Serum Tumor Markers and Outcomes in Patients With Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma.

Importance: Serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers; however, there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Objective: To assess the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes and pathologic and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 52 (21-101) months. Software was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least 1 tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between March 2016 and May 2023. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of serum tumor markers with survival in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were also performed to assess associations between clinical factors (serum tumor marker levels, demographics, and patient and disease characteristics) and patient outcomes (overall survival). Results: A total of 1338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median (range) age at diagnosis of 56.5 (22.3-89.6) years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (1080 patients [80.7%]). CEA was elevated in 742 of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 381 patients (34%) and 312 patients (27%), respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; elevated vs normal was 81% vs 95% for CEA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6), 84% vs 92% for CA19-9 (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4), and 69% vs 93% for CA125 (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.7-7.8) (P < .001 for all). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers was associated with outcomes. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 had markedly worse survival, with 5-year survival rates of 59% for CEA (HR, 9.8; 95% CI, 5.3-18.0), 64% for CA19-9 (HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 3.0-11.7), and 57% for CA125 (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 3.5-16.5) (P < .001 for all). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease, elevated CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR for CEA, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.8; P < .001; HR for CA19-9, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = .002; and HR for CA125, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.4; P < .001). Interestingly, tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high-grade tumors relative to low-grade tumors (mean value, 18.3 vs 15.0; difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.9-3.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with an 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all 3 tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Somatic mutations in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective study of serum tumor markers in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma, CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 were associated with overall survival in appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their value, all 3 biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

The Clinical Significance of CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in Management of Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma.

Importance: Serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, & CA125 have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers, however there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Objective: Assessing the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes, pathologic, and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Design: This is a retrospective study with results reported in 2023. The median follow-up time was 43 months. Setting: Single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. Participants: Under an approved Institutional Review Board protocol, the Palantir Foundry software system was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least one tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between 2016 and 2023. Results: A total of 1,338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median age of 56.5 years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (80.7%). CEA was elevated in more than half of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 34% and 27%, respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal for CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 respectively (all p<0.0001). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 had markedly worse survival with 5-year survival rates of 59%, 64%, and 57%, respectively (HR vs. normal : 9.8, 6.0, 7.6, all p<0.0001). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease elevated CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR vs. normal : 3.4, 1.8, 3.9, p<0.0001 for CEA and CA125, p=0.0019 for CA19-9). Interestingly tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high relative to low-grade tumors (18.3 vs. 15.0, p=0.0009). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Mutation in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the utility of measuring CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in the management of appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Efficacy of Systemic Chemotherapy in Patients With Low-grade Mucinous Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Importance: Appendiceal adenocarcinoma is a rare tumor, and given the inherent difficulties in performing prospective trials in such a rare disease, there are currently minimal high-quality data to guide treatment decisions, highlighting the need for more preclinical and clinical investigation for this disease. Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of fluoropyrimidine-based systemic chemotherapy in patients with inoperable low-grade mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label randomized crossover trial recruited patients at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center from September 2013 to January 2021. The data collection cutoff was May 2022. Enrollment of up to 30 patients was planned. Eligible patients had histological evidence of a metastatic low-grade mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, with radiographic imaging demonstrating the presence of mucinous peritoneal carcinomatosis and were not considered candidates for complete cytoreductive surgery. Key exclusion criteria were concurrent or recent investigational therapy, evidence of bowel obstruction, and use of total parenteral nutrition. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to May 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either 6 months observation followed by 6 months of chemotherapy, or initial chemotherapy followed by observation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the percentage difference in tumor growth in treatment and observation groups. Key secondary end points included patient-reported outcomes in the chemotherapy and observation periods, objective response rate, rate of bowel complications, and differences in overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 24 patients were enrolled, with median (range) age of 63 (38 to 82) years, and equal proportion of men and women (eg, 12 men [50%]); all patients had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. A total of 11 patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy first, and 13 patients were randomized to receive observation first. Most patients (15 patients [63%]) were treated with either fluorouracil or capecitabine as single agent; 3 patients (13%) received doublet chemotherapy (leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin or folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan hydrochloride), and bevacizumab was added to cytotoxic chemotherapy for 5 patients (21%). Fifteen patients were available to evaluate the primary end point of difference in tumor growth during treatment and observation periods. Tumor growth while receiving chemotherapy increased 8.4% (95% CI, 1.5% to 15.3%) from baseline but was not significantly different than tumor growth during observation (4.0%; 95% CI, -0.1% to 8.0%; P = .26). Of 18 patients who received any chemotherapy, none had an objective response (14 patients [77.8%] had stable disease; 4 patients [22.2%] had progressive disease). Median (range) OS was 53.2 (8.1 to 95.5) months, and there was no significant difference in OS between the observation-first group (76.0 [8.6 to 95.5] months) and the treatment-first group (53.2 [8.1 to 64.1] months; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.16-2.55; P = .48). Patient-reported quality-of-life metrics identified that during treatment, patients experienced significantly worse fatigue (mean [SD] score, 18.5 [18.6] vs 28.9 [21.3]; P = .02), peripheral neuropathy (mean [SD] score, 6.67 [12.28] vs 38.89 [34.88]; P = .01), and financial difficulty (mean [SD] score, 8.9 [15.2] vs 28.9 [33.0]; P = .001) compared with during observation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective randomized crossover trial of systemic chemotherapy in patients with low-grade mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, patients did not derive clinical benefit from fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, given there were no objective responses, no difference in OS when treatment was delayed 6 months, and no difference in the rate of tumor growth while receiving chemotherapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01946854.

Prognostic Impact and Utility of Immunoprofiling in the Selection of Patients with Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis for Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC).

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown an association in non-metastatic colorectal cancer between patient survival and immunoprofiling (expression of CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45, and FOXP3 T cells at the invasive margin (IM) and the tumor center (TC)) regardless of stage. Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis have a dismal prognosis, but survival can be significantly improved in selected patients who undergo cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). However, current patient selection for CRS/HIPEC is suboptimal. The purpose of this study is to evaluate immune profiles of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis and their correlation with overall survival (OS). METHODS: The study cohort included patients from a prospectively maintained database of adults with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis who underwent CRS/HIPEC. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) using antibodies to CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45RO, and FOXP3 T cells was performed. IHC image density was calculated using ImageJ software, and an immunoscore was determined. RESULTS: Eighty tumors were evaluated from 66 patients. These included 14 primary sites and 66 metastatic sites. R0/R1 resection was achieved in 44 (66.7%) patients. Known prognostic factors including resection status (HR 1.99, p = 0.004) and lymph node status (HR 3.49, p = 0.002) were associated with overall survival. On multivariate analysis, increased CD3/CD4 IM (HR 0.54, p = 0.03) ratio positively was associated with improved OS. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to assess the utility of subtypes of T cells as prognostic markers in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis, which may play a role in patients with low-volume disease. Further studies into immune mechanisms may improve patient selection for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC as well as provide novel pathways for effective immunotherapy.

Can high-volume teams of anesthesiologists and surgeons decrease perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery outcomes are associated with surgeon and center experience. Anesthesiologists as potential value drivers for pancreatic surgery have not been explored. We sought to evaluate whether anesthesiologists impact perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery. METHODS: Within an integrated health care system, 796 pancreatic surgeries (526 PDs and 270 DPs) were performed from January 2014 to June 2017. Mean direct operative and anesthesia costs driven by anesthesiologists (operating room (OR) time, anesthesia billing and anesthesia procedures) were determined for each case. The volumes of pancreatic cases per anesthesiologist were calculated, and those above the 75th percentile for volume (4 cases) were considered high-volume. A multivariable analysis of OR/anesthesia costs was performed. RESULTS: Mean OR and anesthesia costs for PD were $7064 for low-volume anesthesiologists (LVA), higher than $5968 for high-volume anesthesiologists (HVA) (p < 0.001). By multivariable analysis, HVA were associated with decreased costs of $2278 (p < 0.001). Teams of HVA and high-volume surgeons (HVS) were also associated with decreased mean costs of $1790 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that anesthesiologists experienced in the management of complex pancreatic operations such as PDs may contribute to improved efficiencies in care by reducing perioperative costs.

What Are the Most Significant Cost and Value Drivers for Pancreatic Resection in an Integrated Healthcare System?

BACKGROUND: An initiative was established to improve value-based care for pancreatic surgery in a large nonprofit health system. Cost data were presented bimonthly to a hepatobiliary clinical performance group via videoconference. STUDY DESIGN: The direct costs were calculated for all patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) between January 2014 and July 2017. Median length of stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates, readmission rate, and costs were stratified by surgeon volume using 2 published criteria: "volume pledge" criteria (≥5 PDs/year) and Leapfrog criteria (≥11 PDs/year). RESULTS: There were 270 DPs and 526 PDs performed in 14 hospitals spanning 4 states. Median PD costs were lower for high-volume surgeons (≥5 PDs/year), $21,026 vs $24,706 (p = 0.005). High-volume surgeons had a shorter length of stay (9 days vs 11 days; p < 0.001) for PD and DP (6 days vs 7 days; p = 0.001). Increased costs for low-volume surgeons included operative/anesthesia costs ($7,321 vs $6,325; p = 0.03), room and board ($5,828 vs $4,580; p = 0.01), and intensive care costs ($4,464 vs $3,113; p = 0.04). Operating time was increased for high-volume surgeons for DP and PD (p < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates or readmissions for DP or PD when stratified by volume pledge criteria. There was no difference in total costs for DP or PD when stratified by Leapfrog criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant cost reduction for PD but not DP when the threshold of 5 PDs was used as a definition of high volume. The sharing of detailed financial data with HPB surgeons on a regular basis provides an opportunity to evaluate practice patterns and thereby reduce direct costs.