Search

Importance: International guidelines lack consistency in their recommendations regarding routine imaging in the follow-up after pancreatic resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Consequently, follow-up strategies differ between centers worldwide., Objective: To compare clinical outcomes, including recurrence-focused treatment and survival, in patients with PDAC recurrence who received symptomatic follow-up or routine imaging after pancreatic resection in international centers affiliated with the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, international, cross-sectional study. Patients from a total of 33 E-AHPBA centers from 13 countries were included between 2020 and 2021. According to the predefined study protocol, patients who underwent PDAC resection and were diagnosed with disease recurrence were prospectively included. Patients were stratified according to postoperative follow-up strategy: symptomatic follow-up (ie, without routine imaging) or routine imaging., Exposures: Symptomatic follow-up or routine imaging in patients who underwent PDAC resection., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival (OS) was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test. To adjust for potential confounders, multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between follow-up strategy and recurrence-focused treatment. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to study the independent association between follow-up strategy and OS., Results: Overall, 333 patients (mean [SD] age, 65 [11] years; 184 male [55%]) with PDAC recurrence were included. Median (IQR) follow-up at time of analysis 2 years after inclusion of the last patient was 40 (30-58) months. Of the total cohort, 98 patients (29%) received symptomatic follow-up, and 235 patients (71%) received routine imaging. OS was 23 months (95% CI, 19-29 months) vs 28 months (95% CI, 24-30 months) in the groups who received symptomatic follow-up vs routine imaging, respectively (P = .01). Routine imaging was associated with receiving recurrence-focused treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.22-5.41; P = .01) and prolonged OS (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-.99; P = .04)., Conclusion and Relevance: In this international, prospective, cross-sectional study, routine follow-up imaging after pancreatic resection for PDAC was independently associated with receiving recurrence-focused treatment and prolonged OS.

Background: Novel definitions suggest that resectability status for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) should be assessed beyond anatomical criteria, considering both biological and conditional factors. This has, however, yet to be validated on a nationwide scale. This study evaluated the prognostic value of biological and conditional factors for staging of patients with resectable PDAC., Patients and Methods: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed, including all consecutive patients who underwent upfront resection of National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectable PDAC in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on preoperative carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. PDAC was considered biologically unfavorable (R B+ ) if CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL and favorable (R B- ) otherwise. ECOG ≥ 2 was considered conditionally unfavorable (R C+ ) and favorable otherwise (R C- ). Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-proportional hazard analysis, presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Overall, 688 patients were analyzed with a median overall survival (OS) of 20 months (95% CI 19-23). OS was 14 months (95% CI 10 months-median not reached) in 20 R B+C+ patients (3%; HR 1.61, 95% CI 0.86-2.70), 13 months (95% CI 11-15) in 156 R B+C- patients (23%; HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.50-2.31), and 21 months (95% CI 12-41) in 47 R B-C+ patients (7%; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80-1.62) compared with 24 months (95% CI 22-27) in 465 patients with R B-C- PDAC (68%; reference)., Conclusions: Survival after upfront resection of anatomically resectable PDAC is worse in patients with CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL, while performance status had no impact. This supports consideration of CA19-9 in preoperative staging of resectable PDAC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: This nationwide multicenter study aimed to define clinically relevant thresholds of relative serum CA19-9 response after 2 months of induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)., Background: CA19-9 is seen as leading biomarker for response evaluation in patients with LAPC, but early clinically useful cut-offs are lacking., Methods: All consecutive patients with LAPC after 4 cycles (m)FOLFIRINOX or 2 cycles gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel induction chemotherapy (±radiotherapy) with CA19-9 ≥5 U/mL at baseline were analyzed (2015-2019). The association of CA19-9 response with median OS (mOS) was evaluated for different CA19-9 cut-off points. Minimum and optimal CA19-9 response were established via log-rank test. Predictors for OS were analyzed using COX regression analysis., Results: Overall, 212 patients were included, of whom 42 (19.8%) underwent resection. Minimum CA19-9 response demonstrating a clinically significant median OS difference (12.7 vs. 19.6 months) was seen at ≥40% CA19-9 decrease. The optimal cutoff for CA19-9 response was ≥60% decrease (21.7 vs. 14.0 mo, P =0.021). Only for patients with elevated CA19-9 levels at baseline (n=184), CA19-9 decrease ≥60% [hazard ratio (HR)=0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98, P =0.042] was independently associated with prolonged OS, as were SBRT (HR=0.42, 95% CI, 0.25-0.70; P =0.001), and resection (HR=0.25, 95% CI, 0.14-0.46, P <0.001), and duration of chemotherapy (HR=0.75, 95% CI, 0.69-0.82, P <0.001)., Conclusions: CA19-9 decrease of ≥60% following induction chemotherapy as optimal response cut-off in patients with LAPC is an independent predictor for OS when CA19-9 is increased at baseline. Furthermore, ≥40% is the minimum cut-off demonstrating survival benefit. These cut-offs may be used when discussing treatment strategies during early response evaluation., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal., Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients)., Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score)., Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

Objective: To develop a prediction model for long-term (≥5 years) disease-free survival (DFS) after the resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)., Background: Despite high recurrence rates, ~10% of patients have long-term DFS after PDAC resection. A model to predict long-term DFS may aid individualized prognostication and shared decision-making., Methods: This nationwide cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2016). The best-performing prognostic model was selected by Cox-proportional hazard analysis and Akaike's Information Criterion, presented by hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Internal validation was performed, and discrimination and calibration indices were assessed., Results: In all, 836 patients with a median follow-up of 67 months (interquartile range 51-79) were analyzed. Long-term DFS was seen in 118 patients (14%). Factors predictive of long-term DFS were low preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (logarithmic; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.10-1.32), no vascular resection (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12-1.58), T1 or T2 tumor stage (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.04, and HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.98-1.39, respectively), well/moderate tumor differentiation (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.22-1.68), absence of perineural and lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11-1.81 and HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96-1.36, respectively), N0 or N1 nodal status (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.54-2.40, and HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.11-1.60, respectively), R0 resection margin status (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07-1.46), no major complications (HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.97-1.35) and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.74; 95% CI 1.47-2.06). Moderate performance (concordance index 0.68) with adequate calibration (slope 0.99) was achieved., Conclusions: The developed prediction model, readily available at www.pancreascalculator.com, can be used to estimate the probability of long-term DFS after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The number of elderly patients with pancreatic cancer is growing, however clinical data on the short-term outcomes, rate of adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival in these patients are limited and we therefore performed a nationwide analysis., Methods: Data from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit were analyzed, including all patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection between January 2014 and December 2016. Patients were classified into two age groups: <75 and ≥75 years. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher), 90-day mortality, rates of adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival were compared between age groups. Factors associated with start of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival were evaluated with logistic regression and multivariable Cox regression analysis., Results: Of 836 patients, 198 were aged ≥75 years (24%) and 638 were aged <75 years (76%). Median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range [IQR] 31-47). Major complications (31% vs. 28%; p = 0.43) and 90-day mortality (8% vs. 5%; p = 0.18) did not differ. Adjuvant chemotherapy was started in 37% of patients aged ≥75 years versus 69% of patients aged <75 years (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 15 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-18) versus 21 months (95% CI 19-24; p < 0.001). Age ≥75 years was not independently associated with OS (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.79-1.17; p = 0.71), but was associated with a lower rate of adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.40; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The rate of major complications and 90-day mortality after pancreatic resection did not differ between elderly and younger patients; however, elderly patients were less often treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and their OS was shorter., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: This study aimed to identify predictors for early and very early disease recurrence in patients undergoing resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) resection with and without neoadjuvant therapy., Methods: Included were patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Multivariable multinomial regression was performed to identify preoperative predictors for manifestation of recurrence within 3, 6 and 12 months after PDAC resection., Results: 836 patients with a median follow-up of 37 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-48) months and overall survival of 18 (IQR 10-32) months were analyzed. 670 patients (80%) developed recurrence: 82 patients (10%) <3 months, 96 patients (11%) within 3-6 months and 226 patients (27%) within 6-12 months. LogCA 19-9 (OR 1.25 [95% CI 1.10-1.41]; P < 0.001) and neoadjuvant treatment (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.01-0.68]; P = 0.02) were associated with recurrence <3 months. LogCA 19-9 (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.10-1.38]; P < 0.001) and 0-90° venous involvement on CT imaging (OR 2.93 [95% CI 1.60-5.37]; P < 0.001) were associated with recurrence within 3-6 months. A Charlson Age Comorbidity Index ≥4 (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.09-2.16]; P = 0.02) and logCA 19-9 (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.14-1.35]; P < 0.001) were related to recurrence within 6-12 months., Conclusion: This study demonstrates preoperative predictors that are associated with the manifestation of early and very early recurrence after PDAC resection. Knowledge of these predictors can be used to guide individualized surveillance and treatment strategies., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate whether detection of recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in an early, asymptomatic stage increases the number of patients receiving additional treatment, subsequently improving survival., Summary of Background Data: International guidelines disagree on the value of standardized postoperative surveillance for early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence., Methods: A nationwide, observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Prospective baseline and perioperative data were retrieved from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Data on follow-up, treatment, and survival were collected retrospectively. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression analysis, before and after propensity-score matching, stratified for patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic recurrence., Results: Eight hundred thirty-six patients with a median follow-up of 37 months (interquartile range 30-48) were analyzed. Of those, 670 patients (80%) developed PDAC recurrence after a median follow-up of 10 months (interquartile range 5-17). Additional treatment was performed in 159/511 patients (31%) with symptomatic recurrence versus 77/159 (48%) asymptomatic patients (P < 0.001). After propensity-score matching on lymph node ratio, adjuvant therapy, disease-free survival, and recurrence site, additional treatment was independently associated with improved OS for both symptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.42-0.67); P < 0.001] and asymptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.29-0.70); P < 0.001]., Conclusions: Additional treatment of PDAC recurrence was independently associated with improved OS, with asymptomatic patients having a higher probability to receive recurrence treatment. Therefore, standardized postoperative surveillance aiming to detect PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms has the potential to improve survival. This provides a rationale for prospective studies on standardized surveillance after PDAC resection., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Biological sex, gender and age have an impact on the incidence and outcome in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study is to investigate whether biological sex, gender and age are associated with treatment allocation and overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in a nationwide cohort. Methods: Patients with synchronous metastatic pancreatic cancer diagnosed between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). The association between biological sex and the probability of receiving systemic treatment were examined with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Kaplan Meier analyses with log-rank test were used to describe OS. Results: A total of 7470 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer were included in this study. Fourty-eight percent of patients were women. Women received less often systemic treatment (26% vs. 28%, P=0.03), as compared to men. Multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for confounders showed that women ≤55 years of age, received more often systemic treatment (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.24-2.68) compared to men of the same age group. In contrast, women at >55 years of age had a comparable probability to receive systemic treatment compared to men of the same age groups. After adjustment for confounders, women had longer OS compared to men (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93). Conclusion: This study found that women in general had a lower probability of receiving systemic treatment compared to men, but this can mainly be explained by age differences. Women had better OS compared to men after adjustment for confounders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]