procedures in Octogenarians: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Aging of the worldwide population has been observed, and postoperative outcomes could be worse in elderly patients. This nationwide study assessed trends in number of surgical resections in octogenarians regarding various major surgical procedures and associated postoperative outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery between 2014 and 2018 were included from Dutch nationwide quality registries regarding esophageal, stomach, pancreas, colorectal liver metastases, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). For each quality registry, the number of patients who were 80 years or older (octogenarians) was calculated per year. Postoperative outcomes were length of stay (LOS), 30 day major morbidity and 30 day mortality between octogenarians and younger patients. RESULTS: No increase in absolute number and proportion of octogenarians that underwent surgery was observed. Median LOS was higher in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer, colorectal liver metastases, lung cancer, pancreatic disease and esophageal cancer. 30 day major morbidity was higher in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colon cancer, esophageal cancer and elective AAA-repair. 30 day mortality was higher in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic disease, esophageal cancer and elective AAA-repair. Median LOS decreased between 2014 and 2018 in octogenarians who underwent surgery for stomach cancer and colorectal cancer. 30 day major morbidity decreased between 2014 and 2018 in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colon cancer. No trends were observed in octogenarians regarding 30 day mortality between 2014 and 2018. CONCLUSION: No increase over time in absolute number and proportion of octogenarians that underwent major surgery was observed in the Netherlands. Postoperative outcomes were worse in octogenarians.

The impact of cancer treatment on quality of life in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer: a propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear. METHODS: This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with EORTC QLQ-C30 and -PAN26 questionnaires at baseline and three-months follow-up of pancreatic and periampullary cancer patients (2015-2018). Propensity score matching (1:3) of group without to group with treatment was performed. Linear mixed model regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between cancer treatment and HRQoL at follow-up. RESULTS: After matching, 247 of 629 available patients remained (68 (27.5%) no treatment, 179 (72.5%) treatment). Treatment consisted of resection (n = 68 (27.5%)), chemotherapy only (n = 111 (44.9%)), or both (n = 40 (16.2%)). At follow-up, cancer treatment was associated with better global health status (Beta-coefficient 4.8, 95% confidence-interval 0.0-9.5) and less constipation (Beta-coefficient -7.6, 95% confidence-interval -13.8-1.4) compared to no cancer treatment. Median overall survival was longer for the cancer treatment group compared to the no treatment group (15.4 vs. 6.2 months, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer reported slight improvement in global HRQoL and less constipation at three months-follow up compared to patients without cancer treatment, while overall survival was also improved.

Treatment and overall survival of four types of non-metastatic periampullary cancer: nationwide population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Periampullary adenocarcinoma consists of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC), ampullary cancer (AC), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment modalities and overall survival by tumor origin. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic periampullary cancer in 2012-2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS was studied with Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by origin. RESULTS: Among the 8758 patients included, 68% had PDAC, 13% DC, 12% AC, and 7% DA. Resection was performed in 35% of PDAC, 56% of DC, 70% of AC, and 59% of DA. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy was administered in 22% of PDAC, 7% of DC, 7% of AC, and 12% of DA. Three-year OS was highest for AC (37%) and DA (34%), followed by DC (21%) and PDAC (11%). Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved OS among PDAC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.55-0.69) and DC (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), but not AC (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.62-1.22) and DA (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.48-1.50). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study identified considerable differences in treatment modalities and OS between the four periampullary cancer origins in daily clinical practice. An improved OS after adjuvant chemotherapy could not be demonstrated in patients with AC and DA.

Nationwide treatment and outcomes of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is a rare tumour that requires complex multidisciplinary management. All known data are almost exclusively derived from expert centres. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes of patients with pCCA in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: Data on all patients diagnosed with pCCA in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data included type of hospital of diagnosis and the received treatment. Outcomes included the type of treatment and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 2031 patients were included and the median overall survival for the overall cohort was 5.2 (95% CI 4.7-5.7) months. Three-hundred-ten (15%) patients underwent surgical resection, 271 (13%) underwent palliative systemic treatment, 21 (1%) palliative local anti-cancer treatment and 1429 (70%) underwent best supportive care. These treatments resulted in a median overall survival of 29.6 (95% CI 25.2-34.0), 12.2 (95% CI 11.0-13.3), 14.5 (95%CI 8.2-20.8) and 2.9 (95% CI 2.6-3.2) months respectively. Resection rate was 13% in patients who were diagnosed in non-academic and 32% in academic centres (P < .001), which resulted in a survival difference in favour of academic centres. Median overall survival was 9.7 (95% CI 7.7-11.7) months in academic centres compared to 4.9 (95% CI 4.3-5.4) months in non-academic centres (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pCCA, resection rate and overall survival were higher for patients who were diagnosed in academic centres. These results show population-based outcomes of pCCA and highlight the importance of regional collaboration in the treatment of these patients.

SOURCE-PANC: A Prediction Model for Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Based on Nationwide Population-Based Data.

BACKGROUND: A prediction model for overall survival (OS) in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) including patient and treatment characteristics is currently not available, but it could be valuable for supporting clinicians in patient communication about expectations and prognosis. We aimed to develop a prediction model for OS in metastatic PDAC, called SOURCE-PANC, based on nationwide population-based data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients diagnosed with synchronous metastatic PDAC in 2015 through 2018 were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A multivariate Cox regression model was created to predict OS for various treatment strategies. Available patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were used to compose the model. Treatment strategies were categorized as systemic treatment (subdivided into FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, and gemcitabine monotherapy), biliary drainage, and best supportive care only. Validation was performed according to a temporal internal-external cross-validation scheme. The predictive quality was assessed with the C-index and calibration. RESULTS: Data for 4,739 patients were included in the model. Sixteen predictors were included: age, sex, performance status, laboratory values (albumin, bilirubin, CA19-9, lactate dehydrogenase), clinical tumor and nodal stage, tumor sublocation, presence of distant lymph node metastases, liver or peritoneal metastases, number of metastatic sites, and treatment strategy. The model demonstrated a C-index of 0.72 in the internal-external cross-validation and showed good calibration, with the intercept and slope 95% confidence intervals including the ideal values of 0 and 1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A population-based prediction model for OS was developed for patients with metastatic PDAC and showed good performance. The predictors that were included in the model comprised both baseline patient and tumor characteristics and type of treatment. SOURCE-PANC will be incorporated in an electronic decision support tool to support shared decision-making in clinical practice.

First- and Second-Line Palliative Systemic Treatment Outcomes in a Real-World Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by a poor survival rate, which can be improved by systemic treatment. Consensus on the most optimal first- and second-line palliative systemic treatment is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the use of first- and second-line systemic treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to failure (TTF) of first- and second-line treatment in metastatic PDAC in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with synchronous metastatic PDAC diagnosed between 2015 and 2018 who received systemic treatment were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. RESULTS: The majority of 1,586 included patients received FOLFIRINOX (65%), followed by gemcitabine (18%), and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (13%) in the first line. Median OS for first-line FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, and gemcitabine monotherapy was 6.6, 4.7, and 2.9 months, respectively. Compared to FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel showed significantly inferior OS after adjustment for confounders (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41), and gemcitabine monotherapy was independently associated with a shorter OS and TTF (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.71-2.30 and HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.88-2.83, respectively). Of the 121 patients who received second-line systemic treatment, 33% received gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, followed by gemcitabine (31%) and FOLFIRINOX (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on population-based data in patients with metastatic PDAC, treatment predominantly consists of FOLFIRINOX in the first line and gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel in the second line. FOLFIRINOX in the first line shows superior OS compared with gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel.

Readily available biomarkers predict poor survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Identification of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) patients with the worst prognosis could help to tailor therapy. We evaluated readily available biomarkers for the prediction of 90-day mortality in a nationwide cohort of mPC patients. METHODS: Patients with synchronous mPC were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2017). Baseline CA19-9, albumin, CRP, LDH, CRP/albumin ratio, and (modified) Glasgow Prognostic Score ((m)GPS composed of albumin and CRP) were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 90-day mortality. Prognostic value per predictor was quantified by Nagelkerke's partial R2. RESULTS: Overall, 4248 patients were included. Median overall survival was 2.2 months and 90-day mortality was 59.4% (n = 1629). All biomarkers predicted 90-day mortality in univariable analysis, and remained statistically significant after adjustment for clinically relevant factors and all other biomarkers (all p < 0.001). The prognostic value of the biomarkers combined was similar to WHO performance status. Patients who received chemotherapy had better outcomes than those who did not, regardless of biomarker levels. CONCLUSIONS: In mPC patients, albumin, CA19-9, CRP, LDH, CRP/albumin ratio, and (m)GPS are prognostic for poor survival. Biomarkers did not predict response to chemotherapy. These readily available biomarkers can be used to better inform patients and to stratify in clinical trials.

Treatment and Survival of Elderly Patients with Stage I-II Pancreatic Cancer: A Report of the EURECCA Pancreas Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with pancreatic cancer are underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in a lack of evidence. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare treatment and overall survival (OS) of patients aged ≥ 70 years with stage I-II pancreatic cancer in the EURECCA Pancreas Consortium. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of the Belgian (BE), Dutch (NL), and Norwegian (NOR) cancer registries. The primary outcome was OS, while secondary outcomes were resection, 90-day mortality after resection, and (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy. RESULTS: In total, 3624 patients were included. Resection (BE: 50.2%; NL: 36.2%; NOR: 41.3%; p < 0.001), use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (BE: 55.9%; NL: 41.9%; NOR: 13.8%; p < 0.001), palliative chemotherapy (BE: 39.5%; NL: 6.0%; NOR: 15.7%; p < 0.001), and 90-day mortality differed (BE: 11.7%; NL: 8.0%; NOR: 5.2%; p < 0.001). Furthermore, median OS in patients with (BE: 17.4; NL: 15.9; NOR: 25.4 months; p < 0.001) and without resection (BE: 7.0; NL: 3.9; NOR: 6.5 months; p < 0.001) also differed. CONCLUSIONS: Differences were observed in treatment and OS in patients aged ≥ 70 years with stage I-II pancreatic cancer, between the population-based cancer registries. Future studies should focus on selection criteria for (non)surgical treatment in older patients so that clinicians can tailor treatment.

Re-resection in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Survival and the Incidence of Residual Disease.

BACKGROUND: Re-resection for incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC) is associated with improved survival but little is known about residual disease (RD) and prognostic factors. In this study, survival after re-resection, RD, and prognostic factors are analyzed. METHODS: Patients with iGBC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and pathology reports of re-resected patients were reviewed. Survival and prognostic factors were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 463 patients were included; 24% (n = 110) underwent re-resection after a median interval of 66 days. RD was present in 35% of patients and was most frequently found in the lymph nodes (23%). R0 resection was achieved in 93 patients (92%). Median overall survival (OS) of patients without re-resection was 13.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.6-15.6), compared with 52.6 months (95% CI 36.3-68.8) in re-resected patients (p < 0.001). After re-resection, median OS was superior in patients without RD versus patients with RD (not reached vs. 23.1 months; p < 0.001). In patients who underwent re-resection, RD in the liver (hazard ratio [HR] 5.54; p < 0.001) and lymph nodes (HR 2.35; p = 0.005) were the only significant prognostic factors in multivariable analysis. Predictive factors for the presence of RD were pT3 stage (HR 25.3; p = 0.003) and pN1 stage (HR 23.0; p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Re-resection for iGBC is associated with improved survival but remains infrequently used and is often performed after the optimal timing interval. RD is the only significant prognostic factor for survival after re-resection and can be predicted by pT and pN stages.

Conditional Survival After Resection for Pancreatic Cancer: A Population-Based Study and Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival is the survival probability after already surviving a predefined time period. This may be informative during follow-up, especially when adjusted for tumor characteristics. Such prediction models for patients with resected pancreatic cancer are lacking and therefore conditional survival was assessed and a nomogram predicting 5-year survival at a predefined period after resection of pancreatic cancer was developed. METHODS: This population-based study included patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2005-2016). Conditional survival was calculated as the median, and the probability of surviving up to 8 years in patients who already survived 0-5 years after resection was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A prediction model was constructed. RESULTS: Overall, 3082 patients were included, with a median age of 67 years. Median overall survival was 18 months (95% confidence interval 17-18 months), with a 5-year survival of 15%. The 1-year conditional survival (i.e. probability of surviving the next year) increased from 55 to 74 to 86% at 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery, respectively, while the median overall survival increased from 15 to 40 to 64 months at 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery, respectively. The prediction model demonstrated that the probability of achieving 5-year survival at 1 year after surgery varied from 1 to 58% depending on patient and tumor characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study showed that 1-year conditional survival was 55% 1 year after resection and 74% 3 years after resection in patients with pancreatic cancer. The prediction model is available via www.pancreascalculator.com to inform patients and caregivers.

Nationwide compliance with a multidisciplinary guideline on pancreatic cancer during 6-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with national guidelines on pancreatic cancer management could improve patient outcomes. Early compliance with the Dutch guideline was poor. The aim was to assess compliance with this guideline during six years after publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nationwide guideline compliance was investigated for three subsequent time periods (2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015 vs. 2016-2017) in patients with pancreatic cancer using five quality indicators in the Netherlands Cancer Registry: 1) discussion in multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT), 2) maximum 3-week interval from final MDT to start of treatment, 3) preoperative biliary drainage when bilirubin >250 µmol/L, 4) use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and 5) chemotherapy for inoperable disease (non-metastatic and metastatic). RESULTS: In total, 14 491 patients were included of whom 2290 (15.8%) underwent resection and 4561 (31.5%) received chemotherapy. Most quality indicators did not change over time: overall, 88.8% of patients treated with curative intent were discussed in a MDT, 42.7% were treated with curative intent within the 3-week interval, 62.7% with a resectable head tumor and bilirubin >250 µmol/L underwent preoperative biliary drainage, 57.2% received chemotherapy after resection, and 36.6% with metastatic disease received chemotherapy. Only use of chemotherapy for non-metastatic, non-resected disease improved over time (23.4% vs. 25.6% vs. 29.7%). CONCLUSION: Nationwide compliance to five quality indicators for the guideline on pancreatic cancer management showed little to no improvement during six years after publication. Besides critical review of the current quality indicators, these outcomes may suggest that a nationwide implementation program is required to increase compliance to guideline recommendations.

Relationship Between Quality of Life and Survival in Patients With Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A relationship between quality of life (QoL) and survival has been shown for several types of cancer, mostly in clinical trials with highly selected patient groups. The relationship between QoL and survival for patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer is unclear. METHODS: This study analyzed QoL data from a prospective multicenter patient-reported outcome registry in patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma registered in the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2018). Baseline and delta QoL, between baseline and 3-month follow-up, were assessed with the Happiness, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires. The relationship between QoL and survival was assessed using Cox regression models, and additional prognostic value of separate items was assessed using Nagelkerke R2 (explained variance). RESULTS: For the baseline and delta analyses, 233 and 148 patients were available, respectively. Most were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=194; 83.3%) and had stage III disease (n=77; 33.0%), with a median overall survival of 13.6 months. Multivariate analysis using baseline scores indicated several scales to be of prognostic value for the total cohort (ie, happiness today, role functioning, diarrhea, pancreatic pain, and body image; hazard ratios all P<.05) and for patients without resection (ie, overall satisfaction with life, physical and cognitive functioning, QLQ-C30 summary score, fatigue, pain, constipation, diarrhea, and body image; hazard ratios all P<.05). Except for diarrhea, all QoL items accounted for >5% of the additional explained variance and were of added prognostic value. Multivariate analysis using delta QoL revealed that only constipation was of prognostic value for the total cohort, whereas no association with survival was found for subgroups with or without resection. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter cohort of patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma, QoL scores predicted survival regardless of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. QoL scores may thus be used for shared decision-making regarding disease management and treatment choice.

Implementation of contemporary chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a population-based analysis.

Background: Positive results of randomized trials led to the introduction of FOLFIRINOX in 2012 and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel in 2015 for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. It is unknown to which extent these new chemotherapeutic regimens have been implemented in clinical practice and what the impact has been on overall survival.Material and methods: Patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2007-2016 were included from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Multilevel logistic regression and Cox regression analyses, adjusting for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics, were used to analyze variation of chemotherapy use.Results: In total, 8726 patients were included. The use of chemotherapy increased from 31% in 2007-2011 to 37% in 2012-2016 (p < .001). Variation in the use of any chemotherapy between centers decreased (adjusted range 2007-2011: 12-67%, 2012-2016: 20-54%) whereas overall survival increased from 5.6 months to 6.4 months (p < .001) for patients treated with chemotherapy. Use of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel varied widely in 2015-2016, but both showed a more favorable overall survival compared to gemcitabine monotherapy (median 8.0 vs. 7.0 vs. 3.8 months, respectively). In the period 2015-2016, FOLFIRINOX was used in 60%, gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel in 9.7% and gemcitabine monotherapy in 25% of patients receiving chemotherapy.Conclusion: Nationwide variation in the use of chemotherapy decreased after the implementation of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel. Still a considerable proportion of patients receives gemcitabine monotherapy. Overall survival did improve, but not clinically relevant. These results emphasize the need for a structured implementation of new chemotherapeutic regimens.