Search

Megan M Boniface,1 Sachin B Wani,2 Tracey E Schefter,3 Phillip J Koo,4 Cheryl Meguid,1 Stephen Leong,5 Jeffrey B Kaplan,6 Lisa J Wingrove,7 Martin D McCarter1 1Section of Surgical Oncology, Division of GI, Tumor and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Therapeutic and Interventional Endoscopy, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, 4Division of Radiology-Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, 5Division of Medical Oncology, 6Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Denver, 7Department of Food and Nutrition Services, University of Colorado Hospital Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA Abstract: The management of esophageal and gastric cancer is complex and involves multiple specialists in an effort to optimize patient outcomes. Utilizing a multidisciplinary team approach starting from the initial staging evaluation ensures that all members are in agreement with the plan of care. Treatment selection for esophageal and gastric cancer often involves a combination of chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and palliative interventions (endoscopic and surgical), and direct communication between specialists in these fields is needed to ensure appropriate clinical decision making. At the University of Colorado, the Esophageal and Gastric Multidisciplinary Clinic was created to bring together all experts involved in treating these diseases at a weekly conference in order to provide patients with coordinated, individualized, and patient-centered care. This review details the essential elements and benefits of building a multidisciplinary program focused on treating esophageal and gastric cancer patients. Keywords: tumor board, upper gastrointestinal malignancies, patient centered

Cheryl Meguid,1 Carrie E Ryan,2 Barish H Edil,1 Richard D Schulick,1 Csaba Gajdos,1 Megan Boniface,1 Tracey E Schefter,3 W Thomas Purcell,4 Martin McCarter1 1Department of Surgery, Division of GI, Tumor, and Endocrine Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, CO, 2Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, 4Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, CO, USA Abstract: While most providers support the concept of a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, challenges exist to the implementation of successful multidisciplinary clinical programs. As patients become more knowledgeable about their disease through research on the Internet, they seek hospital programs that offer multidisciplinary care. At the University of Colorado Hospital, we utilize a formal multidisciplinary approach across a variety of clinical settings, which has been beneficial to patients, providers, and the hospital. We present a reproducible framework to be used as a guide to develop a successful multidisciplinary program. Keywords: multidisciplinary clinic, patient centered, tumor board

Background: Assessment of individual tumor biology and response to systemic therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a clinical challenge. The significance of anthropometric (body composition) changes during chemotherapy as a surrogate for tumor biology in the setting of localized PDAC is unknown., Methods: A retrospective, single-institution analysis of patients with PDAC who received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and pancreatectomy from 2017 to 2021 was performed. Radiologic anthropometric analysis used artificial intelligence-driven software to segment and compute total and sub-compartment muscle area, adipose tissue area, and attenuation values at the level of the L3 vertebra. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression models were used in survival analyses., Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 138 patients. Although decreases in muscle and adipose tissue areas during NAT were predominant, a subset of patients experienced an increase in these compartments. Increases in muscle greater than 5% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.352; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.135-0.918; p = 0.033) and increases in adipose tissue greater than 15% (HR, 0.375; 95% CI 0.144-0.978; p = 0.045), were significantly associated with improved survival, whereas loss of visceral fat greater than 15% was detrimental (HR 1.853; CI 1.099-3.124; p = 0.021). No significant associations with single time-point anthropometrics were observed. Gains in total muscle and adipose mass were associated with improved pathologic response to systemic therapy and less advanced pathologic tumor stage., Conclusions: Dynamic anthropometric analysis during NAT for PDAC is a stronger prognostic indicator than measurements taken at a single point in time. Repeated anthropometric analysis during preoperative chemotherapy may serve as a biomarker for individual tumor biology and response to therapy., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Introduction: It is common for cancer patients to seek a second opinion for a variety of reasons. Understanding what drives patients to choose to receive treatment with their second opinion provider may uncover opportunities to improve the second opinion process. Therefore, we sought to identify the patient, disease, and treatment characteristics that were associated with second opinion retention rates in patients seeking a second surgical opinion for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate patients who sought a second opinion within a large academic health-care system for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer. Electronic medical records were reviewed for second opinions. Patient demographics and characteristics were collected and compared between the retained group and the nonretained groups., Results: A total of 237 patients obtained second opinions for breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer. Patients that were offered a different treatment plan at their second opinion were more likely to be retained for systemic therapy (P = 0.009) for pancreatic cancer and any treatment for colon cancer (P = 0.003). Seeing a radiation oncologist (P = 0.007) or a plastic surgeon (P = 0.02) during the multidisciplinary consultation increased retention rates for breast cancer., Conclusions: Surgeons can better identify patients that are more likely to be retained after a second opinion by the individual patient characteristics and treatment factors. Understanding the factors that lead to retention for these three cancer types may help physicians provide the best possible resources for most patients presenting for second opinion evaluations., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Learning health networks (LHNs) improve clinical outcomes by applying core tenets of continuous quality improvements (QI) to reach community-defined outcomes, data-sharing, and empowered interdisciplinary teams including patients and caregivers. LHNs provide an ideal environment for the rapid adoption of evidence-based guidelines and translation of research and best practices at scale. When an LHN is established, it is critical to understand the needs of all stakeholders. To accomplish this, we used ethnographic methods to develop personas of different stakeholders within The Canopy Cancer Collective, the first oncology LHN., Methods: We partnered with a firm experienced in qualitative research and human-centered design to conduct interviews with stakeholders of The Canopy Cancer Collective, a newly developed pancreatic cancer LHN. Together with the firm, we developed a personas model approach to represent the wide range of diverse perspectives among the representative stakeholders, which included care team members, patients, and caregivers., Results: Thirty-one stakeholders from all facets of pancreatic cancer care were interviewed, including 20 care team members, 8 patients, and 3 caregivers. Interview transcripts were analyzed to construct 10 personas felt to represent the broad spectrum of stakeholders within The Cancer Canopy Collective. These personas were used as a foundation for the design and development of The Cancer Canopy Cancer Collective key drivers and aims., Conclusions: As LHNs continue to facilitate comprehensive approaches to patient-centered care, interdisciplinary teams who understand each other's needs can improve Network unity and cohesion. We present the first model utilizing personas for LHNs, demonstrating this framework holds significant promise for further study. If validated, such an approach could be used as a dynamic foundation for understanding individual stakeholder needs in similar LHN ecosystems in the future., Competing Interests: Joseph Herman reports consulting for Boston Scientific and consulting and stock ownership at Histosonics. All affiliate sites receive research funding from The Canopy Cancer Collective and 1440 Foundation. There are no other conflicts to disclose related to the material discussed in this manuscript., (© 2024 The Authors. Learning Health Systems published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of University of Michigan.)

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a heterogenous disease with poor 5-year overall survival (OS) at 14%. Patients with mRCC to endocrine organs historically have prolonged OS. Pancreatic metastases are uncommon overall, with mRCC being the most common etiology of pancreatic metastases. In this study, we report the long-term outcomes of patients with mRCC to the pancreas in two separate cohorts., Methods: We performed a multicenter, international retrospective cohort study of patients with mRCC to the pancreas at 15 academic centers. Cohort 1 included 91 patients with oligometastatic disease to the pancreas. Cohort 2 included 229 patients with multiples organ sites of metastases including the pancreas. The primary endpoint for Cohorts 1 and 2 was median OS from time of metastatic disease in the pancreas until death or last follow up., Findings: In Cohort 1, the median OS (mOS) was 121 months with a median follow up time of 42 months. Patients who underwent surgical resection of oligometastatic disease had mOS of 100 months with a median follow-up time of 52.5 months. The mOS for patients treated with systemic therapy was not reached. In Cohort 2, the mOS was 90.77 months. Patients treated with first-line (1L) VEGFR therapy had mOS of 90.77 months; patients treated with IL immunotherapy (IO) had mOS of 92 months; patients on 1L combination VEGFR/IO had mOS of 74.9 months., Interpretations: This is the largest retrospective cohort of mRCC involving the pancreas. We confirmed the previously reported long-term outcomes in patients with oligometastatic pancreas disease and demonstrated prolonged survival in patients with multiple RCC metastases that included the pancreas. In this retrospective study with heterogeneous population treated over 2 decades, mOS was similar when stratified by first-line therapy. Future research will be needed to determine whether mRCC patients with pancreatic metastases require a different initial treatment strategy., Funding: Statistical analyses for this study were supported in part by the University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant from the NIH/NCI, P30CA046934-30., Competing Interests: ETL has received institutional research support from Amgen, Inc., Argos Therapeutics, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Astellas Pharma, Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Biosplice Therapeutics, Inc., Calithera Biosciences, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Exelixis, Forma Therapeutics, Genentech/F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., OnQuality Pharmaceuticals LLC, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Inc., Promontory Therapeutics, Inc (formerly Phosplatin). AM has received relevant institutional research funding from Acerta Pharma, Genentech, Roche, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Astellas Pharma, Mirati Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Debiopharm Group. AM has received consulting fees from Debiopharm Group, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer. LH reports grants to prior institution from Bristol-Myers Squib, Merck, and Takeda. As well as current employment (including stock options) at Surface Oncology outside the submitted work. LH reports advisory or consulting services for Genentech, Pfizer, Corvus, Merck, Exelixis, Novartis, Jounce, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serrano. LH reports honoraria for lectures/presentations for Michael J Hennessy Associates (Healthcare Communications Company and several brands such as OncLive and PER), ASIM CME, and Ology Medical Education. LH receives support from Genentech for travel outside of the submitted work. JB reports relevant institutional research funding from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center SPORE in Kidney Cancer (NIH P50 CA196516). NA reports consulting fees from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics. NA reports institutional research funding from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Celldex, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Medivation, Merck, Nektar, New Link Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Tracon. RM reports consulting fees from Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Caris, Dendreon, Exelixis, JNJ, Novartis, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sorrento Therapeutics, Telix, Tempus. VN reports institutional research funding from Pfizer, Merck, Jenssen, Bristol Myers Squibb. BN reports consulting fees from Merck, Janssen, Myovanat Sciences, Exelixis. BN reports honoraria from Pfizer. ND reports consulting fees from Vivreon Gastrosciences Inc. NM reports participation in data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MDS, Ipsen, BMS, and Astellas. TR reports institutional research funding from National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (grant number 1K08CA248967-01). SG reports institutional research funding from Aravive, Agensys, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis Inc, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Surface Oncology. SG reports consulting fees from Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BMS, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis Inc, Merck, Immunomedics, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics; and honoraria from Aptitude Health, Curio Science, and DAVA Oncology. YZ reports advisory board participation with Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, Novartis, Janssen, Eisai, Exelixis, Castle Bioscience, Genzyme Corporation, Astrazeneca, Array, Bayer, Pfizer, Clovis, EMD serono, Myovant. YZ reports data safety monitoring board participation with Janssen Research and Development. All other authors have nothing to declare.

Background: Current evidence on overall survival (OS) between invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) is limited to single-center reports. We aimed to compare the characteristics, management, and OS of invasive PDAC vs. IPMN using a national United States (US) database., Methods: Invasive PDAC or IPMN adult (≥18 years) patients were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2016). OS was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method and the stratified log-rank test., Results: We included 101,190 patients (100,834 PDAC, 356 IPMN). A higher proportion of PDAC vs. IPMN patients had clinical N1 (36.8% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.001) and M1 disease (41.2% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001). A lower proportion of PDAC patients underwent surgery (25.5% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.001), but a higher proportion received chemotherapy (65.4% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.001) or radiation (25.3% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.04). A higher proportion of surgical patients with PDAC vs. IPMN underwent margin-positive resection (23.0% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.001). The median OS for PDAC vs. IPMN was 8.3 vs. 33.4 months. In the stratified analysis for N0M0 disease, the median OS for PDAC vs. IPMN was 12.8 vs. 43.3 months, for N1M0, it was 11.5 vs. 17.0 months, while for M1, it was 4.0 vs. 7.0 months. In both diagnoses, surgery yielded improved OS, while stratified analysis in the surgical cohort demonstrated similar findings., Conclusions: Invasive PDAC is more aggressive than invasive IPMN, yet in the case of metastasis, OS is equally poor. Excellent long-term OS is achievable with surgical resection in highly selected cases, and efforts should focus on facilitating surgical treatment.

Background: Neoadjuvant treatment is important for improving the rate of R0 surgical resection and overall survival outcome in treating patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the true efficacy of radiotherapy (RT) for neoadjuvant treatment of PDAC is uncertain. This retrospective study evaluated the treatment outcome of neoadjuvant RT in the treatment of PDAC., Methods: Collected from the National Cancer Database, information on patients with PDAC who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and pancreatectomy between 2010 to 2016 was used in this study. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) and NAC., Results: The study included 6936 patients, of whom 3185 received NACRT and 3751 NAC. The groups showed no difference in overall survival (NACRT 16.1 months versus NAC 17.4 months; P = 0.054). NACRT is associated with more frequent margin negative resection (86.1 versus 80.0 per cent; P < 0.001) but a more unfavourable 90-day mortality than NAC (6.4 versus 3.6 per cent; P < 0.001). The odds of 90-day mortality were higher in the radiotherapy group (odds ratio 1.81; P < 0.001), even after adjusting for significant covariates. Patients who received NACRT received single-agent chemotherapy more often than those who received NAC (31.5 versus 10.7 per cent; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: This study failed to show a survival benefit for NACRT over NAC alone, despite its association with negative margin resection. The significantly higher mortality in NACRT warrants further investigation into its efficacy in the treatment of pancreatic cancer., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To identify objective preoperative prognostic factors that are able to predict long-term survival of patients affected by PDAC., Summary of Background Data: In the modern era of improved systemic chemotherapy for PDAC, tumor biology, and response to chemotherapy are essential in defining prognosis and an improved approach is needed for classifying resectability beyond purely anatomic features., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database regarding patients diagnosed with PDAC from 2010 to 2016. Cox proportional hazard models were used to select preoperative baseline factors significantly associated with survival; final models for overall survival (OS) were internally validated and formed the basis of the nomogram., Results: A total of 7849 patients with PDAC were included with a median follow-up of 19 months. On multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with OS included carbohydrate antigen 19-9, neoadjuvant treatment, tumor size, age, facility type, Charlson/Deyo score, primary site, and sex; T4 stage was not independently associated with OS. The cumulative score was used to classify patients into 3 groups: good, intermediate, and poor prognosis, respectively. The strength of our model was validated by a highly significant randomization test, Log-rank test, and simple hazard ratio; the concordance index was 0.59., Conclusion: This new PDAC nomogram, based solely on preoperative variables, could be a useful tool to patients and counseling physicians in selecting therapy. This model suggests a new concept of resectability that is meant to reflect the biology of the tumor, thus partially overcoming existing definitions, that are mainly based on tumor anatomic features., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is likely to become the second leading cause of malignancy-associated mortality within the next 10 years and surgery remains the best hope for cure. The introduction of effective neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) has increased the resection rate of PC in the era of contemporary pancreatology. This review summarizes the surgical selection criteria for locally advanced PC (LAPC), by focusing on the commonly used predictors for resectability and better overall survival outcome. Based on the currently available evidence, the role of change in carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) and patient's tumor response to NAT are critical in surgical candidacy selection. Although, consensus on surgical candidacy selection for LAPC still needs to be made, several data have shown that surgery provides the most optimistic chance of cure for PC. Surgery is, therefore, recommended whenever the benefits of pancreatectomy outweigh surgical complications, and the chance of local or distant metastases in the postoperative setting is low. This review also provided our insight for and experience in selecting surgical candidates by focusing on optimizing the overall survival of LAPC patients. Nevertheless, a collaborative approach to formulating standardized criteria for surgical candidate selection and treatment guidelines for LAPC is a common goal that pancreatologists worldwide should focus on., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/10.21037/jgo-21-119). The series “Surgery for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. Dr. MDC is a co-principal investigator on a Boston Scientific study investigating the role of intraoperative pancreatoscopy in IPMN patients. Dr. MDC has also been awarded an industry grant from Haemonetics Inc. to conduct a multicenter study that evaluates the prognostic implications and changes of thromboelastographic (TEG) in pancreas cancer patients. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with borderline resectable pancreas cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreas cancer (LAPC) remains controversial., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated BRPC and LAPC patients treated at our institution who underwent 2-3 months of chemotherapy followed by SBRT to a dose of 30-33 Gy. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were estimated and compared by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods., Results: We identified 103 (85 BRPC and 18 LAPC) patients treated per our neoadjuvant paradigm between 2011 and 2018, with resectability based on NCCN definitions. Median follow up was 25 months. Of patients completing neoadjuvant therapy, 73 (71%) underwent definitive resection. Seventy-one (97%) patients with definitively resected tumors had R0 resection and 5 (7%) had a complete pathologic response CR to neoadjuvant therapy. The median overall survival (OS) of the cohort was 24 months. Those with a complete or marked pathologic response had significantly better OS than those with a moderate response (41 vs 24 months, p < 0.02) and patients unable to undergo definitive surgery (17 months, p < 0.0003). Six resected patients experienced grade ≥3 surgical complications., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and SBRT are associated with promising pathologic response rates and R0 resection rates, with acceptable perioperative morbidity., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Stromal fibrosis activates prosurvival and proepithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) pathways in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In patient tumors treated with neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), we found upregulation of fibrosis, extracellular matrix (ECM), and EMT gene signatures, which can drive therapeutic resistance and tumor invasion. Molecular, functional, and translational analysis identified two cell-surface proteins, a disintegrin and metalloprotease 10 (ADAM10) and ephrinB2, as drivers of fibrosis and tumor progression after radiation therapy (RT). RT resulted in increased ADAM10 expression in tumor cells, leading to cleavage of ephrinB2, which was also detected in plasma. Pharmacologic or genetic targeting of ADAM10 decreased RT-induced fibrosis and tissue tension, tumor cell migration, and invasion, sensitizing orthotopic tumors to radiation killing and prolonging mouse survival. Inhibition of ADAM10 and genetic ablation of ephrinB2 in fibroblasts reduced the metastatic potential of tumor cells after RT. Stimulation of tumor cells with ephrinB2 FC protein reversed the reduction in tumor cell invasion with ADAM10 ablation. These findings represent a model of PDAC adaptation that explains resistance and metastasis after RT and identifies a targetable pathway to enhance RT efficacy. SIGNIFICANCE: Targeting a previously unidentified adaptive resistance mechanism to radiation therapy in PDAC tumors in combination with radiation therapy could increase survival of the 40% of PDAC patients with locally advanced disease. See related commentary by Garcia Garcia et al., p. 3158 GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/81/12/3255/F1.large.jpg., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) are common but difficult to manage since accurate tools for diagnosing malignancy are unavailable. This study tests the diagnostic value of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter for detecting IPMN malignancy using a meta-analysis of published data of resected IPMNs. Collected from a comprehensive literature search, the articles included in this analysis must report malignancy cases (high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and invasive carcinoma (IC)) and MPD diameter so that two MPD cut-offs could be created. The sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratios of the two cutoffs for predicting malignancy were calculated. A review of 1493 articles yielded 20 retrospective studies with 3982 resected cases. A cutoff of ≥5 mm is more sensitive than the ≥10 mm cutoff and has pooled sensitivity of 72.20% and 75.60% for classification of HGD and IC, respectively. Both MPD cutoffs of ≥5 mm and ≥10 mm were associated with malignancy (OR = 4.36 (95% CI: 2.82, 6.75) vs. OR = 3.18 (95% CI: 2.25, 4.49), respectively). The odds of HGD and IC for patients with MPD ≥5 mm were 5.66 (95% CI: 3.02, 10.62) and 7.40 (95% CI: 4.95, 11.06), respectively. OR of HGD and IC for MPD ≥10 mm cutoff were 4.36 (95% CI: 3.20, 5.93) and 4.75 (95% CI: 2.39, 9.45), respectively. IPMN with MPD of >5 mm could very likely be malignant. In selected IPMN patients, pancreatectomy should be considered when MPD is >5 mm.

Background/objectives: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are common, among which 13%-23% are serous cystic neoplasms (SCNs). However, diffuse and multifocal variants of SCNs are extremely rare. The differential diagnosis of SCNs from other PCNs is important as the former entities are benign and do not become invasive., Objective: This study analyzes the clinical characteristics of multifocal/diffuse SCN through a systematic review of the literature and a case report., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was executed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. The search strategy was designed to capture the concept of multifocal/diffuse SCN cases with sufficient clinical information for detailed analysis. Using the final included articles, we analyzed tumor characteristics, diagnostic modalities used, initial management and indications, and patient outcomes., Results: A review of 262 articles yielded 19 publications with 22 cases that had detailed clinical information. We presented an additional case from our institution database. The systematic review of 23 cases revealed that the diffuse variant is more common than the multifocal variant (15 vs 8 cases, respectively). Patients were managed with surgical intervention, conservative treatment, or conservative treatment followed by surgical intervention. Indications for surgery following conservative management mainly included new onset or worsening of symptoms. Only one case reported significant tumor growth after attempting an observational approach. No articles reported recurrence of SCN after pancreatectomy, and no articles reported mortality related to multifocal/diffuse SCNs., Conclusion: Despite their expansive-growing and space-occupying characteristics, multifocal/diffuse SCNs should be treated similarly to their more common unifocal counterpart., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study was designed to compare quality of life (QoL) among patients who underwent open versus laparoscopic pancreatic resection, including distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, and to identify clinical characteristics that are associated with changes in QoL., Methods: Quality of life (QoL) was assessed in patients undergoing pancreatic resection with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary questionnaire preoperatively and 2 weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Multilevel regression modeling was used to determine the variability in each QoL domain within the first 2 weeks (postoperative period) and thereafter (recovery period)., Results: Among 159 patients, 60.4% underwent open and 39.6% underwent laparoscopic surgery. Physical, functional, hepatobiliary, and total QoL scores decreased in the postoperative period but returned to baseline levels by 6 months postoperatively. Emotional QoL improved from baseline by 2 weeks after surgery (p < 0.001) and social QoL improved from baseline by 3 months after surgery (p < 0.001). Emotional QoL was the only domain where significant differences were observed in QoL in the postoperative and recovery periods between patients who underwent open and laparoscopic pancreatic resection. Controlling for surgical approach, patients who experienced a grade III or IV complication experienced greater declines in physical, functional, hepatobiliary, and total QoL in the postoperative period. The negative impact of complications on QoL resolved by 6 months postoperatively., Conclusions: The impact of pancreatic resection on QoL was comparable between patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection. Complications were strongly associated with changes in postoperative QoL, suggesting that performing a safe operation is the best approach for optimizing patient reported QoL.

Background and Objectives: To compare outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with those receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma., Methods: We analyzed patients receiving neoadjuvant SBRT for borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) (2012-2016). Differences in baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared., Results: Seventy-five (82.4%) patients received SBRT and 16 (17.6%) received IMRT. There were no differences in surgical resection rates in the SBRT (n = 38, 50.7%) and IMRT (n = 11, 68.8%) groups (P = 0.188). Among resected patients, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes or pathologic outcomes including lymph node status, margin status, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, or pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment (P > 0.05). Among all patients, median PFS and OS were 9.9 and 23.5 months in the SBRT group, respectively, and 15.3 and 21.8 months in the IMRT group, respectively (P > 0.05). Similarly, there was no difference in PFS or OS between groups when stratified by BRPC, LAPC, and surgically resected patients (P > 0.05)., Conclusions: In the neoadjuvant setting, SBRT and IMRT appear to have similar rates of resection, perioperative outcomes, and survival outcomes, but additional studies with increased sample size and longer follow up are needed., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Context: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer to facilitate surgical resection., Objective: To compare progression free survival and overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with those receiving gemcitabine/abraxane., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: University of Colorado Hospital from 2012-2016., Participants: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma., Interventions: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/abraxane., Outcome Measures: Perioperative outcomes, progression free survival, and overall survival were compared between groups. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was applied to evaluate survival outcomes., Results: We identified 120 patients: 83 (69.2%) FOLFIRINOX and 37 (30.8%) gemcitabine/abraxane. The FOLIFRINOX group was younger and had a lower ECOG performance status (p<0.05). Patients in the FOLFIRINOX group were more likely to undergo surgical resection compared to gemcitabine/abraxane (66.3% vs. 32.4%, p=0.002). Among all patients, median follow up was 16.9 months and FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved PFS (15.3 vs. 8.2 months, p=0.006), but not overall survival (23.5 vs. 18.7 months, p=0.228). In these patients, insulin-dependent diabetes was associated with a worse progression free survival and overall survival and surgical resection was protective. Among surgically resected patients, median follow up was 21.1 months and there was no difference in progression free survival (19.5 vs. 15.1 months) or overall survival (27.4 vs. 19.8 months) between the FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/abraxane groups, respectively (p>0.05). Insulin-dependent diabetes and a poor-to-moderate pathologic response was associated with worse progression free survival and overall survival., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX may improve progression free survival by increasing the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection. Improved understanding of the role for selection bias and longer follow up are needed to better define the impact of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX on overall survival., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Authors are declared that there is no conflict of Interest.

Background: The purpose of this study is to present the largest reported series comparing open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) to total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) in patients with ampullary neoplasms., Methods: Patients undergoing OPD or TLPD for ampullary neoplasms from June 2012 to August 2016 were retrospectively identified. Perioperative outcomes were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Student's t test, and Chi square analysis where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier estimates for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the groups using the log-rank test., Results: We identified 47 patients with ampullary neoplasms (adenocarcinoma n = 36, neuroendocrine tumor n = 7, undifferentiated n = 1, adenoma n = 3) undergoing OPD (n = 25) and TLPD (n = 22). The proportion of patients being offered TLPD has progressively increased every year over 5 years: 0% (2012) to 50% (2015). There were no differences in baseline variables between the two groups. TLPD was associated with less blood loss (300 vs. 500 mL, p < 0.001) and shorter operative times (314 vs. 359 min, p = 0.024). No patient required conversion to an open procedure and there were no perioperative deaths in either group. TLPD was associated with lower rates of intra-abdominal abscess (0 vs. 16.0%, p = 0.049), but there were no differences in rates of pancreatic fistula, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, length of stay, and readmission (all p > 0.05). Among patients with adenocarcinoma, there was no difference in pathological features between the two groups (p > 0.05) and all patients had negative margins. At a median follow up of 25 months, there was no difference in PFS or OS between the two groups., Conclusions: TLPD in patients with ampullary neoplasms results in improved perioperative outcomes while having equivalent short and long-term oncologic outcomes compared to the traditional open approach.

Background: Solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms are rare pancreatic neoplasms with low malignant potential that predominantly arise in young women. We sought to characterize this population and the evolving trend at our institution towards laparoscopic management., Methods: We identified all patients at our institution that were surgically treated for solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm from 2008-2015. Demographic and clinical information were queried from the medical record, and descriptive statistics were performed. Student's t test and chi-square analysis were used for comparison where appropriate., Results: We identified 11 women and 1 man (average age 26 years; range 14-48 years) who were surgically treated for solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms; 5 with distal pancreatectomy (4 open, 1 laparoscopic), 6 with pancreaticoduodenectomy (3 open, 3 laparoscopic), and 1 open enucleation. From 2008 to 2013, seven of eight (87 %) procedures were performed open. Since 2014, three of four (75 %) procedures have successfully been completed laparoscopically (see video clips). Length of stay was similar for patients who had open versus laparoscopic procedures (8 vs. 9 days, p = 0.61). Two-thirds of patients (5/8) who had open procedures experienced postoperative complications compared with half (2/4) of patients who had laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.28). There have been no recurrences., Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgical management of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms is becoming more popular, can be performed safely, and appears to have comparable outcomes to an open approach. Quality of life is an important metric for this relatively young population and may be improved with a laparoscopic approach, which warrants further investigation.

Background: The multidisciplinary approach to GI cancer is becoming more widespread as a result of multimodality therapy. At the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH), we utilize a formal multidisciplinary approach through specialized clinics across a variety of settings, including pancreas and biliary cancer, esophageal and gastric cancer, liver cancer and neuroendocrine tumors (NET), and colorectal cancer. Patients with these suspected diagnoses are seen in a multidisciplinary clinic. We evaluated whether implementation of disease-specific multidisciplinary programs resulted in a change in diagnosis and/or change in management for these patients., Methods: Data from 1747 patients were prospectively collected from inception of each multidisciplinary program through December 31, 2015. Change in diagnosis was defined as a change in radiographic or endoscopic findings that resulted in a change in cancer stage or clinical diagnosis and/or a change in pathologic diagnosis. Reports of incidental findings unrelated to primary diagnosis on radiographic evaluation were also assessed, but not included in overall change in diagnosis findings. We further evaluated if patients had a change in the management of their disease compared with outside recommendations., Results: Of 1747 patients evaluated, change occurred in 38 % (pancreas and biliary), 13 % (esophageal and gastric); 22 % (liver and NET), and 16 % (colorectal). Change in management for each multidisciplinary program occurred in 35 % (pancreas and biliary), 20 % (esophageal and gastric), 27 % (liver and NET), and 13 % (colorectal)., Conclusions: The use of a multidisciplinary clinic to manage GI cancer has a substantial impact in change in diagnosis and/or management in more than one-third of patients evaluated.

5-Fluorouracile, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) has not been extensively used in the neoadjuvant setting because of concerns with safety and toxicity. We evaluated our institutional experience with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (BRPAC). The primary endpoints were completion of therapy to surgery and negative resection margin (R0) rate. Patients with BRPAC treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX were retrospectively analyzed. Between August 2011 and September 2013, 20 patients with BRPAC treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX were identified. Most patients (88.8%) completed FOLFIRINOX therapy and underwent resection. Abutment of venous structures was identified in 13 cases (72.2%), while short segment portal vein encasement in 3 cases (16.6%) with concomitant arterial involvement in 3 cases (16.6%). Isolated superior mesenteric artery abutment was identified in 2 cases (11.2%). Patients received a median of 4 cycles of FOLFIRINOX. There was 1 case of progression. Vascular resection was performed in 9 cases (52.9%). Preoperative radiation therapy was used in 8 patients (44%). All patients underwent margin negative resection (R0). Histopathologic treatment response was evident in 10 cases (58.8%). Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was generally safe and the expected toxicity did not prevent surgery allowing for a high rate of R0 resection.