Surgical Eligibility Does Not Imply Surgical Equity: Recommendations for Curative Treatment in Patients With Stage I/II Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma Differ by Age and Race.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize differences in pancreatectomy recommendation rates to surgically eligible patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head across age and racial groups. BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is not recommended in almost half of otherwise healthy patients with stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma lacking a surgical contraindication. We characterized differences in pancreatectomy recommendation among surgically eligible patients across age and racial groups. METHODS: Non-Hispanic White (NHW) and Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients were identified in the National Cancer Database with clinical stage I/II pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 to 1, and age 40 to 89 years. Rates of surgery recommendation and overall survival (OS) by age and race were compared. A Pancreatectomy Recommendation Equivalence Point (PREP) was defined as the age at which the rate of not recommending surgery matched the rate of recommending and completing surgery. Marginal standardization was used to identify association of age and race with recommendation. OS was compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Among 40,866 patients, 36,133 (88%) were NHW and 4733 (12%) were NHB. For the entire cohort, PREP was 79 years. PREP was 5 years younger in NHB patients than in NHW patients (75 vs 80 years). Adjusted rates of not recommending surgery were significantly higher for NHB than for NHW patients in each age group. After adjusting for surgery recommendation, we found no difference in OS between NHW and NHB patients (hazard ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.94-1.02]). CONCLUSIONS: PREP of NHB patients was 5 years younger than NHW patients, and in every age group, the rate of not recommending pancreatectomy was higher in NHB patients. Age and race disparities in treatment recommendations may contribute to shorter longevity of NHB patients.

Hospital Designations and Their Impact on Guideline-Concordant Care and Survival in Pancreatic Cancer. Do They Matter?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) requires complex multidisciplinary care. European evidence suggests potential benefit from regionalization, however, data characterizing the ideal setting in the United States are sparse. Our study compares the significance of four hospital designations on guideline-concordant care (GCC) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Texas Cancer Registry was queried for 17,071 patients with PDAC treated between 2004 and 2015. Clinical data were correlated with hospital designations: NCI designated (NCI), high volume (HV), safety net (SNH), and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer accredited (ACS). Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to assess associations with GCC [on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations]. Cox regression analysis assessed survival. RESULTS: Only 43% of patients received GCC. NCI had the largest associated risk reduction (HR 0.61, CI 0.58-0.65), followed by HV (HR 0.87, CI 0.83-0.90) and ACS (HR 0.91, CI 0.87-0.95). GCC was associated with a survival benefit in the full (HR 0.75, CI 0.69-0.81) and resected cohort (HR 0.74, CI 0.68-0.80). NCI (OR 1.52, CI 1.37-1.70), HV (OR 1.14, CI 1.05-1.23), and SNH (OR 0.78, CI 0.68-0.91) all correlated with receipt of GCC. For resected patients, ACS (OR 0.63, CI 0.50-0.79) and SNH (OR 0.50, CI 0.33-0.75) correlate with GCC. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 43% of patients received GCC. Treatment at NCI and HV correlated with improved GCC and survival. Including GCC as a metric in accreditation standards could impact survival for patients with PDAC.

Outcomes of Mixed Pathologic Response in Patients with Multiple Colorectal Liver Metastases Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Liver Resection.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic response to preoperative chemotherapy predicts survival in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) who undergo hepatectomy. In multiple CLMs, mixed pathologic response, wherein tumors exhibit different degrees of treatment response, is possible. We sought to evaluate survival outcomes of mixed response in patients with multiple CLMs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a single-institution database of patients with two or more CLMs who underwent preoperative chemotherapy and hepatectomy (2010-2018). Pathologic response of each tumor was measured on pathology. Patients were stratified by pathologic response as complete (pCR) = 0-1% viability; major (pMajR) = 2-49% viability; minor (pMinR) = 50-99% viability; or mixed (pMixR) = at least one pCR/MajR tumor and one pMinR. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and adjusted risk of death was evaluated using Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 444 patients, 6% had pCR, 34% had pMajR, 36% had pMinR, and 24% had pMixR. Median and 5-year RFS for patients with pMixR was 10.4 months and 16%, respectively, compared with pMajR (11.3 months and 18%, respectively), pMinR (7.7 months and 13%, respectively), and pCR (23.1 months and 38%, respectively) [log-rank p < 0.001]. Median and 5-year OS for patients with pMixR was 77.4 months and 60%, respectively, compared with pMajR (80.5 months and 63%, respectively), pMinR (49.9 months and 39%, respectively), and pCR (median OS not reached; median follow-up of 37.1 months and 5-year OS of 65%) [log-rank p = 0.002]. pMixR was associated with a 52% risk of death reduction (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.78 vs. pMinR). CONCLUSIONS: One-quarter of patients with multiple CLMs have pMixR following preoperative chemotherapy and hepatectomy. OS and RFS for patients with pMixR mirror those of pMajR rather than pMinR, suggesting the greatest response achieved in any metastasis best predicts survival.

Radiographic and Serologic Response to First-Line Chemotherapy in Unresected Localized Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the clinical relevance of putative radiographic and serologic metrics of chemotherapy response in patients with localized pancreatic cancer (LPC) who do not undergo pancreatectomy. Studies evaluating the response of LPC to systemic chemotherapy have focused on histopathologic analyses of resected specimens, but such specimens are not available for patients who do not undergo resection. We previously showed that changes in tumor volume and CA 19-9 levels provide a clinical readout of histopathologic response to preoperative therapy. METHODS: Our institutional database was searched for patients with LPC who were treated with first-line chemotherapy between January 2010 and December 2017 and did not undergo pancreatectomy. Radiographic response was measured using RECIST 1.1 and tumor volume. The volume of the primary tumor was compared between pretreatment and posttreatment images. The percentage change in tumor volume (%Δvol) was calculated as a percentage of the pretreatment volume. Serologic response was measured by comparing pretreatment and posttreatment CA 19-9 levels. We established 3 response groups by combining these metrics: (1) best responders with a decline in %Δvol in the top quartile and in CA 19-9, (2) nonresponders with an increase in %Δvol and in CA 19-9, and (3) other patients. RESULTS: This study included 329 patients. Individually, %Δvol and change in CA 19-9 were associated with overall survival (OS) (P≤.1), but RECIST 1.1 was not. In all, 73 patients (22%) were best responders, 42 (13%) were nonresponders, and there were 214 (65%) others. Best responders lived significantly longer than nonresponders and others (median OS, 24 vs 12 vs 17 months, respectively; P<.01). A multivariable model adjusting for type of chemotherapy regimen, number of chemotherapy doses, and receipt of radiotherapy showed that best responders had longer OS than did the other cohorts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58 for best responders, and HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.83 for others). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in tumor volume and serum levels of CA 19-9-but not RECIST 1.1-represent reliable metrics of response to systemic chemotherapy. They can be used to counsel patients and families on survival expectations even if pancreatectomy is not performed.

Treatment and Survival Disparities of Colon Cancer in the Texas-Mexico Border Population: Cancer Disparities in Border Population.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported healthcare disparities in the Texas-Mexico border population. Our aim was to evaluate treatment utilization and oncologic outcomes of colon cancer patients in this vulnerable population. METHODS: Patients with localized and regional colon cancer (CC) were identified in the Texas Cancer Registry (1995-2016). Clinicopathological data, hospital factors, receipt of optimal treatment, and overall survival (OS) were compared between Texas-Mexico Border (TMB) and the Non-Texas-Mexico Border (NTMB) cohorts. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with decreased survival. RESULTS: We identified 43,557 patients with localized/regional CC (9% TMB and 91% NTMB). TMB patients were more likely to be Hispanic (73% versus 13%), less likely to have private insurance (13% versus 21%), were more often treated at safety net hospitals (82% versus 22%) and less likely at ACS-CoC accredited hospitals (32% versus 57%). TMB patients were more likely to receive suboptimal treatment (21% versus 16%) and had a lower median OS for localized (8.58 versus 9.58 y) and regional colon cancer (5.75 versus 6.18 y, all P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, TMB status was not associated with worse OS. Factors associated with worse survival included receipt of suboptimal treatment, Medicare/insured status, and treatment in safety net and non-accredited ACS-CoC hospitals (all P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: While TMB CC patients had worse OS, TMB status itself was not found to be a risk factor for decreased survival. This survival disparity is likely associated with higher rate of suboptimal treatment, Medicare/Uninsured status, and decreased access to ACS-CoC accredited hospitals.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. METHODS: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. RESULTS: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. CONCLUSION: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Clinicopathologic Features and Outcomes of Early-Onset Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has been performed regarding pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) diagnosed in early-onset patients. This study defined early-onset disease as cancer diagnosed before the age of 50 years and aimed to characterize the clinicopathologic factors associated with early- versus late-onset patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify early- and late-onset PDAC patients with cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2013. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment regimens, and overall survival (OS) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The study enrolled 207,062 patients, including 12,137 early-onset patients (5.9%) and 194,925 late-onset patients (94.1%). The early-onset patients (stage 3 or 4 cancer) were more likely to present with a later stage of disease (62.1% vs. 55.2%; p < 0.001) and to be male (57.1% vs. 50.0%; p < 0.001) than those with late-onset PDAC. The early-onset patients also presented with a lower Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score (80.9% vs. 66.6% had a score of 0; p < 0.001) and received higher rates of treatment (22.8% vs. 40.1% received no treatment, p < 0.001) than the late-onset patients. Furthermore, early-onset PDAC was associated with improved OS among all the PDAC patients (9.2 vs. 6.0 months; p < 0.001) and among the surgically resected patients (27.3 vs. 24.3 months; p < 0.001). Early-onset PDAC also was found to be independently associated with improved OS after adjustment for other significant clinicopathologic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Despite features suggestive of aggressive tumor biology at presentation, early-onset PDAC was independently associated with better OS than late-onset PDAC among all patients and among curatively resected stage-matched patients.

Comparison of Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis With and Without Abscess: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of appendectomy stratified by type of complicated appendicitis (CA) features are poorly researched, and the evidence to guide operative versus nonoperative management for CA is lacking. This study aimed to determine laparoscopic-to-open conversion risk, postoperative abscess risk, unplanned readmission risk, and length of hospital stay (LOS) associated with appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis without abscess (PA) and perforated appendicitis with abscess (PAWA) compared with a control cohort of nonperforated appendicitis (NPA). METHODS: The 2016-2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Appendectomy-targeted database identified 12,537 (76.1%) patients with NPA, 2142 (13.0%) patients with PA, and 1799 (10.9%) patients with PAWA. Chi-squared analysis and analysis of variance were used to compare categorical and continuous variables. Binary logistic and linear regression models were used to compare risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with NPA, PA and PAWA had higher rates of conversion (0.8% versus 4.9% and 6.5%, respectively; P < 0.001), postoperative abscess requiring intervention (0.6% versus 4.8% and 7.0%, respectively; P < 0.001), readmission (2.8% versus 7.7% and 7.6%, respectively; P < 0.001), and longer median LOS (1 day versus 2 days and 2 days, respectively; P < 0.001). PA and PAWA were associated with increased odds of postoperative abscess (odds ratio [OR]: 7.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2-9.8 and OR: 9.94, 95% CI: 7.3-13.5, respectively), readmission (OR: 2.70, 95% CI: 2.1-3.3 and OR: 2.66, 95% CI: 2.2-3.3, respectively), and conversion (OR: 5.51, 95% CI: 4.0-7.5 and OR: 7.43, 95% CI: 5.5-10.1, respectively). PA was associated with an increased LOS of 1.7 days and PAWA with 1.9 days of LOS (95% CI: 1.5-1.8 and 1.7-2.1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Individual features of CA were independently associated with outcomes. Further research is needed to determine if surgical management is superior to nonoperative management for CA.

Predictors and outcomes of converted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data-driven patient selection guidelines are not available to optimize outcomes in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). We aimed to define risk factors associated with conversion from MIPD to open PD and to determine the impact of conversion on post-operative outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of MIPD using NSQIP from 2014 to 2015. Propensity score was used to match patients who underwent completed MIPD to converted MIPD. RESULTS: 467 patients were included: 375 (80.3%) MIPD and 92 (19.7%) converted. Converted patients were more often male (64% vs. 52%, p = 0.030), had higher rates of dyspnea (10% vs. 3%, p = 0.009), underwent more vascular (44% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) or multivisceral resection (19% vs. 6%, p = 0.0005), and were more likely attempted laparoscopically compared to robotically (76% vs. 51%, p < 0.001). Robotic approach was independently associated with reduced risk of conversion (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.69), while male gender (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.84), history of dyspnea (OR 3.85, 95% CI 1.49-9.96), vascular resection (OR 4.32, 95% CI 2.53-7.37), and multivisceral resection (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.05-4.52) were associated with increased risk. Major complications were more common in converted patients (68% vs. 37%, p < 0.001). Converted patients had increased odds of non-home discharge (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.06-9.97) and an associated increased length of stay of 3 days (95% CI 0.1-6.7). CONCLUSION: Patients with a history of dyspnea or tumors requiring vascular or multivisceral resection were at increased risk of conversion, and the robotic platform was associated with a lower rate of conversion. Conversion was independently associated with increased overall complications, increased length of stay, and non-home discharge.

Effect of fragmentation of cancer care on treatment use and survival in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Fragmented cancer care (FC), or care received from multiple institutions, increases systemic health care costs and potentiates cancer care disparities. There is a paucity of data on mechanisms contributing to FC and the resulting effect on patient outcomes. This study characterized patient- and hospital-level factors associated with FC, time to treatment (TTT), and overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with HCC from 2004 to 2015 and receiving treatment were identified in the Texas Cancer Registry. Patient- and hospital-level factors were compared across 2 cohorts: an FC treatment group and a nonfragmented cancer care (NFC) treatment group. Covariate-adjusted treatment use and OS were compared between the 2 treatment groups. RESULTS: Among 4329 patients with HCC, 1185 (27.4%) received FC, and 3144 (72.6%) received NFC. Compared with NFC patients, FC patients had larger tumors (median size ≥4 cm, 52.6% vs 35.2%; P < .001), and a higher proportion had a regional/metastatic stage (35.9% vs 26.7%; P < .001). Among patients with localized disease, FC was associated with decreased odds of curative therapy (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-0.9). FC was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24) and increased TTT (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8). In the subset of patients with localized-stage HCC who received curative therapy, FC was associated with worse OS (median survival, 67 vs 43 months; HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4) and increased TTT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: FC patients were less likely to undergo curative therapy when they were diagnosed at an early stage. After covariate adjustment, newly diagnosed patients with HCC receiving FC had worse OS and increased TTT.

Adjuvant Therapy is Associated with Improved Survival in pT1N1 Gastric Cancer in a Heterogeneous Western Patient Population.

BACKGROUND: Two recent South Korean studies showed adjuvant therapy (AT) was not associated with improved survival in pT1N1 gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). We established the prognostic utility of lymph node status, determined the pattern of use of AT, and compared survival stratified by type of AT in pT1N1 GAC in a Western patient population. METHODS: We identified patients with pT1N0 and pT1N1 GAC using the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2012. Clinicopathologic variables, treatment regimens, and overall survival (OS) were compared. RESULTS: We compared 4516 (86.6%) pT1N0 to 696 (13.4%) pT1N1 patients. pT1N1 tumors were larger (median size 2.5 vs. 1.8 cm, p < 0.001), more often poorly differentiated (56.2% vs. 39.6%, p < 0.001), and had higher median retrieved lymph nodes (RLN) (14 vs. 12, p < 0.001) compared with pT1N0. pT1N1 was associated with worse median overall survival (OS) (6.9 vs. 9.9 years for pT1N0, p < 0.001). pN1 was independently associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84-2.56). Increased RLN was associated with improved OS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.83). Among pT1N1 patients, 330 (47.4%) had observation (OBS), 77 (11.1%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), 68 (9.8%) received adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), and 221 (31.8%) received adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (ACRT). ACT and ACRT were independently associated with improved OS (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22-0.65 and HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28-0.57). CONCLUSIONS: pN1 was associated with worse survival and RLN ≥ 15 was associated with improved survival in pT1 GAC. ACT and ACRT were independently associated with improved survival in pT1N1 gastric cancer suggesting a valuable role in Western patients.

Comparative Analysis of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis- Versus Viral Hepatitis- and Alcohol-Related Liver Disease-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), limited data are available comparing outcomes of NASH-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) versus other etiologies. METHODS: Patient demographic and tumor characteristics were collected for 1,051 patients diagnosed with NASH-, alcohol-related liver disease (ALD)-, hepatitis C virus (HCV)-, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC at 2 large health systems from January 2008 through December 2016. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and survival were compared. Risk-adjusted treatment receipt and overall survival (OS) were examined using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients with NASH-related HCC were compared with 153 patients with ALD-, 719 with HCV-, and 87 with HBV-related HCC. Patients with NASH were older, more likely female, and more likely Hispanic white. Patients with NASH and HBV had more compensated liver disease than those with ALD or HCV, including significantly higher proportions having noncirrhotic HCC. Despite similar surveillance receipt and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) tumor stage at diagnosis, patients with NASH had higher rates of curative-intent therapy than those with other diseases. Unadjusted median OS was 16 months for NASH, 15 months for ALD, 14 months for HCV, and 8 months for HBV. In multivariable analysis, NASH was associated with worse OS compared with ALD (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5), but there was no difference between NASH- and HCV- or HBV-related HCC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NASH-related HCC present with more preserved liver function, including a higher proportion having noncirrhotic HCC, than other diseases. Despite patients having similar tumor stage at diagnosis, NASH is independently associated with worse survival compared with ALD, but similar survival compared with HCV and HBV.

Current Pattern of Use and Impact of Pringle Maneuver in Liver Resections in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Pringle maneuver (PM) is used for inflow vascular control during hepatectomy, but its use remains controversial. We aimed to report its pattern of use and association with postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We identified hepatectomy patients using the liver-targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2016). Associations between PM and posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), receipt of blood transfusion, and total hospital length of stay (LOS) were evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 7870 patients (74.9%) with no Pringle maneuver and 2632 (25.1%) with PM. PM patients were older (median age 61 versus 60 y, P = 0.002) and had higher ASA scores (76.1% versus 71.4% were ASA 3-4, P < 0.001). PM had more malignancy (83.0% versus 73.0%, P < 0.001), neoadjuvant therapy (37.7% versus 28.8%, P < 0.001), total lobectomy (30.6% versus 23.2%, P < 0.001), open resection (90.8% versus 74.9%, P < 0.001), and longer operations (246 min versus 212 min, P < 0.001). PM was associated with longer LOS (0.36 d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.60) and increased risk of PHLF (odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.66), although not clinically significant grade B/C PHLF (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.19), but was not associated with receipt of perioperative blood transfusions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69-1.64). CONCLUSIONS: PM is associated with similar clinically significant PHLF and transfusion requirements but longer LOS compared with no Pringle maneuver.

Incidence and comparative outcomes of periampullary cancer: A population-based analysis demonstrating improved outcomes and increased use of adjuvant therapy from 2004 to 2012.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Periampullary adenocarcinoma (PAC) is stratified anatomically: ampullary adenocarcinoma (AA), distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC), duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA), and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We aimed to determine differences in incidence, prognosis, and treatment in stage-matched PAC patients in a longitudinal study. METHODS: PAC patients were identified in The National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2012. Clinicopathological variables were compared between subtypes. Covariate-adjusted treatment use and OS were compared. RESULTS: The 116 705 patients with PAC were identified: 1320 (9%) AA, 3732 (3%) DCC, 7142 (6%) DA, and 95 511 (82%) PDAC. DA, DCC, and PDAC were associated with worse survival compared with AA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.1-1.1; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.4-1.6, and HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.8-1.9). Among resected patients, DA was associated with improved survival compared with AA (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75); DCC and PDAC were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.53 and HR, 2.041; 95% CI, 1.07-2.12). Resected AA, PDAC, and DA, but not DCC, demonstrated significantly improved survival over the studied period. While all patients had increased adjuvant therapy (AT) receipt over time (P < 0.001), only patients with PDAC had increased neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) receipt ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Resected PDAC, AA, and DA were associated with clinically significant improved survival over time, mirroring a concurrent associated increased receipt of AT.

Comparative outcomes of adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas: An analysis of the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: A paucity of data exists regarding the natural history and outcome measures of adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas (ASCP), a histology distinct from pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this study is to characterize the clinicopathological features of ASCP in a large cohort of patients comparing outcome measures of surgically resected patients to PDAC. METHODS: We identified patients diagnosed with ASCP or PDAC from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2012. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment regimens, and overall survival were analyzed between the groups. RESULTS: We identified 207 073 patients: 205 328 (99%) in the PDAC group and 1745 (1%) in the ASCP group. ASCP tumors were larger, located more frequently in a body/tail location (36% vs 24%, P < 0.001), undifferentiated/anaplastic histology (41% vs 17%, P < 0.001), and early stage presentation, (39% vs 32%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in OS when comparing all patients with PDAC and ASCP (6.2 months and 5.7 months, P = 0.601). In surgical patients ASCP histology was associated with worse OS (14.8 months vs 20.5 months, P < 0.001) but had lower nodal involvement (55% vs 61%, P < 0.001). ASCP histology was independently associated with worse OS, after adjusting for tumor characteristics, treatment, and patient demographics. In patients with only resected ASCP histology, negative lymph node status, R0 surgical resection, and receipt of chemotherapy was independently associated with improved overall survival following surgical resection. CONCLUSION: Although patients with ASCP and PDAC tumors have similar survival when non-surgical and surgical patients are combined, ASCP is associated with worse survival in stage I/II resected patients.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgery on Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy: an ACS NSQIP Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for pancreatic cancer (PC) followed by minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). We evaluate the impact of the surgical approach on 30-day outcomes in PC patients who underwent NAT. METHODS: Patients with PC who had NAT followed by MIPD or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from a pancreatectomy-targeted dataset (2014-2020) of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Comparisons were made between MIPD and OPD within NAT groups. RESULTS: A total of 5588 patients were analyzed. Of those, 4907 underwent OPD and 476 underwent MIPD. In addition, 3559 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone and 1830 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In the chemotherapy-alone group, the MIPD subgroup had lower rates of any complication (38.2% vs. 45.8%, P = 0.005), but there were no differences in mortality (2.1% for MIPD vs 1.9% for OPD, P=0.8) or serious complication (11.8% for MIPD vs 15% for OPD, P=0.1). On multivariable analysis, MIPD was independently predictive of lower rates of any complication (OR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.6-0.93, P = 0.0009), CR-POPF (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.96, P = 0.04), and shorter LOS (estimate: -1.03, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.32, P = 0.004). In the chemoradiation group, patients undergoing MIPD had higher rates of preoperative diabetes (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in any outcomes between the two approaches in this group. CONCLUSION: MIPD is safe and feasible after NAT. Patients having neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by MIPD had lower rates of complications, shorter LOS, and fewer CR-POPFs compared to OPD.

A patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach to treating borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The cancer-related death rate for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has shown little improvement over the past decade, and PDAC is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths by 2030. This is partly because most patients with PDAC present with metastatic (40%) or locally advanced (40%) disease, and only a minority of patients (20%) present with resectable or borderline resectable (BR) PDAC and are considered potential candidates for pancreatectomy, the only curative treatment available. Borderline resectability is a unique category within pancreatic cancer staging that represents tumors that are technically resectable, with or without vascular resection and reconstruction, but that are at high risk of harboring occult metastases at the time of diagnosis or positive margins if pancreatectomy is performed de novo. It assesses multiple dimensions of resectability including anatomy, biology, and condition. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimize each dimension and improve outcomes among patients with BR pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Here, we outline the evolution of the pancreatic cancer staging system as it pertains to surgical resectability, describe the influence this staging system has had on treatment, and review the evidence that guides a multidisciplinary approach to workup, staging, and treatment of patients with BR PDAC.