RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Communication between caregivers and clinical team members is critical for transitional care, but its quality and potential impact on outcomes are not well understood. This study reports on caregiver-reported quality of communication with clinical team members in the postpancreatectomy period and examines associations of these reports with patient and caregiver outcomes. METHODS: Caregivers of patients with pancreatic and periampullary malignancies who had undergone pancreatectomy were surveyed. Instrument measures assessed care experiences using the Caregiver Perceptions About Communication with Clinical Team Members (CAPACITY) instrument. The instrument has two main subscales: communication, assessing the extent to which providers helped caregivers comprehend details of clinical visits, and capacity, defined as the extent to which providers assessed whether caregivers were able to care for patients. RESULTS: Of 265 caregivers who were approached, 240 (90.6%) enrolled in the study. The mean communication and capacity subscale scores were 2.7 ± 0.6 and 1.5 ± 0.6, respectively (range, 0-4 [higher = better]). Communication subscale scores were lower among caregivers of patients who experienced (vs. those who did not experience) a 30-day readmission (2.6 ± 0.5 vs. 2.8 ± 0.6, respectively; p = .047). Capacity subscale scores were inversely associated with restriction in patient daily activities (a 0.04 decrement in the capacity score for every 1 point in daily activity restriction; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: After pancreatectomy, patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer whose caregivers reported worse communication with care providers were more likely to experience readmission. Caregivers of patients with greater daily activity restrictions were less likely to report being asked about the caregiver's skill and capacity by clinicians. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This prospective study used a validated survey instrument and reports on the quality of communication between health care providers and caregivers as reported by caregivers of patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer after pancreatectomy. In an analysis of 240 caregivers enrolled in the study, lower communication scores (the extent to which providers helped caregivers understand clinical details) were associated with higher odds of 30-day patient readmission to the hospital. In addition, lower capacity scores (the extent to which providers assessed caregivers' ability to care for patients) were associated with greater impairment in caregivers. The strikingly low communication quality and capacity assessment scores suggest substantial room for improvement, with the potential to improve both caregiver and patient outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Cuidadores , Comunicación , Pancreatectomía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Cuidadores/psicología , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Adulto , Ampolla Hepatopancreática , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Readmisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias del Conducto Colédoco/cirugíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to better understand patients' treatment preferences and quantify the level of cancer risk at which treatment preferences change (risk threshold) to inform better counseling of patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The complexity of IPMN management provides an opportunity to align treatment with individual preference. METHODS: We surveyed a sample of healthy volunteers simulating a common scenario: undergoing an imaging study that incidentally identifies an IPMN. In the scenario, the estimated risk of cancer in the IPMN was 5%. Patients were asked their treatment preference (surgery or surveillance), to quantify the level of cancer risk in the IPMN at which their treatment preference would change (i.e. risk threshold), and their level of cancer anxiety as measured on a 5-point Likert scale. We examined associations between participant characteristics, treatment preferences, and risk threshold using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: The median risk threshold among the 520 participants was 25% (IQR 2.3-50%). The risk threshold had a bimodal distribution: 40% of participants had a risk threshold between 0-10% and 47% had a risk threshold above 30%. When informed that the risk of cancer was 5%, 62% of participants (n=323) preferred surveillance, and the remaining 38% (n=197) preferred surgery. After adjusting for potential confounders, participants who expressed "worry" or "extreme worry" about the malignancy risk of IPMN had significantly lower risk thresholds than participants who were "not at all worried" (Coefficient -12, 95%CI -21 to -2, P=0.015 and Coefficient -18, 95%CI -29 to -8, P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Participants varied in treatment preference and risk threshold of incidentally identified IPMNs. Given the uncertainty in estimating the true malignant potential of IPMNs, a better understanding of a patient's risk threshold, as influenced by patient concern about malignancy, will help inform the shared decision-making process.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To establish minimal and optimal lymphadenectomy thresholds for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and evaluate their prognostic value. BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend a minimum of 12-15 lymph nodes (LNs) in PDAC. This is largely based on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)-derived PDAC, a biologically distinct entity from IPMN-derived PDAC. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study including consecutive patients undergoing upfront surgery for IPMN-derived PDAC was conducted. The minimum cut-off for lymphadenectomy was defined as the maximum number of LNs where a significant node positivity difference was observed. Maximally selected log-rank statistic was used to derive the optimal lymphadenectomy cut-off (maximize survival). Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Multivariable Cox-regression was used to determine hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: In 341 patients with resected IPMN-derived PDAC, the minimum number of LNs needed to ensure accurate nodal staging was 10 (P=0.040), whereas ≥20 LNs was the optimal number associated with improved OS (80.3 vs. 37.2 mo, P<0.001). Optimal lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS [HR:0.57 (95%CI 0.39-0.83)] and RFS [HR:0.70 (95%CI 0.51-0.97)] on multivariable Cox-regression. On sub-analysis the optimal lymphadenectomy cut-offs for pancreatoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and total pancreatectomy were 20 (P<0.001), 23 (P=0.160), and 25 (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: In IPMN-derived PDAC, lymphadenectomy with at least 10 lymph nodes mitigates under-staging, and at least 20 lymph nodes is associated with the improved survival. Specifically, for pancreatoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy, 20 and 25 lymph nodes were the optimal cut-offs.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The ISGPS aims to develop a universally accepted complexity and experience grading system to guide the safe implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). BACKGROUND: Despite the perceived advantages of MIPD, its global adoption has been slow due to the inherent complexity of the procedure and challenges to acquiring surgical experience. Its wider adoption must be undertaken with an emphasis towards appropriate patient selection according to adequate surgeon and center experience. METHODS: The ISGPS developed a complexity and experience grading system to guide patient selection for MIPD based on an evidence-based review and a series of discussions. RESULTS: The ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for MIPD is subclassified into patient-related risk factors and provider experience-related variables. The patient-related risk factors include anatomical (main pancreatic and common bile duct diameters), tumor-specific (vascular contact), and conditional (obesity and previous complicated upper abdominal surgery/disease) factors, all incorporated in an A-B-C classification, graded as no, a single, and multiple risk factors. The surgeon and center experience-related variables include surgeon total MIPD experience (cut-offs 40 and 80) and center annual MIPD volume (cut-offs 10 and 30), all also incorporated in an A-B-C classification. CONCLUSION: This ISGPS complexity and experience grading system for robotic and laparoscopic MIPD may enable surgeons to optimally select patients after duly considering specific risk factors known to influence the complexity of the procedure. This grading system will likely allow for a thoughtful and stepwise implementation of MIPD and facilitate a fair comparison of outcome between centers and countries.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Pancreatectomía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Atención Perioperativa , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Atención Perioperativa/normas , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Técnica Delphi , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Selección de PacienteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Improved systemic therapy has made long term (≥ 5 years) overall survival (LTS) after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) increasingly common. However, a systematic review on predictors of LTS following resection of PDAC is lacking. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2023. Studies reporting actual survival data (based on follow-up and not survival analysis estimates) on factors associated with LTS were included. Meta-analyses were conducted by using a random effects model, and study quality was gauged by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with 27,091 patients (LTS: 2,132, non-LTS: 24,959) who underwent surgical resection for PDAC were meta-analyzed. The median proportion of LTS patients was 18.32% (IQR 12.97-21.18%) based on 20 studies. Predictors for LTS included sex, body mass index (BMI), preoperative levels of CA19-9, CEA, and albumin, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, tumor grade, AJCC stage, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, pathologic T-stage, nodal disease, metastatic disease, margin status, adjuvant therapy, vascular resection, operative time, operative blood loss, and perioperative blood transfusion. Most articles received a "good" NOS assessment, indicating an acceptable risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis pools all true follow up data in the literature to quantify associations between prognostic factors and LTS after resection of PDAC. While there appears to be evidence of a complex interplay between risk, tumor biology, patient characteristics, and management related factors, no single parameter can predict LTS after the resection of PDAC.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/mortalidad , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Tasa de Supervivencia , Pronóstico , Pancreatectomía/mortalidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. RESULTS: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.
RESUMEN
This study group aimed to revise the 2017 international consensus guidelines for the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas, and mainly focused on five topics; the revision of high-risk stigmata (HRS) and worrisome features (WF), surveillance of non-resected IPMN, surveillance after resection of IPMN, revision of pathological aspects, and investigation of molecular markers in cyst fluid. A new development from the prior guidelines is that systematic reviews were performed for each one of these topics, and published separately to provide evidence-based recommendations. One of the highlights of these new "evidence-based guidelines" is to propose a new management algorithm, and one major revision is to include into the assessment of HRS and WF the imaging findings from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and the results of cytological analysis from EUS-guided fine needle aspiration technique, when this is performed. Another key element of the current guidelines is to clarify whether lifetime surveillance for small IPMNs is required, and recommends two options, "stop surveillance" or "continue surveillance for possible development of concomitant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma", for small unchanged BD-IPMN after 5 years surveillance. Several other points are also discussed, including identifying high-risk features for recurrence in patients who underwent resection of non-invasive IPMN with negative surgical margin, summaries of the recent observations in the pathology of IPMN. In addition, the emerging role of cyst fluid markers that can aid in distinguishing IPMN from other pancreatic cysts and identify those IPMNs that harbor high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma is discussed.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Intraductales Pancreáticas , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Intraductales Pancreáticas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Intraductales Pancreáticas/cirugía , Páncreas , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Endosonografía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the role of site-specific metastatic patterns over time and assess factors associated with extended survival in metastatic PDAC. Half of all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) present with metastatic disease. The site of metastasis plays a crucial role in clinical decision making due to its prognostic value. METHODS: We examined 56,757 stage-IV PDAC patients from the National Cancer Database (2016-2019), categorizing them by metastatic site: multiple, liver, lung, brain, bone, carcinomatosis, or other. The site-specific prognostic value was assessed using log-rank tests while time-varying effects were assessed by Aalen's linear hazards model. Factors associated with extended survival (>3years) were assessed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Median overall survival (mOS) in patients with distant lymph node-only metastases (9.0 months) and lung-only metastases (8.1 months) was significantly longer than in patients with liver-only metastases (4.6 months, p < 0.001). However, after six months, the metastatic site lost prognostic value. Logistic regression identified extended survivors (3.6 %) as more likely to be younger, Hispanic, privately insured, Charlson-index <2, having received chemotherapy, or having undergone primary or distant site surgery (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While synchronous liver metastases are associated with worse outcomes than lung-only and lymph node-only metastases, this predictive value is diminished after six months. Therefore, treatment decisions beyond this time should not primarily depend on the metastatic site. Extended survival is possible in a small subset of patients with favorable tumor biology and good conditional status, who are more likely to undergo aggressive therapies.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) management is generally extrapolated from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)-derived PDAC guidelines. However, these are biologically divergent, and heterogeneity further exists between tubular and colloid subtypes. METHODS: Consecutive upfront surgery patients with PanIN-derived and IPMN-derived PDAC were retrospectively identified from international centers (2000-2019). One-to-one propensity score matching for clinicopathologic factors generated three cohorts: IPMN-derived versus PanIN-derived PDAC, tubular IPMN-derived versus PanIN-derived PDAC, and tubular versus colloid IPMN-derived PDAC. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox regression determined corresponding hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The median OS (mOS) in 2350 PanIN-derived and 700 IPMN-derived PDAC patients was 23.0 and 43.1 months (P < 0.001), respectively. PanIN-derived PDAC had worse T-stage, CA19-9, grade, and nodal status. Tubular subtype had worse T-stage, CA19-9, grade, nodal status, and R1 margins, with a mOS of 33.7 versus 94.1 months (P < 0.001) in colloid. Matched (n = 495), PanIN-derived and IPMN-derived PDAC had mOSs of 30.6 and 42.8 months (P < 0.001), respectively. In matched (n = 341) PanIN-derived and tubular IPMN-derived PDAC, mOS remained poorer (27.7 vs 37.4, P < 0.001). Matched tubular and colloid cancers (n = 112) had similar OS (P = 0.55). On multivariable Cox regression, PanIN-derived PDAC was associated with worse OS than IPMN-derived (HR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.44-1.90) and tubular IPMN-derived (HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.32-1.77) PDAC. Colloid and tubular subtype was not associated with OS (P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: PanIN-derived PDAC has worse survival than IPMN-derived PDAC supporting distinct outcomes. Although more indolent, colloid IPMN-derived PDAC has similar survival to tubular after risk adjustment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The appropriate surgical approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is determined by the tumor's relation to the porto-mesenteric axis. Although the extent and location of lymphadenectomy is dependent on the type of resection, a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), distal pancreatectomy (DP), or total pancreatectomy (TP) are considered equivalent oncologic operations for pancreatic neck tumors. Therefore, we aimed to assess differences in histopathological and oncological outcomes for surgical approaches in the treatment of pancreatic neck tumors. METHODS: Patients with resected PDAC located in the pancreatic neck were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2020). Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. Furthermore, patients with 90-day mortality and R2-resections were excluded from the multivariable Cox-regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 846 patients, 58% underwent PD, 25% DP, and 17% TP with similar R0-resection rates (p = 0.722). Significant differences were observed in nodal positivity (PD:44%, DP:34%, TP:57%, p < 0.001) and mean-number of examined lymph nodes (PD:17.2 ± 10.4, DP:14.7 ± 10.5, TP:21.2 ± 11.0, p < 0.001). Furthermore, inadequate lymphadenectomy (< 12 nodes) was observed in 30%, 44%, and 19% of patients undergoing PD, DP, and TP, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis yielded similar overall survival after DP (HR:0.83, 95%CI:0.63-1.11), while TP was associated with worse survival (HR:1.43, 95%CI:1.08-1.89) compared to PD. CONCLUSION: While R0-rates are similar amongst all approaches, DP is associated with inadequate lymphadenectomy which may result in understaging disease. However, this had no negative influence on survival. In the premise that an oncological resection of the pancreatic neck tumor is feasible with a partial pancreatectomy, no benefit is observed by performing a TP.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Pancreatectomía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Humanos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/mortalidad , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Masculino , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Pancreatectomía/métodos , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/métodos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/mortalidad , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático , Estudios de CohortesAsunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/mortalidad , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Tasa de Supervivencia , Pronóstico , Pancreatectomía/mortalidad , Pancreatectomía/métodosAsunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/mortalidad , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Pronóstico , Tasa de Supervivencia , Pancreatectomía/mortalidad , Pancreatectomía/métodosRESUMEN
The notion that technically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma presents as localized disease is now known to be inaccurate. Evidence supports that most patients have subclinical systemic dissemination at the time of diagnosis. It is now widely accepted that both a local and systemic component of disease coexist, each requiring treatment of improved survival and potential cure. The advent of multiagent chemotherapy regimens has resulted in a modest improvement in survival. Consequently, this article will emphasize the expanding potential and significance of circulating tumor cells in the prognostication and management of patients with pancreatic cancer.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Células Neoplásicas Circulantes , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Células Neoplásicas Circulantes/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/sangre , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/sangre , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/mortalidad , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/terapia , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , PronósticoRESUMEN
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains associated with poor outcomes with a 5-year survival of 12% across all stages of the disease. These poor outcomes are driven by a delay in diagnosis and an early propensity for systemic dissemination of the disease. Recently, aggressive surgical approaches involving complex vascular resections and reconstructions have become more common, thus allowing more locally advanced tumors to be resected. Unfortunately, however, even after the completion of surgery and systemic therapy, approximately 40% of patients experience early recurrence of disease. To determine resectability, many institutions utilize anatomical staging systems based on the presence and extent of vascular involvement of major abdominal vessels around the pancreas. However, these classification systems are based on anatomical considerations only and do not factor in the burden of systemic disease. By integrating the biological criteria, we possibly could avoid futile resections often associated with significant morbidity. Especially patients with anatomically resectable disease who have a heavy burden of radiologically undetected systemic disease most likely do not derive a survival benefit from resection. On the contrary, we could offer complex resections to those who have locally advanced or oligometastatic disease but have favorable systemic biology and are most likely to benefit from resection. This review summarizes the current literature on defining anatomical and biological resectability in patients with pancreatic cancer.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Most patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are diagnosed with a solitary lesion; however, the presence of skip lesions, not appreciable on imaging, has been described. Postoperatively, these missed lesions can continue to grow and potentially become cancerous. Intraoperative pancreatoscopy (IOP) may facilitate detection of such skip lesions in the remnant gland. The aim of this scoping review was to appraise the evidence on the role of IOP in the surgical management of IPMNs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies reporting on the use of IOP during IPMN surgery were identified through searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Data extracted included IOP findings, surgical plan modifications, and patient outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was the utility of IOP in surgical decision making. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting on the use of IOP for IPMNs were identified, representing 147 patients. A total of 46 skip lesions were identified by IOP. Overall, surgical plans were altered in 37% of patients who underwent IOP. No IOP-related complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests a potential role of integration of IOP into the management of patients with IPMNs. This tool is safe and feasible and can result in changes in surgical decision making.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Quísticas, Mucinosas y Serosas , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Quísticas, Mucinosas y Serosas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Quísticas, Mucinosas y Serosas/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Delay in diagnosis can contribute to poor outcomes in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and new tools for early detection are required. Recent application of artificial intelligence to cancer imaging has demonstrated great potential in detecting subtle early lesions. The aim of the study was to evaluate global and local accuracies of deep neural network (DNN) segmentation of normal and abnormal pancreas with pancreatic mass. METHODS: Our previously developed and reported residual deep supervision network for segmentation of PDAC was applied to segment pancreas using CT images of potential renal donors (normal pancreas) and patients with suspected PDAC (abnormal pancreas). Accuracy of DNN pancreas segmentation was assessed using DICE simulation coefficient (DSC), average symmetric surface distance (ASSD), and Hausdorff distance 95% percentile (HD95) as compared to manual segmentation. Furthermore, two radiologists semi-quantitatively assessed local accuracies and estimated volume of correctly segmented pancreas. RESULTS: Forty-two normal and 49 abnormal CTs were assessed. Average DSC was 87.4 ± 3.1% and 85.5 ± 3.2%, ASSD 0.97 ± 0.30 and 1.34 ± 0.65, HD95 4.28 ± 2.36 and 6.31 ± 6.31 for normal and abnormal pancreas, respectively. Semi-quantitatively, ≥95% of pancreas volume was correctly segmented in 95.2% and 53.1% of normal and abnormal pancreas by both radiologists, and 97.6% and 75.5% by at least one radiologist. Most common segmentation errors were made on pancreatic and duodenal borders in both groups, and related to pancreatic tumor including duct dilatation, atrophy, tumor infiltration and collateral vessels. CONCLUSION: Pancreas DNN segmentation is accurate in a majority of cases, however, minor manual editing may be necessary; particularly in abnormal pancreas.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Inteligencia Artificial , Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador/métodos , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Redes Neurales de la Computación , Páncreas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagenRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Accurate staging of disease is vital in determining appropriate care for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). It has been shown that the quality of scans and the experience of a radiologist can impact computed tomography (CT) based assessment of disease. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of the rereading of outside hospital (OH) CT by an expert radiologist and a repeat pancreatic protocol CT (PPCT) on staging of disease. METHODS: Patients evaluated at the our institute's pancreatic multidisciplinary clinic (2006 to 2014) with OH scan and repeat PPCT performed within 30 days were included. In-house radiologists staged disease using OH scans and repeat PPCT, and factors associated with misstaging were determined. RESULTS: The study included 100 patients, with a median time between OH scan and PPCT of 19 days (IQR: 13-23 days.) Stage migration was mostly accounted for by upstaging of disease (58.8 % to 83.3 %) in all comparison groups. When OH scans were rereviewed, 21.5 % of the misstaging was due to missed metastases, however, when rereads were compared to the PPCT, occult metastases accounted for the majority of misstaged patients (62.5 %). Potential factors associated with misstaging were primarily related to imaging technique. CONCLUSION: A repeat PPCT results in increased detection of metastatic disease that rereviews of OH scans may otherwise miss. Accessible insurance coverage for repeat PPCT imaging even within 30 days of an OH scan could help optimize delivery of care and alleviate burdens associated with misstaging.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Femenino , Masculino , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Errores DiagnósticosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is resected at smaller sizes compared to its biologically distinct counterpart, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)-derived PDAC. Thus, experts proposed T1 sub-staging for IPMN-derived PDAC. However, this has never been validated. METHODS: Consecutive upfront surgery patients with IPMN-derived PDAC from five international high-volume centers were classified by the proposed T1 sub-staging classification (T1a ≤ 0.5, T1b > 0.5 and ≤1.0, and T1c >1.0 and ≤2.0 cm) using the invasive component size. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were utilized to compare overall survival (OS). A multivariable Cox-regression was used to determine hazard ratios (HR) with confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Among 747 patients, 69 (9.2%), 50 (6.7%), 99 (13.0%), and 531 patients (71.1%), comprised the T1a, T1b, T1c, and T2-4 subgroups, respectively. Increasing T-stage was associated with elevated CA19-9, poorer grade, nodal positivity, R1-margin, and tubular subtype. Median OS for T1a, T1b, T1c, and T2-4 were 159.0 (95%CI:126.0-NR), 128.8 (98.3-NR), 77.6 (48.3-108.2), and 31.4 (27.5-37.7) months, respectively (p < .001). OS decreased with increasing T-stage for all pairwise comparisons (all p < .05). After risk-adjustment, age > 65, elevated CA19-9, T1b [HR : 2.55 (1.22-5.32)], T1c [HR : 3.04 (1.60-5.76)], and T2-4 [HR : 3.41 (1.89-6.17)] compared to T1a, nodal positivity, R1-margin, and no adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with worse OS. Disease recurrence was more common in T2-4 tumors (56.4%) compared to T1a (18.2%), T1b (23.9%), and T1c (36.1%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: T1 sub-staging of IPMN-derived PDAC is valid and has significant prognostic value. Advancing T1 sub-stage is associated with worse histopathology, survival, and recurrence. T1 sub-staging is recommended for future guidelines.
RESUMEN
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy characterized by an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment enriched with cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF). This study used a convergence approach to identify tumor cell and CAF interactions through the integration of single-cell data from human tumors with human organoid coculture experiments. Analysis of a comprehensive atlas of PDAC single-cell RNA sequencing data indicated that CAF density is associated with increased inflammation and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in epithelial cells. Transfer learning using transcriptional data from patient-derived organoid and CAF cocultures provided in silico validation of CAF induction of inflammatory and EMT epithelial cell states. Further experimental validation in cocultures demonstrated integrin beta 1 (ITGB1) and vascular endothelial factor A (VEGFA) interactions with neuropilin-1 mediating CAF-epithelial cell cross-talk. Together, this study introduces transfer learning from human single-cell data to organoid coculture analyses for experimental validation of discoveries of cell-cell cross-talk and identifies fibroblast-mediated regulation of EMT and inflammation. SIGNIFICANCE: Adaptation of transfer learning to relate human single-cell RNA sequencing data to organoid-CAF cocultures facilitates discovery of human pancreatic cancer intercellular interactions and uncovers cross-talk between CAFs and tumor cells through VEGFA and ITGB1.