Evaluation of the MDACC clinical classification system for pancreatic cancer patients in an European multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: The MDACC group recommends to extend the current borderline classification for pancreatic cancer into three groups: type A patients with resectable/borderline tumor anatomy, type B with resectable/borderline resectable tumor anatomy and clinical findings suspicious for extrapancreatic disease and type C with borderline resectable and marginal performance status/severe pre-existing comorbidity profile or age>80. This study intents to evaluate the proposed borderline classification system in a multicenter patient cohort without neoadjuvant treatment. METHODS: Evaluation was based on a multicenter database of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing surgery from 2005 to 2016 (n = 1020). Complications were classified based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. χ2-test, Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression hazard model were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Most patients (55.1%) were assigned as type A patients, followed by type C (35.8%) and type B patients (9.1%). Neither the complication rate, nor the mortality rate revealed a correlation to any subgroup. Type B patients had a significant worse progression free (p < 0.001) and overall survival (p = 0.005). Type B classification was identified as an independent prognostic marker for progression free survival (p = 0.005, HR 1.47). CONCLUSION: The evaluation of the proposed classification in a cohort without neoadjuvant treatment did not justify an additional medical borderline subgroup. A new subgroup based on prognostic borderline patients might be the main target group for neoadjuvant protocols in future.

Resectable invasive IPMN versus sporadic pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: Should these two different diseases receive the same treatment? A matched comparison study of the French Surgical Association (AFC).

PURPOSE: To compare survival and impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IIPMN) and sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: From 2005 to 2012, 240 patients underwent pancreatectomy for IIPMN and 1327 for PDAC. Exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant treatment, pancreatic resection other than PD, vascular resection, carcinoma in situ, or <11 examined lymph nodes. Thus, 82 IIPMN and 506 PDAC were eligible for the present study. Finally, The IIPMN group was matched 1:2 to compose the PDAC group according to TNM disease stage, perineural invasion, lymph node ratio, and margin status. RESULTS: There was no difference in patient's characteristics, intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, and histologic parameters. Overall survival and disease-free survival times were comparable between the 2 groups. In each group, overall survival time was significantly poorer in patients who did not achieve adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.03 for the IIPMN group; p = 0.03 for the PDAC group). In lymph-node negative patients of the IIPMN group, adjuvant chemotherapy did not have any significant impact on overall survival time (OR = 0.57; 95% CI [0.24-1.33]). Considering the whole population (i.e. patients with IIPMN and PDAC; n = 246), patients who did not achieve adjuvant chemotherapy had poorer survival (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The courses of IIPMN and PDAC were similar after an optimized stage-to-stage comparison. Adjuvant chemotherapy was efficient in both groups. However, in lymph node negative patients, adjuvant chemotherapy seemed not to have a significant impact.

ERAS and pancreatic surgery: a review.

Pancreatic surgery is still considered as a high-risk abdominal surgery. While the mortality rate is low, the morbidity remains high ranging from 30 to 60%. In 2012, the ERAS study group published the official recommendations to implement the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing PD. Non-randomized studies have shown that ERAS was safe and feasible. They reported a significantly shortened LOS with lower morbidity in ERAS group. However, the level of evidence remains low due to absence of randomized study and because of a substantial heterogeneity in the content of ERAS protocols. Future studies should be prospective, multicentric and designed with a structured implementation of standardized ERAS pathway.

Locally advanced pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma: pancreatectomy with planned arterial resection based on axial arterial encasement.

Pancreatectomy with arterial resection for locally advanced pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDA) is associated with high morbidity and is thus considered as a contraindication. The aim of our study was to report our experience of pancreatectomy with planned arterial resection for locally advanced PDA based on specific selection criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients receiving pancreatectomy for PDA between October 2008 and July 2014 were reviewed. The patients were classified into group 1, pancreatectomy without vascular resection (66 patients); group 2, pancreatectomy with isolated venous resection (31 patients), and group 3, pancreatectomy with arterial resection for locally advanced PDA (14 patients). The primary selection criteria for arterial resection was the possibility of achieving a complete resection based on the extent of axial encasement, the absence of tumor invasion at the origin of celiac trunk (CT) and superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and a free distal arterial segment allowing reconstruction. Patient outcomes and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Six SMA, two CT, four common hepatic artery, and two replaced right hepatic artery resections were undertaken. The preferred arterial reconstruction was splenic artery transposition. Group 3 had a higher preoperative weight loss, a longer operative time, and a higher incidence of intraoperative blood transfusion. Ninety-day mortality occurred in three patients in groups 1 and 2. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence, grade, and type of complications in the three groups. Postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage were also comparable. In group 3, none had arterial wall invasion and nine patients had recurrence (seven metastatic and two loco-regional). Survival and disease-free survival were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Planned arterial resection for PDA can be performed safely with a good outcome in highly selected patients. Key elements for defining the resectability is based on the extent of the axial arterial encasement with two criteria: the origin of the CT and SMA are free from tumor invasion and the possibility of distal reconstruction.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection: Is It Really the Future?

The introduction and widespread application of minimally invasive surgery has been one of the most important innovations that radically changed the practice of surgery during the last few decades. The application to pancreatic surgery of minimally invasive approach has only recently emerged: both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be competently performed. LDP and LPD are advocated to improved perioperative outcomes, including decreased blood loss, shorter length of stay, reduced postoperative pain and expedited time to functional recovery. However, the indication to minimally invasive approach for pancreatic surgery is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. In this review, we summarize the current data on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, focusing on indication, perioperative and oncological outcomes.

Pancreatic resection in elderly patients: should it be denied?

BACKGROUND: Surgery remains the only potential curative therapy for pancreatic cancer, but compromised physiological reserve and comorbidities may deny pancreatic resection from elderly patients. METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent pancreatic resection at our institution (2005-2012) were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative and long-term outcomes were compared between patients with cutoff age of 70 years. RESULTS: A total of 228 (66 %) and 116 (34 %) patients were <70 and ≥70 years, respectively. Elderly group had worse ASA scores (P < 0.0001) with higher rates of invasive malignant pathologies (75 vs. 67 %, P = 0.14), mainly pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (58.6 vs. 44.7 %, P = 0.01). The most common type of resection was pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (59 %), followed by distal pancreatectomy (19.8 %). Mean hospital stay was comparable. Elderly patients had less grade ≥IIIb postoperative complications (12 vs. 20.1 %; P = 0.04) and higher postoperative mortality rates (12.9 vs. 3.9 %; P = 0.04). In multivariable Cox proportional hazards model for postoperative mortality, age ≥ 70 years (HR, 3.5; 95 % CI, 1.3-9.3), pancreaticoduodenectomy (HR, 12.6; 95 % CI, 1.6-96), and intraoperative blood loss were significant (P = 0.012; P = 0.015, and P = 0.005, respectively). The overall 5-year survival rates for all patients, for patients aged <70 and ≥70 years were 56, 55, and 41 %, respectively (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients are at higher risk of mortality after pancreatic resection than usually reported case series. Nonetheless, elderly patients can undergo pancreatic resection with acceptable 5-year survival results. Our results contribute for a better, informed decision-making for elderly patients and their family.