Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgical strategies in resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis

Markov models for clinical decision-making in radiation oncology: A systematic review

The intrinsic stochasticity of patients' response to treatment is a major consideration for clinical decision-making in radiation therapy. Markov models are powerful tools to capture this stochasticity and render effective treatment decisions. This paper provides an overview of the Markov models for clinical decision analysis in radiation oncology. A comprehensive literature search was conducted within MEDLINE using PubMed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies published from 2000 to 2023 were considered. Selected publications were summarized in two categories: (i) studies that compare two (or more) fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation and (ii) studies that seek an optimal treatment policy through Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Relevant to the scope of this study, 61 publications were selected for detailed review. The majority of these publications (n = 56) focused on comparative analysis of two or more fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation. Classifications based on cancer site, utility measures and the type of sensitivity analysis are presented. Five publications considered MDPs with the aim of computing an optimal treatment policy; a detailed statement of the analysis and results is provided for each work. As an extension of Markov model-based simulation analysis, MDP offers a flexible framework to identify an optimal treatment policy among a possibly large set of treatment policies. However, the applications of MDPs to oncological decision-making have been understudied, and the full capacity of this framework to render complex optimal treatment decisions warrants further consideration.

Ethical Considerations of Biopsies in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

The standard of care in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has evolved to include neoadjuvant treatment before surgical resection. Current guidelines call for obtaining histologic tissue diagnosis via endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration before administration of neoadjuvant therapy, which differ from guidelines discouraging delay in surgical resection for a biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Whether to proceed with treatment before a biopsy confirms that malignancy is a nuanced decision and includes considerations of physical and psychological risks entailed in both pursuing and forgoing a biopsy.

RESULTS

Accuracy of imaging and biopsy results, the presence of contributing clinical signs/symptoms, and the existing precedents of considering biopsies as waivable such as in scenarios with high clinical suspicion and primary surgical resection.

CONCLUSION

When considering the aspects of ethical medical practice including beneficence (doing good), nonmaleficence (avoiding harm), autonomy (allowing patients to make decisions about their care), and utilitarianism (doing the most good for the most people), analysis of whether guidelines guiding biopsies should continue to differ between resection and neoadjuvant treatments in PDAC is prudent.

Early Recurrence after Upfront Surgery for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Background. Survival after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains poor, due to early recurrence (ER) of the disease. A global definition of ER is lacking and different cut-off values (6, 8, and 12 months) have been adopted. The aims of this study were to define the optimal cut-off for the definition of ER and predictive factors for ER. Methods. Recurrence was recorded for all consecutive patients undergoing upfront surgery for PDAC at our institute between 2010 and 2017. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilized, to estimate the optimal cut-off for the definition of ER as a predictive factor for poor post-progression survival (PPS). To identify predictive factors of ER, univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used. Results. Three hundred and fifty one cases were retrospectively evaluated. The recurrence rate was 76.9%. ER rates were 29.0%, 37.6%, and 47.6%, when adopting 6, 8, and 12 months as cut-offs, respectively. A significant difference in median PPS was only shown between ER and late recurrence using 12 months as cut-off (p = 0.005). In the multivariate analysis, a pre-operative value of CA 19-9 > 70.5 UI/L (OR 3.10 (1.41–6.81); p = 0.005) and the omission of adjuvant treatment (OR 0.18 (0.08–0.41); p < 0.001) were significant predictive factors of ER. Conclusions. A twelve-months cut-off should be adopted for the definition of ER. Almost 50% of upfront-resected patients presented ER, and it significantly affected the prognosis. A high preoperative value of CA 19-9 and the omission of adjuvant treatment were the only predictive factors for ER.

Artificial Intelligence to Predict Lymph Node Metastasis at CT in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Background Although deep learning has brought revolutionary changes in health care, reliance on manually selected cross-sectional images and segmentation remain methodological barriers. Purpose To develop and validate an automated preoperative artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for tumor and lymph node (LN) segmentation with CT imaging for prediction of LN metastasis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, patients with surgically resected, pathologically confirmed PDAC underwent multidetector CT from January 2015 to April 2020. Three models were developed, including an AI model, a clinical model, and a radiomics model. CT-determined LN metastasis was diagnosed by radiologists. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to develop the clinical and radiomics models. The performance of the models was determined on the basis of their discrimination and clinical utility. Kaplan-Meier curves, the log-rank test, or Cox regression were used for survival analysis. Results Overall, 734 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 9 [SD]; 453 men) were evaluated. All patients were split into training (n = 545) and validation (n = 189) sets. Patients who had LN metastasis (LN-positive group) accounted for 340 of 734 (46%) patients. In the training set, the AI model showed the highest performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.91) in the prediction of LN metastasis, whereas the radiologists and the clinical and radiomics models had AUCs of 0.58, 0.76, and 0.71, respectively. In the validation set, the AI model showed the highest performance (AUC, 0.92) in the prediction of LN metastasis, whereas the radiologists and the clinical and radiomics models had AUCs of 0.65, 0.77, and 0.68, respectively (P < .001). AI model-predicted positive LN metastasis was associated with worse survival (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.89; P = .004). Conclusion An artificial intelligence model outperformed radiologists and clinical and radiomics models for prediction of lymph node metastasis at CT in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chu and Fishman in this issue.

A framework for the estimation of treatment costs of cardiovascular conditions in the presence of disease transition

The current research aims to aid policymakers and healthcare service providers in estimating expected long-term costs of medical treatment, particularly for chronic conditions characterized by disease transition. The study comprised two phases (qualitative and quantitative), in which we developed linear optimization-based mathematical frameworks to ascertain the expected long-term treatment cost per patient considering the integration of various related dimensions such as the progression of the medical condition, the accuracy of medical treatment, treatment decisions at respective severity levels of the medical condition, and randomized/deterministic policies. At the qualitative research stage, we conducted the data collection and validation of various cogent hypotheses acting as inputs to the prescriptive modeling stage. We relied on data collected from 115 different cardio-vascular clinicians to understand the nuances of disease transition and related medical dimensions. The framework developed was implemented in the context of a multi-specialty hospital chain headquartered in the capital city of a state in Eastern India, the results of which have led to some interesting insights. For instance, at the prescriptive modeling stage, though one of our contributions related to the development of a novel medical decision-making framework, we illustrated that the randomized versus deterministic policy seemed more cost-competitive. We also identified that the expected treatment cost was most sensitive to variations in steady-state probability at the "major" as opposed to the "severe" stage of a medical condition, even though the steady-state probability of the "severe" state was less than that of the "major" state.

Adaptive Dynamic Therapy and Survivorship for Operable Pancreatic Cancer

Importance

Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly used in localized pancreatic carcinoma, and survival is correlated with carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels and histopathologic response following neoadjuvant therapy. With several regimens now available, the choice of chemotherapy could be best dictated by response to neoadjuvant therapy (as measured by CA19-9 levels and/or pathologic response), a strategy defined herein as adaptive dynamic therapy.

Objective

To evaluate the association of adaptive dynamic therapy with oncologic outcomes in patients with surgically resected pancreatic cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included patients with localized pancreatic cancer who were treated with either gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel or fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) preoperatively between 2010 and 2019 at a high-volume tertiary care academic center. Participants were identified from a prospectively maintained database and had a median follow-up of 49 months. Data were analyzed from October 17 to November 24, 2020.

Exposures

The adaptive dynamic therapy group included 219 patients who remained on or switched to an alternative regimen as dictated by CA19-9 response and for whom the adjuvant regimen was selected based on CA19-9 and/or pathologic response. The nonadaptive dynamic therapy group included 103 patients who had their chemotherapeutic regimen selected independent of CA19-9 and/or tumoral response.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prognostic implications of dynamic perioperative therapy assessed through Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox regression, and inverse probability weighted estimators.

Results

A total of 322 consecutive patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9] years; 162 [50%] women) were identified. The adaptive dynamic therapy group, compared with the nonadaptive dynamic therapy group, had a more pronounced median (IQR) decrease in CA19-9 levels (-80% [-92% to -56%] vs -45% [-81% to -13%]; P < .001), higher incidence of complete or near-complete tumoral response (25 [12%] vs 2 [2%]; P = .007), and lower median (IQR) number of lymph node metastasis (1 [0 to 4] vs 2 [0 to 4]; P = .046). Overall survival was significantly improved in the dynamic group compared with the nondynamic group (38.7 months [95% CI, 34.0 to 46.7 months] vs 26.5 months [95% CI, 23.5 to 32.9 months]; P = .03), and on adjusted analysis, dynamic therapy was independently associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.99; P = .04). On inverse probability weighted analysis of 320 matched patients, the average treatment effect of dynamic therapy was to increase overall survival by 11.1 months (95% CI, 1.5 to 20.7 months; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study that sought to evaluate the role of adaptive dynamic therapy in localized pancreatic cancer, selecting a chemotherapeutic regimen based on response to preoperative therapy was associated with improved survival. These findings support an individualized and in vivo assessment of response to perioperative therapy in pancreatic cancer.

Perioperative chemotherapy versus adjuvant chemotherapy strategies in resectable gastric and gastroesophageal cancer: A Markov decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Perioperative chemotherapy has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) for operable gastric and gastroesophageal cancer. However, optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy has not been clearly identified. Markov models are useful for analyzing the outcomes of different treatment strategies in the absence of adequately powered randomized clinical trials. In this study, we use Markov decision analysis models to compare median OS (mOS), quality-adjusted mOS, life expectancy (LE), and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of perioperative chemotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy strategies in resectable gastric and gastroesophageal cancer patients.

METHODS

Markov models are constructed to compare two strategies: adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy followed by cancer resection and postoperative chemotherapy. LE and QALE are calculated analytically, and mOS are obtained by simulation. Parameters used in the models are computed from prospective clinical trial data published in PUBMED from January 2000 to July 2020.

RESULTS

Total of 8088 patients from 25 prospective studies were included in this analysis. Regardless of R0 resection ratio, the analyses of the models show a higher mOS for patients in the perioperative therapy arm compared to adjuvant chemotherapy. For R0 resected patients, the perioperative therapy arm provided an additional 11.0 mOS months (61.3 months vs. 50.3 months). For R1 resected patients, the perioperative therapy arm had mOS of 17.0 months vs. 10.7 months in adjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Markov models indicate that perioperative chemotherapy improves mOS, quality-adjusted mOS, LE, and QALE for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal cancer patients compared to adjuvant chemotherapy strategies.

Disparities in the Use of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines support either immediate surgical resection or neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, which patients are selected for NT and whether disparities exist in the use of NT for PDAC are not well understood.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database from 2004 through 2016, the clinical, demographic, socioeconomic, and hospital-related characteristics of patients with stage I/II PDAC who underwent immediate surgery versus NT followed by surgery were compared.

RESULTS

Among 58,124 patients who underwent pancreatectomy, 8,124 (14.0%) received NT whereas 50,000 (86.0%) did not. Use of NT increased significantly throughout the study period (from 3.5% in 2004 to 26.4% in 2016). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that travel distance, education level, hospital facility type, clinical T stage, tumor size, and year of diagnosis were associated with increased use of NT, whereas comorbidities, uninsured/Medicaid status, South/West geography, left-sided tumor location, and increasing age were associated with immediate surgery (all P<.001). Based on logistic regression-derived interaction factors, the association between NT use and median income, education level, Midwest location, clinical T stage, and clinical N stage significantly increased over time (all P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to traditional clinicopathologic factors, several demographic, socioeconomic, and hospital-related factors are associated with use of NT for PDAC. Because NT is used increasingly for PDAC, efforts to reduce disparities will be critical in improving outcomes for all patients with pancreatic cancer.

Optimal management of patients with operable pancreatic head cancer: A Markov decision analysis

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is an emerging strategy for operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While NAT increases multimodal therapy completion, it risks functional decline and treatment dropout. We used decision analysis to determine optimal management of localized PDAC and consider risks faced by elderly patients.

METHODS

A Markov cohort decision analysis model evaluated treatment options for a 60-year-old patient with resectable PDAC: (1) upfront pancreaticoduodenectomy or (2) NAT. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A subanalysis considered the scenario of a 75-year-old patient.

RESULTS

For the base case, NAT offered an incremental survival gain of 4.6 months compared with SF (overall survival: 26.3 vs. 21.7 months). In one-way sensitivity analyses, findings were sensitive to recurrence-free survival for NAT patients undergoing adjuvant, probability of completing NAT, and probability of being resectable at exploration after NAT. On probabilistic analysis, NAT was favored in a majority of trials (97%) with a median survival benefit of 5.1 months. In altering the base case for the 75-year-old scenario, NAT had a survival benefit of 3.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates a significant benefit to NAT in patients with localized PDAC. This benefit persists even in the elderly cohort.

Predictors of early recurrence following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection for localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasingly being utilized. However, a significant number of patients will experience early recurrence, possibly negating the benefit of surgery. We aimed to identify factors implicated in early disease recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective review of pancreaticoduodenectomies performed between 2005 and 2017 at our institution for PDAC following NAT was performed. A 6-month cut-off was used to stratify patients into early/late recurrence groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 273 patients, 64 (23%) developed early recurrence or died within 90 days of surgery. The median time to recurrence was 4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2-4.3) in the early group versus 16 months (95% CI: 13.7-19.9) in the late group. The former had higher baseline and post-NAT Ca19-9 levels than the latter (472 vs. 153 IU/ml, p = 0.001 and 71 vs. 39 IU/ml, p = 0.005, respectively). A higher positive lymph node ratio significantly increased the risk of early recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]: 15.9, p < 0.001) while adjuvant chemotherapy was protective (HR: 0.4, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings acknowledge the limitations of clinically measured factors used to ascertain response to NAT and underline the need for individualized molecular markers that take into consideration the specific tumor biology.

Upfront resection versus neoadjuvant therapy for T1/T2 pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial for resectable pancreatic neoplasms. We evaluated treatment outcomes for T1/T2 tumors.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with T1/T2 (Stage I-II) pancreatic cancer within the NCDB. Treatment-sequence variables were used for classification: "surgery + chemotherapy" (S+C), "chemotherapy + surgery" (C+S), "surgery only" (SO), and "chemotherapy only" (CO).

RESULTS

13 412 patients were included; the majority had T2 tumors. 8 490 received upfront surgery; 4 922 preoperative chemotherapy. In the surgery branch, 5 684 received surgery and chemotherapy (S+C); 2 806 did not receive chemotherapy (SO). Of those intended to receive preoperative chemotherapy, 3 804 received only chemotherapy (CO); 1 118 proceeded to surgery (C+S). Median survival for S+C and C+S groups was similar (25.9 vs 26.2) [HR 0.92, p= 0.41]. Compared to the CO group, the SO group had improved median survival (13.5 vs. 10.8) [HR 0.63, p<0.001]. Branched analyses demonstrated improved median and 5-year (20.8% vs 12.7%) survival for patients receiving upfront resection [HR 0.77, p<0.001].

CONCLUSION

Patients with T1/T2 pancreatic cancer have similar survival irrespective of the timing of chemotherapy and surgery, if they receive both. Upfront resection ensures surgery is delivered, increasing the possibility of long-term survival.

Pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: defining the incidence, predictors, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is increasingly utilized for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) but the nationwide incidence and long-term prognosis of a pathologic complete response (pCR) remains poorly understood.

METHODS

Patients with localized PDAC and known cT and pT stage who received NT prior to pancreatectomy from 2004 to 2016 were identified using the National Cancer Database. The clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients who did and did not experience a pCR were compared.

RESULTS

Among 7,902 patients who underwent NT prior to pancreatectomy, 244 (3.1%) experienced a pCR while 7,658 (96.9%) did not. On multivariable regression, longer duration of NT (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.27 per month) and use of preoperative radiation (OR 9.98, 95% CI 3.05-32.71) were independently associated with a pCR. Median overall survival (OS) was longer among patients who experienced a pCR (77 vs 26 months, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, pCR was the strongest predictor of improved OS (HR 0.43, 95%CI 0.32-0.58, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A pCR following NT for PDAC occurs infrequently but is associated with significantly improved OS. Better predictors of response and more effective preoperative regimens should be aggressively sought.

[Neoadjuvant treatment of primarily resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer]

Due to the increasing prevalence pancreatic cancer represents a severe tumor burden to the population and will be ranked second for cancer-related mortality by the year 2030. If a curative approach is pursued a radical R0 resection of the tumor with sufficient cancer-free resection margins (≥1 mm) should be performed. This has been shown to be associated with a clear benefit for survival. For treatment planning of pancreatic cancer the tumor stage plays a pivotal role. In cases of distant metastases a palliative concept is normally initiated. If no distant metastases are detected neoadjuvant treatment can be performed in cases of borderline resectability or locally advanced stages in order to downsize these tumors. In this situation a neoadjuvant treatment has been shown to significantly increase resectability rates and to improve the tumor stage (downstaging). The most recent randomized trials were able to show a significant survival advantage of neoadjuvant treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In cases of primarily resectable pancreatic cancer the current standard of care is an upfront resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Initial data are also available indicating a survival benefit even for resectable pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant treatment; however, reliable randomized controlled trials showing a survival advantage of neoadjuvant treatment compared to the current standard treatment of adjuvant chemotherapy following resection are missing. Numerous randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable pancreatic cancer are currently underway.

The impact of neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy on the survival of pancreatic cancer patients: a retrospective analysis

Background

Immunotherapy has become an essential part of cancer treatment after showing great efficacy in various malignancies. However, its effectiveness in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), especially in resectable pancreatic cancer, has not been studied. The primary objective of this study is to compare the OS impact of immunotherapy between PDAC patients who receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy and patients who receive adjuvant immunotherapy. The secondary objective is to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy and chemoradiation by performing subset analyses of these two groups.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with PDAC between 2004 and 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to examine the effect of neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy and chemoradiation on the OS of the patients. The multivariable analysis was adjusted for essential factors such as the age at diagnosis, sex, race, education, income, place of living insurance status, hospital type, comorbidity score, and year of diagnosis.

Results

Overall, 526 patients received immunotherapy. Among whom, 408/526 (77.57%) received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and the remaining 118/526 (22.43%) received adjuvant immunotherapy. There was no significant difference in OS between neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy (HR: 1.06, CI: 0.79–1.41; p < 0.714) in the multivariable analysis. In the univariate neoadjuvant treatment subset analysis, immunotherapy was associated with significantly improved OS compared to no immunotherapy (HR: 0.88, CI: 0.78–0.98; p < 0.026). This benefit disappeared in the multivariable analysis. However, after patients were stratified by educational level, the multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy was associated with significantly improved OS (HR: 0.86, CI: 0.74–0.99; p < 0.04) compared to no immunotherapy only in patients with high-level of education, but not in patients with low-level of education.

Conclusion

In this study, no difference in the OS between patients who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy and patients who received adjuvant immunotherapy was noticed. Future studies comparing neoadjuvant adjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and chemoradiation are needed.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) versus surgery first (SF) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A random-effects meta-analysis of only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NT versus SF for potentially resectable (PR) or borderline resectable (BR) PDAC was performed. Among six RCTs including 850 patients, 411 (48.3%) received NT and 439 (51.6%) SF. In all included trials, NT was gemcitabine-based: four using chemoradiation and two chemotherapy alone. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, NT resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared to SF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61–0.86). This effect was independent of anatomic classification (PR: hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.59–0.91; BR: HR 0.51 95% CI 0.28–0.93) or NT type (chemoradiation: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.98; chemotherapy alone: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.87). Overall resection rate was similar (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.82–1.04, I² = 39.0%) but NT increased the likelihood of a margin-negative (R0) resection (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.18–1.93, I² = 0%) and having negative lymph nodes (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.47–2.91, I² = 12.3%). In this meta-analysis of prospective RCTs, NT significantly improved OS in an intention-to-treat fashion, compared with SF for localized PDAC. Randomized controlled trials using contemporary multi-agent chemotherapy will be needed to confirm these findings and to define the optimal NT regimen.

A systematic review of surgical resection of liver-only synchronous metastases from pancreatic cancer in the era of multiagent chemotherapy

Recent studies considered surgery as a treatment option for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and synchronous liver metastases. The aim of this study was to evaluate systematically the literature on the role of surgical resection in this setting as an upfront procedure or following primary chemotherapy. A systematic search was performed of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Only studies that included patients with synchronous liver metastases published in the era of multiagent chemotherapy (after 2011) were considered, excluding those with lung/peritoneal metastases or metachronous liver metastases. Median overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome. Six studies with 204 patients were analyzed. 63% of patients underwent upfront pancreatic and liver resection, 35% had surgery after primary chemotherapy with strict selection criteria and 2% had an inverse approach (liver surgery first). 38 patients (18.5%) did not undergo any liver resection since metastases disappeared after chemotherapy. Postoperative mortality was low (< 2%). Median OS ranged from 7.6 to 14.5 months after upfront pancreatic/liver resection and from 34 to 56 months in those undergoing preoperative treatment. This systematic review suggests that surgical resection of pancreatic cancer with synchronous liver oligometastases is safe, and it can be associated with improved survival, providing a careful selection of patients after primary chemotherapy.

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The need for patient-centered research

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive cancer with high recurrence rates following surgical resection. While adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival, a significant proportion of patients are unable to initiate or complete all intended therapy following pancreatectomy due to postoperative complications or poor performance status. The administration of chemotherapy prior to surgical resection is an alternative strategy that ensures its early and near universal delivery as well as improves margin-negative resection rates and potentially improves long-term survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being recommended to patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, however, patient-centered research on its use is lacking. In this review, we highlight opportunities to focus research efforts in the domains of patient preferences, patient-reported outcomes, patient experience, and survivorship. Novel research in these areas may identify relevant barriers and facilitators to the use of neoadjuvant therapy thereby increasing its utilization, improve shared-decision making for patients and providers, and optimize the experience of those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy.

Defining and Predicting Early Recurrence in 957 Patients With Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To establish an evidence-based cut-off to differentiate between early and late recurrence and to compare clinicopathologic risk factors between the two groups.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

A clear definition of "early recurrence" after pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resection is currently lacking.

METHODS

Patients undergoing pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2000 and 2013 were included. Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy and incomplete follow-up. A minimum P-value approach was used to evaluate the optimal cut-off value of recurrence-free survival to divide the patients into early and late recurrence cohorts based on subsequent prognosis. Potential risk factors for early recurrence were assessed with logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 957 included patients, 204 (21.3%) were recurrence-free at last follow-up. The optimal length of recurrence-free survival to distinguish between early (n = 388, 51.5%) and late recurrence (n = 365, 48.5%) was 12 months (P < 0.001). Patients with early recurrence had 1-, and 2-year post-recurrence survival rates of 20 and 6% compared with 45 and 22% for the late recurrence group (both P < 0.001). Preoperative risk factors for early recurrence included a Charlson age-comorbidity index ≥4 (OR 1.65), tumor size > 3.0 cm on computed tomography (OR 1.53) and CA 19-9 > 210 U/mL (OR 2.30). Postoperative risk factors consisted of poor tumor differentiation grade (OR 1.66), microscopic lymphovascular invasion (OR 1.70), a lymph node ratio > 0.2 (OR 2.49), and CA 19-9 > 37 U/mL (OR 3.38). Adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.28) and chemoradiotherapy (OR 0.29) were associated with a reduced likelihood of early recurrence.

CONCLUSION

A recurrence-free interval of 12 months is the optimal threshold for differentiating between early and late recurrence, based on subsequent prognosis.

A Prospective, Open-Label, Multicenter Phase 2 Trial of Neoadjuvant Therapy Using Full-Dose Gemcitabine and S-1 Concurrent with Radiation for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy reportedly shows only marginal clinical benefit in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), especially in resectable cases. However, with more effective regimens, neoadjuvant therapy may become a standard of care for resectable cases. A prospective, open-label, multicenter phases 1 and 2 trial of neoadjuvant therapy was conducted using full-dose gemcitabine and S-1 concurrently with 50.4 Gy of radiation therapy (GSRT) for resectable PDAC. This report describes the phase 2 results.

METHODS

The phase 2 part of this study enrolled 57 patients with cytologically or histologically proven PDAC deemed resectable based on imaging before neoadjuvant therapy. These patients received GSRT. After reevaluation by computed tomography scan, surgical exploration was performed, followed by adjuvant therapy. According to the prescribed protocol of the clinical trial, statistical analyses included 57 phase 2 patients and 6 phase 1 patients who received the same dosage as in phase 2.

RESULTS

This trial enrolled 63 patients (42 men and 21 women) with a median age of 70 years. Leukopenia or neutropenia of grade 3 or higher occurred for 79% of the patients, but no other severe adverse events were observed. Among the 63 patients, 54 underwent surgical resection. Intention-to-treat analysis of the 63 patients showed an excellent median survival time lasting as long as 55.3 months. The patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy, surgery, and adjuvant therapy had a 5-year survival rate of 56.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

This regimen showed outstanding clinical efficacy with acceptable tolerability for patients with resectable PDAC.

Are We Sure that Adjuvant Chemotherapy is the Best Approach for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer? Are We in the Era of Neoadjuvant Treatment? A Review of Current Literature

The outcome of pancreatic cancer is poor, with a 9% 5-year survival rate. Current treatment recommendations in the 10%–20% of patients who present with resectable disease support upfront resection followed by adjuvant therapy. Until now, only early complete surgical (R0) resection and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with either FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine have been shown to prolong the survival. However, up to 30% of patients do not receive adjuvant therapy because of the development of early recurrence, postoperative complications, comorbidities, and reduced performance status. The aims of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are to identify rapidly progressing patients to avoid futile surgery, eliminate micrometastases, increase the feasibility of R0 resection, and ensure the completion of multimodal treatment. Neoadjuvant treatments are effective, but there is no consensus on their use in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) because of its lack of a survival benefit over adjuvant therapy. In this review, we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the two therapeutic approaches in RPC. We need studies that compare the two approaches and can identify the appropriate sequence of adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and surgery.

A prognostic Bayesian network that makes personalized predictions of poor prognostic outcome post resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The narrative surrounding the management of potentially resectable pancreatic cancer is complex. Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment. However resection rates are low, the risk of operative morbidity and mortality are high, and survival outcomes remain poor. The aim of this study was to create a prognostic Bayesian network that pre-operatively makes personalized predictions of post-resection survival time of 12months or less and also performs post-operative prognostic updating.

METHODS

A Bayesian network was created by synthesizing data from PubMed post-resection survival analysis studies through a two-stage weighting process. Input variables included: inflammatory markers, tumour factors, tumour markers, patient factors and, if applicable, response to neoadjuvant treatment for pre-operative predictions. Prognostic updating was performed by inclusion of post-operative input variables including: pathology results and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

77 studies (n = 31,214) were used to create the Bayesian network, which was validated against a prospectively maintained tertiary referral centre database (n = 387). For pre-operative predictions an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.7 (P value: 0.001; 95% CI 0.589-0.801) was achieved accepting up to 4 missing data-points in the dataset. For prognostic updating an AUC 0.8 (P value: 0.000; 95% CI:0.710-0.870) was achieved when validated against a dataset with up to 6 missing pre-operative, and 0 missing post-operative data-points. This dropped to AUC: 0.7 (P value: 0.000; 95% CI:0.667-0.818) when the post-operative validation dataset had up to 2 missing data-points.

CONCLUSION

This Bayesian network is currently unique in the way it utilizes PubMed and patient level data to translate the existing empirical evidence surrounding potentially resectable pancreatic cancer to make personalized prognostic predictions. We believe such a tool is vital in facilitating better shared decision-making in clinical practice and could be further developed to offer a vehicle for delivering personalized precision medicine in the future.

Circulating Tumor DNA as a Clinical Test in Resected Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

In research settings, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) shows promise as a tumor-specific biomarker for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to perform analytical and clinical validation of a KRAS ctDNA assay in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and College of American Pathology-certified clinical laboratory.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Digital-droplet PCR was used to detect the major PDAC-associated somatic KRAS mutations (G12D, G12V, G12R, and Q61H) in liquid biopsies. For clinical validation, 290 preoperative and longitudinal postoperative plasma samples were collected from 59 patients with PDAC. The utility of ctDNA status to predict PDAC recurrence during follow-up was assessed.

RESULTS

ctDNA was detected preoperatively in 29 (49%) patients and was an independent predictor of decreased recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were less likely to have preoperative ctDNA than were chemo-naïve patients (21% vs. 69%; P < 0.001). ctDNA levels dropped significantly after tumor resection. Persistence of ctDNA in the immediate postoperative period was associated with a high rate of recurrence and poor median RFS (5 months). ctDNA detected during follow-up predicted clinical recurrence [sensitivity 90% (95% confidence interval (CI), 74%-98%), specificity 88% (95% CI, 62%-98%)] with a median lead time of 84 days (interquartile range, 25-146). Detection of ctDNA during postpancreatectomy follow-up was associated with a median OS of 17 months, while median OS was not yet reached at 30 months for patients without ctDNA (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of KRAS ctDNA in a CLIA laboratory setting can be used to predict recurrence and survival in patients with PDAC.

Personalized Pancreatic Cancer Management: A Systematic Review of How Machine Learning Is Supporting Decision-making

This review critically analyzes how machine learning is being used to support clinical decision-making in the management of potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Database were undertaken. Studies were assessed using the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies (CHARMS) checklist. In total 89,959 citations were retrieved. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were Markov decision-analysis models comparing neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery. Three studies predicted survival time using Bayesian modeling (n = 1) and artificial neural network (n = 1), and one study explored machine learning algorithms including Bayesian network, decision trees, k-nearest neighbor, and artificial neural networks. The main methodological issues identified were limited data sources, which limits generalizability and potentiates bias; lack of external validation; and the need for transparency in methods of internal validation, consecutive sampling, and selection of candidate predictors. The future direction of research relies on expanding our view of the multidisciplinary team to include professionals from computing and data science with algorithms developed in conjunction with clinicians and viewed as aids, not replacement, to traditional clinical decision-making.

Treatment of pancreatic cancer-neoadjuvant treatment in resectable pancreatic cancer (PDAC)

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal cancers. Curative-intended resection and adjuvant chemotherapy represents the current standard of care. Despite substantial improvements in surgical treatment and intensified adjuvant treatment with more powerful regimens over the last years even clearly resectable pancreatic cancer still has an unfavorable prognosis with a high risk of relapse. Neoadjuvant or perioperative multimodal therapies have substantially improved the outcome of other resectable gastrointestinal (GI) cancers such as esophagus and gastric cancer. It is reasonable to assume that efficient chemotherapy and or radiochemotherapy may have a similar impact on the outcome of resectable PDAC. This review is focused on neoadjuvant and perioperative treatment of resectable PDAC (no borderline resectable or locally advanced PDAC), summarizes the pros and cons for neoadjuvant treatment in the context of the current literature, and also provides an overview over the landscape of ongoing clinical trials in this up-and-coming field of PDAC therapy.

Upfront Surgery versus Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Current treatment recommendations for resectable pancreatic cancer support upfront resection and adjuvant therapy. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the emerging neoadjuvant approach are lacking. This review aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable pancreatic cancer. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies comparing neoadjuvant and surgery-first with adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias, ROBINS-I and GRADE tools were used to assess quality and risk of bias of included trials. 9 studies compared neoadjuvant therapy and surgery-first with adjuvant therapy (n = 22,285). Aggregate rate (AR) of R0 resection for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.8008 (0.3636–0.9144) versus 0.7515 (0.2026–0.8611) odds ratio (O.R.) 1.27 (95% CI 0.60–1.96). 1-year survival AR for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.7969 (0.6061–0.9500) versus 0.7481 (0.4848–0.8500) O.R. 1.38 (95% CI 0.69–2.96). 2-year survival AR for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.5178 (0.3000–0.5970) versus 0.5131 (0.2727–0.5346) O.R. 1.26 (95% CI 0.94–1.74). 5-year AR survival for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.2069 (0.0323–0.3300) versus 0.1783 (0.0606–0.2300) O.R. 1.19 (95% CI 0.65–1.73). In conclusion neoadjuvant therapy may offer benefit over surgery-first and adjuvant therapy. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment strategy for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. In the absence of large randomized controlled trials offering a direct comparison, this study aims to use Markov decision analysis to compare efficacy of traditional surgery first (SF) and neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

An advanced Markov decision analysis model was constructed to compare SF and NAT pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomized control and Phase II/III trials after comprehensive literature search. Utility outcomes were measured in overall and quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) on an intention-to-treat basis as the primary outcome. Markov cohort analysis of treatment received was the secondary outcome. Model uncertainties were tested with one and two-way deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis.

Results

SF gave 23.72 months (18.51 QALMs) versus 20.22 months (16.26 QALMs). Markov Cohort Analysis showed that where all treatment modalities were received NAT gave 35.05 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 30.96 months (24.86QALMs) for R0 resection and 34.08 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 25.85 months (20.72 QALMs) for R1 resection. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that NAT was superior if the resection rate was greater than 51.04% or below 75.68% in SF pathway. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that pathway superiority depended on obtaining multimodal treatment in either pathway.

Conclusion

Whilst NAT is a viable alternative to traditional SF approach, superior pathway selection depends on the individual patient’s likelihood of receiving multimodal treatment in either pathway.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Patients with Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Decision Analysis

Decision‐analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial between competing strategies. This article analyzes a mathematical decision‐analytic model to estimate the long‐term clinical outcomes and cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX compared with surgery followed by adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine/capecitabine for patients with potentially resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background.

The effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of using neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (nFOLFIRINOX) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC) are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether nFOLFIRINOX is more effective or cost‐effective for patients with BR/LA PDAC compared with upfront resection surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM/CAPE) or gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM).

Materials and Methods.

We performed a decision‐analysis to assess the value of nFOLFIRINOX versus GEM/CAPE or GEM using a mathematical simulation model. Model transition probabilities were estimated using published and institutional clinical data. Model outcomes included overall and disease‐free survival, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), cost in U.S. dollars, and cost‐effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty of model assumptions.

Results.

Model results found median overall survival (34.5/28.0/22.0 months) and disease‐free survival (15.0/14.0/13.0 months) were better for nFOLFIRINOX compared with GEM/CAPE and GEM. nFOLFIRINOX was the optimal strategy on an efficiency frontier, resulting in an additional 0.35 life‐years, or 0.30 QALYs, at a cost of $46,200/QALY gained compared with GEM/CAPE. Sensitivity analysis found that cancer recurrence and complete resection rates most affected model results, but were otherwise robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that nFOLFIRINOX was cost‐effective 92.4% of the time at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

Conclusion.

Our modeling analysis suggests that nFOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery for patients with BR/LA PDAC from both an effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness standpoint. Additional clinical data that further define the long‐term effectiveness of nFOLFIRINOX are needed to confirm our results.

Implications for Practice.

Increasingly, neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX has been used for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer with the goal of rendering them resectable and decreasing risk of recurrence. Despite many efforts to show the benefits of neoadjuvant over adjuvant therapies, clinical evidence to guide this decision is largely lacking. Decision‐analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial. This modeling analysis suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery and adjuvant therapies by various outcome metrics including quality‐adjusted life years, overall survival, and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio.

Neoadjuvant versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A National Cancer Database Analysis

There is controversy regarding the role of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer (PAC). Neoadjuvant therapy has been touted as a method to improve survival in PAC patients. This study's objective is to investigate predictors and potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable PAC patients. The National Cancer Data Base was used to retrospectively analyze stage I and II surgically resected PAC patients receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy from 2004 to 2012. A total of 12,983 patients were identified. A significant increase in the rate of neoadjuvant therapy was observed over time with 5 per cent receiving neoadjuvant therapy in 2004 versus 17 per cent in 2012 (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy if they were treated at an academic facility. Private insurance was associated with higher odds of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.0001). Pathological outcomes were improved in neoadjuvant patients compared with adjuvant patients on multivariate analysis with neoadjuvant patients having higher rates of negative surgical margins (OR: 1.273, 95% Confidence interval: 1.099–1.474) and negative lymph nodes (OR: 2.852, 95% Confidence interval: 2.547–3.194). Pathological outcomes are improved after neoadjuvant therapy compared with adjuvant therapy, with more patients achieving negative margins and negative lymph nodes. Prospective studies are needed to compare these two treatment modalities in a head to head comparison.

Is Neoadjuvant Therapy Sufficient in Resected Pancreatic Cancer Patients? A National Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment, the question of whether preoperatively treated, successfully resected patients should receive additional postoperative adjuvant treatment remains unanswered. We evaluate the impact of adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant treatment and pancreatectomy in pancreatic cancer patients in a large national study.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Data Base between 2006 and 2013 to identify resected, non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by pancreatectomy. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to compare survival between groups.

RESULTS

In total, 1357 patients were identified. Of the patients, 38.6% (n = 524) were treated with postoperative therapy. There was no difference in unadjusted median overall survival between patients who did and did not receive postoperative therapy (median survival, 27.5 vs. 27.1 months, log-rank p = 0.5409). Postoperative therapy was not significantly associated with favorable prognosis in patients with positive resection margins (log-rank p = 0.6452) or positive lymph nodes (log-rank p = 0.6252). On multivariate analysis, receipt of postoperative therapy was not predictive of survival (hazard ratio 0.972; 95% CI 0.848-1.115; p = 0.6876).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results using national data suggest that after receipt of neoadjuvant therapy and pancreatectomy, additional postoperative therapy may not provide additional survival benefit. These data warrant further prospective data collection and consideration for clinical trials.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: critical radiologic findings for clinical decision making

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, with an estimated 53,670 new cases diagnosed and an estimated 43,090 deaths in 2017. This high mortality rate is in part due to the small percentage of patients diagnosed with local disease, as well as the biologically aggressive nature of the disease. While only 10-20% of patients will present with surgically resectable disease, this is the only possible curative therapy. Five-year survival of resected pancreatic cancer ranges from 12 to 27%. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend specific guidelines for imaging modalities used in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Indeed, high-quality imaging is not only necessary to accurately stage the disease, but is critical for the determination of key clinical decision branch points such as the determination of surgical resectability. Identification of the lesion within the pancreas, the degree of extra-pancreatic extension, and potential involvement of surrounding vascular structures with the tumor are all findings necessary to classify patients as having resectable, borderline resectable, or with unresectable primary tumors. This article reviews imaging modalities used to evaluate the pancreatic cancer patient from the surgeon's perspective, with particular emphasis on determination of resectability and preoperative planning, as well as imaging in the postoperative period.

Pancreatectomy combined with multivisceral resection for pancreatic malignancies: is it justified? Results of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multivisceral resections combined with pancreatectomy have been proposed in selected patients with tumor invasion into adjacent organs, in order to allow complete tumor resection. Some authors have also reported multivisceral resection combined with metastasectomy in very selected cases. The utility of this practice is debated. The aim of the review is to compare the postoperative results and survival of pancreatectomies combined with multivisceral resections with those of standard pancreatectomies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all studies published up to February 2017 that analyzed data of patients undergoing multivisceral and standard pancreatectomies. Clinical effectiveness was synthetized through a narrative review with full tabulation of results.

RESULTS

Three studies were retrieved, including 713 (80%) patients undergoing standard pancreatectomies and 176 (20%) undergoing multivisceral resections (MVR). Postoperative morbidity ranged from 37% to 50% after standard resections and from 56% to 69% after MVR. In-hospital mortality ranged from 4% after standard pancreatectomies to 10% after MVR. Median survival ranged from 20 to 23 months in standard resections and from 12 to 20 months after MVR, without significant differences.

DISCUSSION

The current literature suggests that multivisceral pancreatectomies are feasible and may increase the number of completely resected patients. Morbidity and mortality are higher than after standard pancreatectomies, and these procedures should be reserved to selected patients in referral centers. Further studies on the role of neoadjuvant therapy in this setting are advisable.

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer

The use of neoadjuvant therapies has played a major role for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancers (PCs). For this group of patients, preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation has increased the likelihood of surgery with negative resection margins and overall survival. On the other hand, for patients with resectable PC, the main rationale for neoadjuvant therapy is that the overall survival with current strategies is unsatisfactory. There is a consensus that we need new treatments to improve the overall survival and quality of life of patients with PC. However, without strong scientific evidence supporting the theoretical advantages of neoadjuvant therapies, these potential benefits might turn out not to be worth the risk of tumors progression while waiting for surgery. The focus of this paper is to provide the readers an overview of the most recent evidence on this subject.

Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Therapy in the Treatment in Pancreatic Malignancies: Where Are We?

Since the advent of modern surgery for pancreatic cancer, clinicians have recognized this cancer's propensity to recur locally, metastasize, and cause death. Despite significant efforts to improve patient outcomes with better adjuvant therapy, only modest gains in survival have been observed. An alternative strategy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery has the potential to improve patient selection and survival, and expand the pool of patients eligible for curative surgery. This article summarizes large, randomized trials of adjuvant therapy, explains the limitations imposed by up-front surgery, and suggests neoadjuvant therapy as a rational alternative to initial surgery and adjuvant therapy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic role of splenic vessels infiltration in resectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Identification of factors associated with dismal survival after surgery in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is important to select patients for neoadjuvant treatment. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the results of distal pancreatectomy for resectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic body-tail with and without splenic vessels infiltration.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies including patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer with or without splenic vessels infiltration. 5-year overall survival (OS) was the primary outcomes. Meta-analysis was carried out applying time-to-event method.

RESULTS

Six articles with 423 patients were analysed. Patients with pathological splenic artery invasion had a worse survival compared with those without infiltration (Hazard ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36-2.28; P < 0.0001). A similar results was found when considering pathological splenic vessels infiltration, showing that survival was significantly poorer when splenic vein infiltration was present (Hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.19-1.93; P = 0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed worse survival for patients with splenic vessels infiltration undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Splenic vessels infiltration represents the stigmata of a more aggressive disease, although resectable.

An Evaluation of Artificial Neural Networks in Predicting Pancreatic Cancer Survival

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the development of an artificial neural network (ANN) method for predicting the survival likelihood of pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. The ANN predictive model should produce results with a 90% sensitivity.

METHODS

A prospective examination of the records for 283 consecutive pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients is used to identify 219 records with complete data. These records are then used to create two unique samples which are then used to train and validate an ANN predictive model. Numerous network architectures are evaluated, following recommended ANN development protocols.

RESULTS

Several backpropagation-trained ANNs were produced that satisfied the 90% sensitivity requirement. An ANN model with over a 91% sensitivity is selected because even though it did not have the highest sensitivity, it was able to achieve over 38% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

ANN models can accurately predict the 7-month survival of pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients, both with and without resection, at a 91% sensitivity and 38% specificity. This implies that ANN models may be useful objective decision tools in complex treatment decisions. This information may be used by patients and surgeons in determining optimal treatment plans that minimize regret and improve the quality of life for these patients.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Long-term oncologic outcomes after standard resection

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the only curative option in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Little is known about the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. This bi-institutional study aimed to examine the long-term oncologic results of standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a large cohort of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

From January 2002 to March 2016, 207 patients underwent standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet (Oslo, Norway) and Asan Medical Centre (Seoul, Republic of Korea). After the exclusion criteria were applied (distant metastases at operation, conversion to an open operation, loss to follow-up), 186 patients were eligible for the analysis. Perioperative and oncologic variables were analyzed for association with recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Median overall and recurrence-free survivals were 32 and 16 months, while 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates were estimated to be 38.2% and 35.9%, respectively. Ninety-six (52%) patients developed recurrence: 56 (30%) extrapancreatic, 27 (15%) locoregional, and 13 (7%) combined locoregional and extrapancreatic. Thirty-seven (19.9%) patients had early recurrence (within 6 months of operation). In the multivariable analysis, tumor size >3 cm and no adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with early recurrence (P = .017 and P = .015, respectively). The Cox regression model showed that tumor size >3 cm and lymphovascular invasion were independent predictors of decreased recurrence-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with satisfactory long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Several risk factors, such as tumor size >3 cm, no adjuvant chemotherapy, and lymphovascular invasion, are linked to poor prognosis after standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.