Background: Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is increasingly used to improve survival in patients with pancreatic cancer; however, it often results in nutritional deterioration, which may negatively impact patient outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effect of changes in nutritional status on the long-term outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent curative surgery after NAC. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 148 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent curative surgery after NAC between 2010 and 2020. The Controlled Nutritional Status (CONUT) score was used to determine the nutritional status of the patients. Patients were categorized into worsened, maintained, and improved groups based on the changes in their CONUT scores before and after NAC. We compared differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the groups. Results: The worsened nutritional status group exhibited the shortest median OS (28 months) compared to the maintained and improved groups (39 and 66 months, respectively; p = 0.01). Additionally, the worsened group demonstrated the shortest DFS compared to the other two groups (13, 22, and 39 months, respectively; p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified nutritional deterioration as an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratios (HR), 2.11; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.31–3.40; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Nutritional deterioration after NAC is a significant prognostic factor of poor survival outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer. These findings indicate that serial nutritional assessments and treatment during NAC are crucial for improving patient outcomes.
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of surgical indications of the revised International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) 2023 guidelines compared to the IAP 2017 and European 2018 guidelines. Summary Background Data: The revised IAP guidelines for surgical indications for branch duct (BD) intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) include the presence of at least two worrisome features without mandatory endoscopic ultrasound. Methods: Among 663 patients who underwent resection for pathologically confirmed IPMN in a tertiary hospital between 2013 and 2023, 556 patients with BD or mixed-type IPMN were retrospectively reviewed. Diagnostic performances of the three guidelines for predicting high-grade dysplasia or IPMN with invasive carcinoma were compared. The primary outcome was the malignancy rate. Clinicopathological and radiological imaging data were analyzed. Results: A total of 540, 451, and 490 patients met the surgical indications of the IAP, 2017, 2023, and European guidelines, respectively. Malignant IPMN was observed in 229 (41.2%) patients (high-grade dysplasia, n=99; invasive carcinoma, n=130). Surgical indication by the IAP 2023 guidelines showed higher specificity (29.1 vs. 4.9%, P <0.001), positive predictive value (48.6 vs. 42.4%, P =0.031), and accuracy (55.5 vs. 44.1%, P <0.001) than the IAP 2017 guidelines. It also had higher specificity than the European guidelines (18.7%, P =0.024). The IAP 2023 guidelines showed a superior AUC of surgical indication (0.623 vs. 0.582 for the European guidelines, P <0.001; and 0.524 for the IAP guidelines, P =0.008). Conclusions: The IAP 2023 guidelines showed better malignancy prediction than the IAP 2017 and European guidelines, potentially reducing unnecessary surgeries.
Little is known about the prognostic significance of pancreatic duct (PD) dilation following pancreatoduodenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). Although PD dilation is typically the hallmark radiographic feature of IPMN, other causes of PD dilation exist, including anastomotic stricture, pancreatitis, senescence, and postsurgical passive dilation. Therefore, PD dilation after pancreatoduodenectomy for IPMN represents a diagnostic and management dilemma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the significance of PD dilation after pancreatoduodenectomy for noninvasive IPMN.
Introduction: The applicability of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has arisen, however, high-level evidence is lacking. This study aimed to explore patient subgroups with high-risk resectable PDAC for selecting candidates who may benefit from NAT. Methods: The 1,132 patients with resectable or borderline resectable PDAC who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with resectable PDAC without contact of major vessels (R-no contact) (n=651), with contact of portal vein or superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) ≤180° (R-contact) (n=306), and borderline resectable PDAC without arterial involvement (BR-V) (n=175) were analyzed. Results: The mean age was 64.3 ± 9.8 years, and 647 patients (57.2%) were male. The median follow-up was 26 months in the entire cohort. Patients with resectable PDAC without vascular contact had the most improved overall survival (OS) (median; 31.5 months). OS did not significantly differ between NAT and upfront surgery in the entire resectable PDAC cohort. However, in R-contact group, NAT showed significantly improved OS compared to upfront surgery (33 vs. 23 months). Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was showed a better OS than gemcitabine-based regimens in patients who underwent NAT (34 vs. 24 months). NAT was associated with a better survival in the patients with CA 19-9 level ≥150 U/mL, only when the tumor has PV/SMV contact in resectable disease (40 vs. 19 months, P = 0.001). Conclusions: NAT can be considered as an effective treatment in patients with resectable PDAC, particularly when the tumor is in contact with PV/SMV and CA 19-9 ≥150 U/mL.
Abstract Background Pancreatic cancer is anatomically divided into pancreatic head and body/tail cancers, and some studies have reported differences in prognosis. However, whether this discrepancy is induced from the difference of tumor biology is hotly debated. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the differences in clinical outcomes and tumor biology depending on the tumor location. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we identified 800 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone upfront curative-intent surgery. Cox regression analysis was performed to explore the prognostic impact of the tumor location. Among them, 153 patients with sufficient tumor tissue and blood samples who provided informed consent for next-generation sequencing were selected as the cohort for genomic analysis. Results Out of the 800 patients, 500 (62.5%) had pancreatic head cancer, and 300 (37.5%) had body/tail cancer. Tumor location in the body/tail of the pancreas was not identified as a significant predictor of survival outcomes compared to that in the head in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.77–1.14; P = 0.511). Additionally, in the genomic analyses of 153 patients, there were no significant differences in mutational landscapes, distribution of subtypes based on transcriptomic profiling, and estimated infiltration levels of various immune cells between pancreatic head and body/tail cancers. Conclusions We could not find differences in prognosis and tumor biology depending on tumor location in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Discrepancies in prognosis may represent a combination of lead time, selection bias, and clinical differences, including the surgical burden between tumor sites.
Importance Despite the increasing prevalence of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN), data on the growth and malignant conversion rates based on long-term surveillance cohorts are limited. Many international guidelines recommend surveillance for benign lesions, but the optimal interval and duration are unclear. Objective To determine the optimal surveillance protocol for IPMN and propose which patients may be exempted from surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants This large-scale, international cohort study examined data of 3825 patients with IPMN treated at 5 tertiary pancreatic centers. Included were patients with branch duct (BD) IPMN who underwent surveillance or surgery between January 1, 1988, and December 31, 2020. After a thorough review, 3656 patients were included in the analytic sample. Changes in cyst size, worrisome features or high-risk stigmata, and malignant conversion rates were assessed. Patients who underwent surveillance over 5 years were compared to suggest discontinuation of surveillance protocol. Clinical data collection began in January 1, 2021, and the mean (SD) follow-up duration was 84 (47.7) months. The data analysis was performed from May 2, 2022, through September 14, 2022. Exposure The patients with BD-IPMN were followed up based on International Association of Pancreatology guidelines. Patients with suspicious malignant neoplasms during surveillance underwent surgical resection. Main Outcome and Measures The main outcome of this study was the optimal follow-up interval and duration of BD-IPMN surveillance. The association among cyst size, growth rate, and progression was examined using descriptive statistics. Results Of the 3656 patients with BD-IPMN in the analytic sample (1973 [54.0%] female; mean [SD] age, 63.7 [10.2] years), 172 (4.7%) were confirmed to have malignant lesions through surgery. Considering cyst growth, the time to develop worrisome features, and malignant conversion, a 1.5-, 1-, and 0.5-year surveillance interval could be optimal for cysts smaller than 20 mm, 20 to 30 mm, and 30 mm, respectively, after initial short-term (6-month) follow-up. Patients with cysts smaller than 20 mm, no worrisome features, and no growth during 5-year surveillance did not show malignant conversion after 5 years of follow-up and had time to progression of greater than 10 years. Conclusions These findings suggest that BD-IPMN surveillance may depend on the size of the cyst and morphologic changes at the initial 6-month follow-up. For patients with small cysts (ie, &lt;20 mm) with no morphologic changes during the initial 5-year surveillance period, surveillance may be discontinued for those unfit for surgery or who have a limited life expectancy of 10 years or less.
Background: R0 rates have increased as neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) has become the primary treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with venous involvement, suggesting a decrease in venous tumor infiltration. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of preserving the portal/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in PDAC patients who underwent NAT. Material and Methods: The 113 patients with resectable and borderline resectable PDAC with venous involvement who responded to NAT and underwent curative PD between 2012 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Among the 113 patients, PV/SMV preservation (PVP) was performed in 68 patients (60.2%), and PV/SMV resection (PVR) was performed in 45 patients (39.8%). There was no significant difference in the R0 rate, 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival between the two groups. PV/SMV stenosis within 3 months after surgery was more common in the PVR group than in the PVP group (1.5% versus 22.2%; P < 0.001), and 5-year PV/SMV stenosis-free survival was significantly higher in the PVP group than in the PVR group (76.5% versus 53.4%; P =0.014). Multivariate analysis showed that gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with poor OS. PVR, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and locoregional recurrence were independent risk factors for PV/SMV stenosis. Conclusion: The PVP group had similar oncologic outcomes and better vessel-functional outcomes than the PVR group. Therefore, if dissection is possible and there is a high likelihood of achieving R0 resection after NAT, routine PVR may be unnecessary in PDAC patients with venous involvement.
'%3e%3cg id='b'%3e%3cpath id='a' stroke='%23000' stroke-width='2' d='M-6-25H6m-12 3H6m-12 3H6'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' y='44'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' d='M0 17v10'/%3e%3ccircle r='12' fill='%23cd2e3a'/%3e%3cpath fill='%230047a0' d='M0-12A6 6 0 0 0 0 0a6 6 0 0 1 0 12 12 12 0 0 1 0-24z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cg transform='rotate(-123.69)'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' d='M0-23.5v3M0 17v3.5m0 3v3'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3ccircle r='120' fill='%230f47af'/%3e%3cg id='a'%3e%3cpath fill='%23fcdd09' d='m0-96-4.206 12.944 17.348 53.39h-23.13l-2.599 8h74.163l11.011-8H21.553z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fcdd09' stroke-width='4' d='m25.863-35.597 30.564-42.069'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(72)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(144)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(216)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(288)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
