International assessment and validation of the prognostic role of lymph node ratio in patients with resected pancreatic head ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background: Lymph node ratio (LNR; positive/harvested lymph nodes) was identified as overall survival predictor in several cancers, including pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It remains unclear if LNR is predictive of overall survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients staged pN2. This study assessed the prognostic overall survival role of LNR in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients in relation with lymph node involvement. Methods: A retrospective international study in six different centers (Europe and United States) was performed. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy from 2000 to 2017 were included. Patients with neoadjuvant treatment, metastases, R2 resections, or missing data regarding nodal status were excluded. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Multivariable Cox regressions were performed to find independent overall survival predictors adjusted for potential confounders. Results: A total of 1,327 patients were included. Lymph node involvement (pN+) was found in 1,026 patients (77%), 561 pN1 (55%) and 465 pN2 (45%). Median LNR in pN+ patients was 0.214 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.105-0.364]. On multivariable analysis, LNR was the strongest overall survival predictor in the entire cohort [hazard ratio (HR) =5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.1-9.9; P<0.001] and pN+ patients (HR =3.8; 95% CI: 2.2-6.6; P<0.001). Median overall survival was better in patients with LNR <0.225 compared to patients with LNR ≥0.225 in the entire cohort and pN+ patients. Similar results were found in pN2 patients (worse overall survival when LNR ≥0.225). Conclusions: LNR appeared as an important prognostic factor in patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and permitted to stratify overall survival in pN2 patients. LNR should be routinely used in complement to tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage to better predict patient prognosis.

Resection of the Portal-Superior Mesenteric Vein in Pancreatic Cancer: Pathological Assessment and Recurrence Patterns.

OBJECTIVES: The portal vein (PV)-superior mesenteric vein (SMV) margin is the most affected margin in pancreatic cancer. This study investigates the association between venous resection, tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV, recurrence patterns, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer (2010-2017). In addition, a systematic literature search was performed. RESULTS: In total, 531 patients were included, of which 149 (28%) underwent venous resection of whom 53% had tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV. Patients with venous resection had a significant higher rate of R1 margins (69% vs 37%) and had more often multiple R1 margins (43% vs 16%). Patient with venous resection had a significant shorter time to locoregional recurrence and a shorter OS (15 vs 19 months). At multivariable analyses, venous resection and tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV were not predictive for time to recurrence and OS. The literature overview showed that pathological assessment of the resected PV-SMV is not adequately standardized. CONCLUSIONS: Only half of patients with venous resection had pathology confirmed tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV, and both are not independently associated with time to recurrence and OS. The pathological assessment of the resected PV-SMV needs to be standardized.

Hospital costs of delayed gastric emptying following pancreatoduodenectomy and the financial headroom for novel prophylactic treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is one of the most common complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). In-hospital costs of DGE are unknown as well as the financial headroom for novel prophylactic treatments. This retrospective study aims to estimate the hospital costs of DGE and model the financial headroom per patient for new prophylactic treatment strategies within budget. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a single-center prospective database including patients after PD (2010-2017). In-hospital costs for clinically relevant DGE (ISGPS grade B/C) were calculated by comparing patient groups with and without DGE or other complications. The financial headroom per patient was modelled for potential reductions (0-100%) of empirical DGE baseline risks (15-30%). RESULTS: Overall, DGE was present in 156 (26.9%) of 581 patients after PD. Costs for patients with isolated DGE (n = 90) were €10,295 higher than for patients without complications (n = 333). Costs for patients with other complications including DGE (n = 66) were €9008 higher than for patients with other complications without DGE (n = 92). The financial headroom for a novel prophylactic treatment per patient undergoing PD was €975 per 10% absolute decrease of DGE risk. CONCLUSION: Hospital costs of DGE after PD are substantial. The financial headroom per patient for new DGE prophylactic treatments can be easily calculated via www.pancreascalculator.com.

Amsterdam International Consensus Meeting: tumor response scoring in the pathology assessment of resected pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Histopathologically scoring the response of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to neoadjuvant treatment can guide the selection of adjuvant therapy and improve prognostic stratification. However, several tumor response scoring (TRS) systems exist, and consensus is lacking as to which system represents best practice. An international consensus meeting on TRS took place in November 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Here, we provide an overview of the outcomes and consensus statements that originated from this meeting. Consensus (≥80% agreement) was reached on a total of seven statements: (1) TRS is important because it provides information about the effect of neoadjuvant treatment that is not provided by other histopathology-based descriptors. (2) TRS for resected PDAC following neoadjuvant therapy should assess residual (viable) tumor burden instead of tumor regression. (3) The CAP scoring system is considered the most adequate scoring system to date because it is based on the presence and amount of residual cancer cells instead of tumor regression. (4) The defining criteria of the categories in the CAP scoring system should be improved by replacing subjective terms including "minimal" or "extensive" with objective criteria to evaluate the extent of viable tumor. (5) The improved, consensus-based system should be validated retrospectively and prospectively. (6) Prospective studies should determine the extent of tissue sampling that is required to ensure adequate assessment of the residual cancer burden, taking into account the heterogeneity of tumor response. (7) In future scientific publications, the extent of tissue sampling should be described in detail in the "Materials and methods" section.