Specialized care improves outcomes for patients with cirrhosis who require general surgical operations.

BACKGROUND: General surgical operations on patients with cirrhosis have historically been associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. This study examines a contemporary series of patients with cirrhosis undergoing general surgical procedures. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 358 cirrhotic patients undergoing general surgical operations at a single institution between 2004-2015 was performed. Thirty- and 90-day mortality along with complications and subsequent transplantation rates were examined. RESULTS: 358 cirrhotic patients were identified. The majority were Child-Turcotte-Pugh class (CTP) A (55.9%) followed by class B (32.4%) and class C (11.7%). Mean MELD score differed significantly between the groups (8.7 vs. 12.1 vs. 20.1; p<0.001). The most common operations were herniorrhaphy (29.9%), cholecystectomy (19.3%), and liver resection (14.5%). The majority of cases were performed semi-electively (68.4%), however, within the CTP C patients most cases were performed emergently (73.8%). Thirty and 90-day mortality for all patients were 5% and 6%, respectively. Mortality rates increased from CTP A to CTP C (30 day: 3.0% vs. 5.2% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.01; 90 day: 4.5% vs. 6.9% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.016). Additionally, 30-day mortality (12.8% vs. 2.3%; p<0.001), 90 day mortality (16.0% vs. 3.4%; p<0.001) were higher for emergent compared to elective cases. A total of 13 (3.6%) patients underwent transplantation ≤ 90 days from surgery. No elective cases resulted in an urgent transplantation. CONCLUSION: Performing general surgical operations on cirrhotic patients carries a significant morbidity and mortality. This contemporary series from a specialized liver center demonstrates improved outcomes compared to historical series. These data strongly support early referral of cirrhotic patients needing general surgical operation to centers with liver expertise to minimize morbidity and mortality.

National Cancer Institute Centers and Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Research Synergy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine the influence of Surgical Society Oncology (SSO) membership and National Cancer Institute (NCI) status on the academic output of surgical faculty. METHODS: NCI cancer program status for each department of surgery was identified with publically available data, whereas SSO membership was determined for every faculty member. Academic output measures such as NIH funding, publications, and citations were analyzed in subsets by the type of cancer center (NCI comprehensive cancer center [CCC]; NCI cancer center [NCICC]; and non-NCI center) and SSO membership status. RESULTS: Of the surgical faculty, 2537 surgeons (61.9%) were from CCC, whereas 854 (20.8%) were from NCICC. At the CCC, 22.7% of surgeons had a history of or current NIH funding, compared with 15.8% at the NCICC and 11.8% at the non-NCI centers. The academic output of SSO members was higher at NCICC (52 ± 113 publications/1266 ± 3830 citations) and CCC (53 ± 92/1295 ± 4001) compared with nonmembers (NCICC: 26 ± 78/437 ± 2109; CCC: 37 ± 91/670 ± 3260), respectively, P < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that SSO membership imparts an additional 22 publications and 270 citations, whereas NCI-designated CCC added 10 additional publications, but not citations. CONCLUSIONS: CCCs have significantly higher academic output and NIH funding. Recruitment of SSO members, a focus on higher performing divisions, and NIH funding are factors that non-NCI cancer centers may be able to focus on to improve academic productivity to aid in obtaining NCI designation.

How academically productive are endocrine surgeons in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Many surgical departments in the United States lack endocrine surgery faculty. Although endocrine surgeons can provide worthwhile clinical services, it is unclear how they contribute to the overall academic mission of the department. The present study aims to evaluate the academic productivity of endocrine surgeons, as defined by the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) membership, when compared with other academic surgical faculty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An established database of 4081 surgical department faculty was used for this study. This database includes surgical faculty of the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded universities and faculty from five outstanding hospital-based surgical departments. Academic metrics including publication, citations, H-index, and NIH funding were obtained using publically available data from websites. The AAES membership status was gathered from the online membership registry. RESULTS: A total of 110 AAES members were identified in this database, accounting for 2.7% of this population. Overall, the AAES members outperformed other academic surgical faculty with respect to publications (66 ± 94 versus 28 ± 91, P < 0.001), publication citations (1430 ± 3432 versus 495 ± 2955, P < 0.001), and H-index (19 ± 18 versus 10 ± 13, P < 0.001). In addition, the AAES members were more likely to have former/current NIH funding and hold divisional or departmental leadership positions than their non-AAES member colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, the AAES members excelled with respect to publications, citations, and research funding compared with nonendocrine surgical faculty. These results demonstrate that endocrine surgeons can contribute enormously to the overall academic mission. Therefore, more surgical departments in the United States should consider establishing an endocrine surgery program.

An Assessment of the Academic Impact of Shock Society Members.

Professional society membership enhances career development and productivity by offering opportunities for networking and learning about recent advances in the field. The quality and contribution of such societies can be measured in part through the academic productivity, career status, and funding success rates of their members. Here, using Scopus, NIH RePORTER, and departmental websites, we compare characteristics of the Shock Society membership to those of the top 55 NIH-funded American university and hospital-based departments of surgery. Shock Society members' mean number of publications, citations and H-indices were all significantly higher than those of non-members in surgery departments (P < 0.001). A higher percentage of members also have received funding from the NIH (42.5% vs. 18.5%, P < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated that members were more likely to have NIH funding compared with non-members (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12-1.916). Trauma surgeons belonging to the Shock Society had a higher number of publications and greater NIH funding than those who did not (130.4 vs. 42.7, P < 0.001; 40.4% vs. 8.5%, P < 0.001). Aggregate academic metrics from the Shock Society were superior to those of the Association for Academic Surgery and generally for the Society of University Surgeons as well. These data indicate that the Shock Society represents a highly academic and productive group of investigators. For surgery faculty, membership is associated with greater academic productivity and career advancement. While it is difficult to ascribe causation, certainly the Shock Society might positively influence careers for its members.

Impact of Integrated Vascular Residencies on Academic Productivity within Vascular Surgery Divisions.

BACKGROUND: Changing training paradigms in vascular surgery have been introduced to reduce overall training time. Herein, we sought to examine how shortened training for vascular surgeons may have influenced overall divisional academic productivity. METHODS: Faculty from the top 55 surgery departments were identified according to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Academic metrics of 315 vascular surgery, 1,132 general surgery, and 2,403 other surgical specialties faculty were examined using institutional Web sites, Scopus, and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools from September 1, 2014, to January 31, 2015. Individual-level and aggregate numbers of publications, citations, and NIH funding were determined. RESULTS: The mean size of the vascular divisions was 5 faculty. There was no correlation between department size and academic productivity of individual faculty members (R2 = 0.68, P = 0.2). Overall percentage of vascular surgery faculty with current or former NIH funding was 20%, of which 10.8% had major NIH grants (R01/U01/P01). Vascular surgery faculty associated with integrated vascular training programs demonstrated significantly greater academic productivity. Publications and citations were higher for vascular surgery faculty from institutions with both integrated and traditional training programs (48 of 1,051) compared to those from programs with integrated training alone (37 of 485) or traditional fellowships alone (26 of 439; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective examination, academic productivity was improved within vascular surgery divisions with integrated training programs or both program types. These data suggest that the earlier specialization of integrated residencies in addition to increasing dedicated vascular training time may actually help promote research within the field of vascular surgery.

Training Patterns and Lifetime Career Achievements of US Academic Cardiothoracic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the impact of taking dedicated time for research (DTR) during training and/or getting a PhD on subsequent career achievements of US academic cardiothoracic surgeons. METHODS: Online resources (institutional Web sites, CTSNet, Scopus, NIH RePORTER) were queried to collect training information (timing of medical school/residency/fellowship graduation, DTR, PhD) and academic metrics (publications, citations, research funding) for 694 academic cardiothoracic surgeons practicing at 56 premiere US institutions. RESULTS: Excluding missing data, 464 (75 %) surgeons took DTR and 156 (25 %) did not; 629 (91 %) were MD only and 65 (9 %) also had a PhD. DTR was associated with higher number of ongoing publications (~5.6/year vs. ~3.8/year), with no difference for accrued number of total citations. History of DTR was more prevalent among surgeons with versus without NIH funding (87 vs. 71 %; p < 0.001), but no difference was seen across academic ranks and among those who were division/department chiefs. No overall increase in publications/citations, academic rank advancement, NIH funding, or leadership roles was found for those with a PhD. CONCLUSIONS: Among cardiothoracic surgeons, devoting time during the training years exclusively to research might be associated with higher career-long academic productivity in terms of annual number new publications and ability to get NIH funding, but without significant impact in terms of academic rank or institutional role advancement. No significant difference was found between those with versus without a PhD in terms of career-long number of publications/citations, academic rank, NIH funding, or leadership role, even though sample size might have been insufficient to identify any such potential difference.

Effect of Lean Processes on Surgical Wait Times and Efficiency in a Tertiary Care Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Importance: There are an increasing number of veterans in the United States, and the current delay and wait times prevent Veterans Affairs institutions from fully meeting the needs of current and former service members. Concrete strategies to improve throughput at these facilities have been sparse. Objective: To identify whether lean processes can be used to improve wait times for surgical procedures in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: Databases in the Veterans Integrated Service Network 11 Data Warehouse, Veterans Health Administration Support Service Center, and Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture/Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol were queried to assess changes in wait times for elective general surgical procedures and clinical volume before, during, and after implementation of lean processes over 3 fiscal years (FYs) at a tertiary care Veterans Affairs medical center. All patients evaluated by the general surgery department through outpatient clinics, clinical video teleconferencing, and e-consultations from October 2011 through September 2014 were included. Patients evaluated through the emergency department or as inpatient consults were excluded. Exposures: The surgery service and systems redesign service held a value stream analysis in FY 2013, culminating in multiple rapid process improvement workshops. Multidisciplinary teams identified systemic inefficiencies and strategies to improve interdepartmental and patient communication to reduce canceled consultations and cases, diagnostic rework, and no-shows. High-priority triage with enhanced operating room flexibility was instituted to reduce scheduling wait times. General surgery department pilot projects were then implemented mid-FY 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures: Planned outcome measures included wait time, clinic and telehealth volume, number of no-shows, and operative volume. Paired t tests were used to identify differences in outcome measures after the institution of reforms. Results: Following rapid process improvement workshop project rollouts, mean (SD) patient wait times for elective general surgical procedures decreased from 33.4 (8.3) days in FY 2012 to 26.0 (9.5) days in FY 2013 (P = .02). In FY 2014, mean (SD) wait times were half the value of the previous FY at 12.0 (2.1) days (P = .07). This was a 3-fold decrease from wait times in FY 2012 (P = .02). Operative volume increased from 931 patients in FY 2012 to 1090 in FY 2013 and 1072 in FY 2014. Combined clinic, telehealth, and e-consultation encounters increased from 3131 in FY 2012 to 3460 in FY 2013 and 3517 in FY 2014, while the number of no-shows decreased from 366 in FY 2012 to 227 in FY 2014 (P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Improvement in the overall surgical patient experience can stem from multidisciplinary collaboration among systems redesign personnel, clinicians, and surgical staff to reduce systemic inefficiencies. Monitoring and follow-up of system efficiency measures and the employment of lean practices and process improvements can have positive short- and long-term effects on wait times, clinical throughput, and patient care and satisfaction.

Endangered academia: preserving the pediatric surgeon scientist.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric surgery is one of the most difficult surgical fellowships to obtain. It requires stellar academic credentials and, often, dedicated time pursuing research. It is unknown, however, if pediatric surgeons maintain high academic output as faculty members. We hypothesized that the majority of pediatric surgeons do not pursue robust research activities as faculty, and therefore, over time, their academic productivity decreases. METHODS: Numbers of publications, citations, H-index, and NIH funding rates were determined for 4354 surgical faculty at the top-55 NIH based departments of surgery using websites, Scopus, NIH RePORTER, and Grantome. Continuous variables were compared with ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni; categorical variables by χ2 test. p<0.05 was significant. RESULTS: In this dataset, 321 pediatric surgery (PS) faculty represented 7.4% of the cohort. Among PS faculty, 31% were assistant professors, 24% associate professors, 31% full professors and 13% had no academic rank. PS faculty had significantly more publications, a higher H index, and more high level NIH funding early in their careers at the assistant professor level compared to general surgeons. PS faculty at the associate professor level had equivalent high level NIH funding, but lower recentness and academic power compared to general surgeons. Professors of PS rebounded slightly, with only observed deficiencies in number of citations compared to general surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: PS faculty in assistant professor ranks has higher scholarly productivity compared to equivalently ranked general surgeons. Despite some mild academic setbacks in midcareer, pediatric surgeons are able to maintain similar academic productivity to their general surgery colleagues by the time they are full professors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

The positive association of Association for Academic Surgery membership with academic productivity.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the academic productivity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of members of the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS). METHODS: Academic metrics including, numbers of publications, citations, and NIH funding history were determined for 4015 surgical faculty at the top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery, using Scopus, NIH RePORT, and the Grantome online databases. RESULTS: AAS membership included 20.5% (824) of all 4015 surgical faculty in this database. For members of the AAS, publications (P) ± standard deviation and citations (C) ± SD were P: 54 ± 96 and C: 985 ± 3321, compared with P: 31 ± 92, C: 528 ± 3001 for nonmembers, P < 0.001. Higher academic productivity among AAS members was observed across all subspecialty types and was especially pronounced for assistant and associate professors. AAS membership was also associated with increased rates of NIH funding and better productivity for equally funded surgical faculty compared with nonmembers. Analysis of AAS membership by subspecialty revealed that AAS members were most commonly general surgery faculty (57.8%); however, only 7.4% of the faculty was affiliated with cardiothoracic surgery. There was also a lack of dedicated science and/or research faculty (0.6% versus 3.4%) among the members of the AAS. CONCLUSIONS: AAS membership appears to be correlated with greater academic performance among junior and midlevel surgical faculty. This improvement is observed regardless of subspecialty. Increased participation of faculty within subspecialties such as cardiothoracic surgery and, a greater focus on increasing the numbers of dedicated research faculty within the AAS may help increase the scientific impact and productivity among members of the society.

Impact of clinical fellowships on academic productivity in departments of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Research and innovation are crucial to advancements in medicine and improvements in patient care. The contribution of surgical fellowships to scholarly productivity is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of subspecialty fellowships on academic output in departments of surgery. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined fellowships offered at the top 50 university-based National Institutes of Health-funded and top 5 academically prolific hospital-based departments of surgery. Publications, citations, and National Institutes of Health funding history were determined for 4,015 faculty. χ2 and t tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Cardiothoracic surgery fellowships are offered at all departments, while other surgical fellowships are offered in 52 of 55 departments (96.4%). Median department publications/citations increased with the number of fellowships offered in addition to cardiothoracic surgery: no fellowship (27 ± 93/437 ± 2,509), 1-3 fellowships (34 ± 90/559 ± 3,046), and 4 or more fellowships (40 ± 97/716 ± 3,200, P < .05). Significant divisional improvements in publications/citations and National Institutes of Health funding were observed for those with fellowship programs in pediatric, breast, and plastic surgery (P < .05). No differences in departmental National Institutes of Health funding rates were observed based on number of fellowships offered. CONCLUSION: Based on publications/citations and National Institutes of Health funding, it seems that select fellowships are associated with improved scholarly activity. Departments may wish to consider the academic benefits of offering these fellowship types.

Is there an impending loss of academically productive trauma surgical faculty? An analysis of 4,015 faculty.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to compare the academic impact of trauma surgery faculty relative to faculty in general surgery and other surgery subspecialties. METHODS: Scholarly metrics were determined for 4,015 faculty at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded university-based departments and five hospital-based surgery departments. RESULTS: Overall, 317 trauma surgical faculty (8.2%) were identified. This compared to 703 other general surgical faculty (18.2%) and 2,830 other subspecialty surgical faculty (73.5%). The average size of the trauma surgical division was six faculty. Overall, 43% were assistant professors, 29% were associate professors, and 28% were full professors, while 3.1% had PhD, 2.5% had MD and PhD, and, 16.3% were division chiefs/directors. Compared with general surgery, there were no differences regarding faculty academic levels or leadership positions. Other surgical specialties had more full professors (39% vs. 28%; p < 0.05) and faculty with research degrees (PhD, 7.7%; and MD and PhD, 5.7%). Median publications/citations were lower, especially for junior trauma surgical faculty (T) compared with general surgery (G) and other (O) surgical specialties: assistant professors (T, 9 publications/76 citations vs. G, 13/138, and O, 18/241; p < 0.05), associate professors (T, 22/351 vs. G, 36/700, and O, 47/846; p < 0.05), and professors (T, 88/2,234 vs. G, 93/2193; p = NS [not significant for either publications/citations] and O, 99/2425; p = NS). Publications/Citations for division chiefs/directors were comparable with other specialties: T, 77/1,595 vs. G, 103/2,081 and O, 74/1,738; p = NS, but were lower for all nonchief faculty; T, 23/368 vs. G, 30/528 and O, 37/658; p < 0.05. Trauma surgical faculty were less likely to have current or former NIH funding than other surgical specialties (17 % vs. 27%; p < 0.05), and this included a lower rate of R01/U01/P01 funding (5.5% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Senior trauma surgical faculty are as academically productive as other general surgical faculty and other surgical specialists. Junior trauma faculty, however, publish at a lower rate than other general surgery or subspecialty faculty. Causes of decreased academic productivity and lower NIH funding must be identified, understood, and addressed.

The impact of members of the Society of University Surgeons on the scholarship of American surgery.

BACKGROUND: A core objective of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) is research focused: to "advance the art and science of surgery through original investigation." This study sought to determine the current impact of the SUS on academic surgical productivity. METHODS: Individual faculty data for numbers of publications, citations, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding history were collected for 4,015 surgical faculty at the top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery using SCOPUS and the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. SUS membership was determined from membership registry data. RESULTS: Overall, 502 surgical faculty (12.5%) were SUS members with 92.7% holding positions of associate or full professor (versus 59% of nonmembers). Median publications (P) and citations (C) among SUS members were P: 112, C: 2,460 versus P: 29, C: 467 for nonmembers (P < .001). Academic productivity was considerably higher by rank for SUS members than for nonmembers: associate professors (P: 61 vs 36, C: 1,199 vs 591, P < .001) and full professors (P: 141 vs 81, C: 3,537 vs 1,856, P < .001). Among full professors, SUS members had much higher rates of NIH funding than did nonmembers (52.6% vs 26%, P < .05) and specifically for R01, P01, and U01 awards (37% vs 17.7%, P < .01). SUS members were 2 times more likely to serve in divisional leadership or chair positions (23.5% vs 10.2%, P < .05). CONCLUSION: SUS society members are a highly productive academic group. These data support the premise that the SUS is meeting its research mission and identify its members as very academically productive contributors to research and scholarship in American surgery and medicine.

Do Plastic Surgery Programs with Integrated Residencies or Subspecialty Fellowships Have Increased Academic Productivity?

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surgical training pathways on the academic performance of plastic surgical divisions. METHODS: Eighty-two academic parameters for 338 plastic surgeons (PS), 1737 general surgeons (GS), and 1689 specialist surgeons (SS) from the top 55 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded academic departments of surgery were examined using data gathered from websites, SCOPUS, and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. RESULTS: The median size of a PS division was 7 faculty members. PS faculty had lower median publications (P)/citations (C) (ie, P/C) than GS and SS (PS: 25/328, GS: 35/607, and SS: 40/713, P < 0.05). Publication and citation differences were observed at all ranks: assistant professor (PS: 11/101, GS: 13/169, and SS: 19/249), associate professor (PS: 33/342, GS: 40/691, and SS: 44/780), and professor (PS: 57/968, GS: 97/2451, and SS: 101/2376). PS had a lower percentage of faculty with current/former NIH funding (PS: 13.5%, GS: 22.8%, and SS: 25.1%, P < 0.05). Academic productivity for PS faculty was improved in integrated programs. P/C for PS faculty from divisions with traditional 3-year fellowships was 19/153, integrated 6-year residency was 25/329, and both traditional and 6-year programs were 27/344, P < 0.05. Craniofacial and hand fellowships increased productivity within the integrated residency programs. P/C for programs with a craniofacial fellowship were 32/364 and for those that additionally had a hand fellowship were 45/536. PS faculty at divisions with integrated training programs also had a higher frequency of NIH funding. CONCLUSIONS: PS divisions vary in degree of academic productivity. Dramatically improved scholarly output is observed with integrated residency training programs and advanced specialty fellowships.

Determining the Drivers of Academic Success in Surgery: An Analysis of 3,850 Faculty.

OBJECTIVE: Determine drivers of academic productivity within U.S. departments of surgery. METHODS: Eighty academic metrics for 3,850 faculty at the top 50 NIH-funded university- and 5 outstanding hospital-based surgical departments were collected using websites, Scopus, and NIH RePORTER. RESULTS: Mean faculty size was 76. Overall, there were 35.3% assistant, 27.8% associate, and 36.9% full professors. Women comprised 21.8%; 4.9% were MD-PhDs and 6.1% PhDs. By faculty-rank, median publications/citations were: assistant, 14/175, associate, 39/649 and full-professor, 97/2250. General surgery divisions contributed the most publications and citations. Highest performing sub-specialties per faculty member were: research (58/1683), transplantation (51/1067), oncology (41/777), and cardiothoracic surgery (48/860). Overall, 23.5% of faculty were principal investigators for a current or former NIH grant, 9.5% for a current or former R01/U01/P01. The 10 most cited faculty (MCF) within each department contributed to 42% of all publications and 55% of all citations. MCF were most commonly general (25%), oncology (19%), or transplant surgeons (15%). Fifty-one-percent of MCF had current/former NIH funding, compared with 20% of the rest (p<0.05); funding rates for R01/U01/P01 grants was 25.1% vs. 6.8% (p<0.05). Rate of current-NIH MCF funding correlated with higher total departmental NIH rank (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Departmental academic productivity as defined by citations and NIH funding is highly driven by sections or divisions of research, general and transplantation surgery. MCF, regardless of subspecialty, contribute disproportionally to major grants and publications. Approaches that attract, develop, and retain funded MCF may be associated with dramatic increases in total departmental citations and NIH-funding.

Survival in ampullary cancer: potential role of different KRAS mutations.

OBJECTIVE: The prognosis of ampullary adenocarcinoma (AA) usually is favorable; however, a subset of AA have poor biology and outcomes similar to pancreatic cancer. Patients in this subset will have early recurrence and death usually within 2 years. To date, there are no genetic markers to identify these patients. This study identifies the high-risk subset of AA and evaluates the mutational status of KRAS in predicting poor outcome. METHODS: The tumor registry of an academic center was reviewed for data on patients managed operatively with AA. KRAS genotypes were determined for these patients using a polymerase chain reaction-based assay on clinical specimens. Analysis of variance and χ(2) tests was used to categorize continuous and categorical variables. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were identified with AA between 1982 and 2008. After stringent pathologic review, 97 patients were confirmed with AA, of whom 75 had tissue specimens available for analysis. Genotyping revealed 67% were wild-type (KRAS(WT)), and 33% were mutant for KRAS. Patients with KRAS(G12D) (n = 9), the most common mutational genotype, had poorer median survival (62 months) compared with those with KRAS(non-G12D) mutants (median survival not reached, mean 145 months) and KRAS(WT) patients (155 months, P = .05). Patients with survival ≤30 months were labeled "high-risk." Of the 9 patients with KRAS(G12D), 56% were in this high-risk subset, compared with 18% of KRAS(WT) (P = .02) and 31% of KRAS(non-G12D) (P > .05) populations. Patients with KRAS(G12D) also were more likely to present with advanced T stage. CONCLUSION: The KRAS(G12D) mutation identifies a subset of AA patients with poor prognoses and may be used to identify patients at risk of early recurrence and poorer survival who may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

N0/N1, PNL, or LNR? The effect of lymph node number on accurate survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the prognostic accuracy of LN variables (N0/N1), numbers of positive lymph nodes (PLN), and lymph node ratio (LNR) in the context of the total number of examined lymph nodes (ELN). METHODS: Patients from SEER and a single institution (MGH) were reviewed and survival analyses performed in subgroups based on numbers of ELN to calculate excess risk of death (hazard ratio, HR). RESULTS: In SEER and MGH, higher numbers of ELN improved the overall survival for N0 patients. The prognostic significance (N0/N1) and PLN were too variable as the importance of a single PLN depended on the total number of LN dissected. LNR consistently correlated with survival once a certain number of lymph nodes were dissected (≥13 in SEER and ≥17 in the MGH dataset). CONCLUSIONS: Better survival for N0 patients with increasing ELN likely represents improved staging. PLN have some predictive value but the ELN strongly influence their impact on survival, suggesting the need for a ratio-based classification. LNR strongly correlates with outcome provided that a certain number of lymph nodes is evaluated, suggesting that the prognostic accuracy of any LN variable depends on the total number of ELN.

851 resected cystic tumors of the pancreas: a 33-year experience at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify trends in the diagnosis and treatment of cystic neoplasms of the pancreas using a retrospective review of patients from a surgical database at an academic referral center during a 33-year period. METHODS: Patient characteristics, including demographics, pathology, and survival, were analyzed over 5 time periods between 1978 and 2011. RESULTS: A total of 851 consecutive patients underwent resection for a cystic neoplasm of the pancreas during a 33-year period. Sixty-five percent of patients were female, and mean age was 60 years. The most common pathologic diagnoses were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (38%), mucinous cystic neoplasm (23%), serous cystadenoma (16%), and cystic neuroendocrine neoplasm (7%). There was a stepwise increase in the number of resections across time periods (67 between 1978 and 1989; 376 between 2005 and 2011), with a parallel increase in the proportion of incidentally discovered lesions (22% to 50%). Diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm was very uncommon in the first 2 time periods (before the first recognition of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm as a distinct entity) but predominated in the last 2 (41% and 49%), and cystic neuroendocrine neoplasms, which constituted 3% of the cystic neoplasms in the first time-period, now comprise more than 8% of pancreatic cystic neoplasms. The proportion of malignant neoplasms decreased over time (41% between 1978 and 1989; 12% between 2005 and 2011), reflecting probably the earlier diagnosis and treatment of premalignant neoplasms. Although operative mortality was minimal (4/849, 0.5%), the postoperative complication rate was 38%. Overall 5-year survival for all mucinous lesions was 87%. CONCLUSION: Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas are being diagnosed and treated with increasing frequency. At present, most are incidentally discovered intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms.

Prognosis of invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm depends on histological and precursor epithelial subtypes.

OBJECTIVE: Invasive cancers arising from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) are recognised as a morphologically and biologically heterogeneous group of neoplasms. Less is known about the epithelial subtypes of the precursor IPMN from which these lesions arise. The authors investigate the clinicopathological characteristics and the impact on survival of both the invasive component and its background IPMN. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: The study cohort comprised 61 patients with invasive IPMN (study group) and 570 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC, control group) resected at a single institution. Multivariate analyses were performed using a stage-matched Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: The histology of invasive components of the IPMN cohort was tubular in 38 (62%), colloid in 16 (26%), and oncocytic in seven (12%). Compared with PDAC, invasive IPMNs were associated with a lower incidence of adverse pathological features and improved mortality by multivariate analysis (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.86). In subtype analysis, this favourable outcome remained only for colloid and oncocytic carcinomas, while tubular adenocarcinoma was associated with worse overall survival, not significantly different from that of PDAC (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.36). Colloid and oncocytic carcinomas arose only from intestinal- and oncocytic-type IPMNs, respectively, and were mostly of the main-duct type, whereas tubular adenocarcinomas primarily originated in the gastric background, which was often associated with branch-duct IPMN. Overall survival of patients with invasive adenocarcinomas arising from gastric-type IPMN was significantly worse than that of patients with non-gastric-type IPMN (p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Tubular, colloid and oncocytic invasive IPMNs have varying prognosis, and arise from different epithelial subtypes. Colloid and oncocytic types have markedly improved biology, whereas the tubular type has a course that resembles PDAC. Analysis of these subtypes indicates that the background epithelium plays an equally, if not more, important role in defining the biology and prognosis of invasive IPMNs.