Clinical benefit of surveillance after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surveillance after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: How to do it and what are the benefits?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Surveillance following resection with curative intent of pancreatic cancer varies widely, and supporting evidence is limited. Recurrence is although frequent, not at least during the first 2 years. Surveillance may be costly, but evidence on how this influences overall survival is not fully elucidated.

METHODS, RESULTS

There are reports implying that signs of biological recurrence (increasing CA 19-9) precede radiologically demonstrated recurrence by months.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of initiating salvage therapy earlier is discussed, potentially based on improved future biomarker panels.

Imaging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - An update for all stages of patient management

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a common and lethal cancer. From diagnosis to disease staging, response to neoadjuvant therapy assessment and patient surveillance after resection, imaging plays a central role, guiding the multidisciplinary team in decision-planning.

Review aims and findings

This review discusses the most up-to-date imaging recommendations, typical and atypical findings, and issues related to each step of patient management. Example cases for each relevant condition are presented, and a structured report for disease staging is suggested.

Conclusion

Despite current issues in PDAC imaging at different stages of patient management, the radiologist is essential in the multidisciplinary team, as the conveyor of relevant imaging findings crucial for patient care.

Evaluation of post-operative surveillance strategies and surgeon perceptions and beliefs of surveillance for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the UK

BACKGROUND

Despite high rates of recurrence after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) there is lack of standardised surveillance practices. We aimed to identify UK surveillance practice and interrogate surgeon beliefs around surveillance.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all UK pancreatic units to assess surveillance practice for resected PDAC, factors influencing surveillance protocols, and perceptions and beliefs surrounding on current postoperative surveillance.

RESULTS

There was wide variation in reported practice between 40 consultant surgeons from 28 pancreatic units (100% unit response rate). 26% had standardised surveillance compared to 18% with no standardised practice. 16% individualised surveillance to the patient, and 40% reported differing practices between surgeons within units despite local surveillance protocols. 66% felt surveillance should be tailored to patient factors, and 58% to patient preference. There was a broad belief regarding a lack of robust evidence supporting surveillance making a trial necessary. Thematic analysis identified surveillance barriers, considerations for trial design, necessity for patient engagement and potential benefits of surveillance.

DISCUSSION

Wide variation in surveillance practice exists within and between units. A surveillance trial was deemed beneficial, however identified barriers potentially preclude a trial. Future work should assess acceptability for patients including impact on anxiety and quality-of-life.

Detection of asymptomatic recurrence following curative surgery improves survival in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To date, there is no evidence that intensive follow-up provides survival benefit in gastric cancer patients undergoing curative gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of detection of asymptomatic recurrence using intensive surveillance strategy in long-term survival after curative gastric cancer surgery.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Clinical Trials Registry and Google Scholar was performed up to April 2022. The primary outcomes were survival outcomes: overall survival, recurrence-free survival and post-recurrence survival. The secondary endpoints were clinicopathological features, recurrence patterns and treatment after recurrence. The registration number of this protocol is PROSPERO CRD42022327370.

Results

A total of 11 studies including 1898 participants were included. In the pooled analysis, the detection of asymptomatic recurrence was significantly associated with an improved overall survival compared to patients showing symptoms of recurrence (HR=0.67; 95%CI: 0.57-0.79; P<0.001), which was primarily driven by the prolongation of post-recurrence survival (HR=0.51; 95%CI: 0.42-0.61; P<0.001), since there was no significant difference observed in recurrence-free survival (HR=1.12; 95%CI: 0.81-1.55; P=0.48) between the two groups. Meanwhile, male sex and advanced T stage were more frequently observed in the symptomatic recurrence group. Furthermore, patients in the symptomatic recurrence group had a higher proportion of peritoneal relapse but lower proportion of distant lymph node metastasis. Additionally, patients in the symptomatic recurrence group were less likely to receive surgery treatment and post-recurrence chemotherapy.

Conclusion

The detection of asymptomatic recurrence using intensive follow-up was associated with an appreciable improvement in overall survival. However, more robust data from high-quality studies are still required to verify this issue.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=327370, identifier CRD42022327370.