Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with stage IV pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and identify survival benchmarks for comparison when considering resection in these patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Highly selected cohorts of patients with liver-oligometastatic pancreas cancer have reported prolonged survival following resection. The long-term impact of surgery in this setting remains undefined due to a lack of appropriate control groups. METHODS:We identified patients with clinical stage IV PDAC with synchronous liver metastases within our cancer registry. We estimated overall survival (OS) among various patient subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method. To mitigate immortal time bias, we analyzed long-term outcomes of patients who survived beyond 12 months (landmark time) from diagnosis. RESULTS:We identified 241 patients. Median OS was 7 months (95%CI 5-9), both overall and for patients with liver-only metastasis (n=144). Ninety patients (38% of liver-only; 40% of whole cohort) survived at least 12 months; those who received chemotherapy in this subgroup had a median OS of 26 months (95%CI 17-39). Of these patients, those with resectable or borderline resectable primary tumors and resectable liver-only metastasis (n=9, 4%) had a median OS of 39 months (95%CI 13-NR). CONCLUSIONS:The 4% of our cohort that were potentially eligible for surgery experienced a prolonged survival compared to all-comers with stage IV disease. Oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing resection of metastatic pancreas cancer should be assessed in the context of the expected survival of patients potentially eligible for surgery and not relative to all patients with stage IV disease.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:There is no consensus regarding the role of primary tumor resection for patients with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (panNET). We assessed surgical treatment patterns and evaluated the survival impact of primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic panNET. METHODS:Patients with synchronous metastatic nonfunctional panNET in the National Cancer Database (2004-2016) were categorized based on whether they underwent primary tumor resection. We used logistic regressions to assess associations with primary tumor resection. We performed survival analyses with Kaplan-Meier survival functions, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard regression within a propensity score matched cohort. RESULTS:In the overall cohort of 2613 patients, 68% (n = 839) underwent primary tumor resection. The proportion of patients who underwent primary tumor resection decreased over time from 36% (2004) to 16% (2016, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching on age at diagnosis, median income quartile, tumor grade, size, liver metastasis, and hospital type, primary tumor resection was associated with longer median overall survival (OS) (65 vs. 24 months; p < 0.001) and was associated with lower hazard of mortality (HR: 0.39, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Primary tumor resection was significantly associated with improved OS, suggesting that, if feasible, surgical resection can be considered for well-selected patients with panNET and synchronous metastasis.

BACKGROUND:Time to treatment (TTT) varies widely for patients with gastric cancer. We aimed to evaluate relationships between time to treatment, overall survival (OS), and other surgical outcomes in patients with stage I-III gastric cancer. METHODS:We identified patients with clinical stage I-III gastric cancer who underwent curative-intent gastrectomy within the National Cancer Database (2006-2015) and grouped them by treatment sequence: neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery upfront. We defined TTT as weeks from diagnosis to treatment initiation (neoadjuvant chemotherapy or definitive surgical procedure, respectively). Survival differences were assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimate, Cox proportional hazard regression, and log rank test. RESULTS:Among the 22,846 patients with stage I-III gastric cancer, most (56%) received surgery upfront. Median TTT was 5 weeks (IQR 4-7) and 6 weeks (IQR 3-9) for patients in the neoadjuvant and surgery upfront groups, respectively. In the neoadjuvant group, increasing TTT was significantly associated with increasing median OS up to TTT of 5 weeks, with no change in median OS when TTT was > 5 weeks. In the surgery group, increasing TTT was significantly associated with increasing median OS up to 6 weeks; however, increasing TTT between 14 and 21 weeks was associated with decreasing median OS. CONCLUSIONS:The relationship between time to treatment and survival outcomes is non-linear. Among patients who underwent surgery upfront, the relationship between time to treatment and OS was bimodal, suggesting that deferring definitive surgery, up to 14 weeks, is not associated with worse OS or oncologic outcomes. The relationship between time to treatment and overall survival among patients was bimodal, suggesting that deferring definitive surgery up to 14 weeks is not associated with worse OS.

BACKGROUND:Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for gastric cancer is low, particularly at the hospital level, despite a strong association with improved overall survival (OS). We aimed to evaluate patterns of hospital and regional adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for gastric cancer. METHODS:Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2015), we identified patients with stage I-III gastric cancer. Hospital-level guideline adherence was calculated by dividing the patients who received guideline adherent care by the total patients treated at that hospital. OS was estimated for each hospital. Associations between adherence, region, and survival were compared using mixed-effects, hierarchical regression. RESULTS:Among 576 hospitals, the median hospital guideline adherence rate was 25% (range 0-76%) and varied significantly by region (p = 0.001). Adherence was highest in the Middle Atlantic (29%) and lowest in the East South Central region (19%); hospitals in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North Central regions were more likely to be guideline adherent than those in the East South Central region (all p < 0.05), after adjusting for patient and hospital mix. Most (35%) of the adherence variation was attributable to the hospital. Median 2-year OS varied significantly by region. After adjusting for hospital and patient mix, hazard of mortality was 17% lower in the Middle Atlantic (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.90) relative to the East South Central region, with most of the variation (54%) attributable to patient-level factors. CONCLUSIONS:Hospital-level guideline adherence for gastric cancer demonstrated significant regional variation and was associated with longer OS, suggesting that efforts to improve guideline adherence should be directed toward lower-performing hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Adherence to evidence-based guidelines in gastric cancer is low. We aimed to evaluate adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for gastric cancer at both patient- and hospital-levels and examine associations between guideline adherence and treatment outcomes, including overall survival (OS). METHODS:We applied stage-specific, annual NCCN Guidelines (2004-2015) to patients with gastric cancer treated with curative-intent within the National Cancer Database and compared characteristics of patients who did and did not receive guideline-adherent care. Hospitals were evaluated by guideline adherence rate. We identified associations with OS through multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS:Of 37 659 patients included, 32% received NCCN Guideline-adherent treatment. OS was significantly associated with both guideline adherence (51 months for patients receiving guideline-adherent treatment vs. 22 for patients receiving nonadherent treatment, p < 0.001). Treatment at a hospital with higher adherence was associated with longer OS (21 months for patients treated at lowest adherence quartile hospitals vs. 37 months at highest adherence quartile hospitals, p < 0.001), regardless of type of treatment received. CONCLUSIONS:Guideline-adherent treatment was strongly associated with longer median OS. Guideline adherence should be used as a benchmark for focused quality improvement for physicians taking care of patients with gastric cancer and institutions at large.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Surgery is an option for symptom palliation in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. Operative outcomes after palliative interventions are largely unknown. Herein, we assess the trends of surgical palliation use for patients with gastric cancer and describe outcomes of patients undergoing surgical palliation compared to nonsurgical palliation. METHODS:Patients with clinical Stage IV gastric cancer in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015) who received surgical or nonsurgical palliation were selected. We identified factors associated with palliative surgery. Survival differences were assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimate, Cox proportional hazard regression, and log rank test. RESULTS:Six thousand eight hundred twenty nine patients received palliative care for gastric cancer. Most patients (87%, n = 5944) received nonsurgical palliation: 29% radiation therapy, 57% systemic treatment, and 14% pain management. The number of patients receiving palliative care increased between 2004 and 2015; however, use of surgical palliation declined significantly (22% in 2004, 8% in 2015; P < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) for the cohort was 5.65 mo (95% confidence interval 5.45-5.85); 1-year and 2-year OS were 24% and 9%, respectively. Older age at diagnosis and diagnosis between 2004 and 2006 were significantly associated with undergoing surgical palliation. Patients who underwent surgical palliation had significantly shorter median OS and a 20% higher hazard of mortality than those who received nonsurgical palliation. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with metastatic gastric cancer experience very short survival. While palliative surgery is used infrequently, the observed association with shorter median OS underscores the importance of careful patient selection. Palliative surgery should be offered judiciously and expectations about outcomes clearly established.

BACKGROUND:National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced duodenal adenocarcinoma. Outcomes after systemic treatment in this rare malignancy have not been well studied. We examined utilization patterns of systemic treatment and compared overall survival of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, surgery alone, and adjuvant therapy. METHODS:Patients with stage 0 to III duodenal adenocarcinoma undergoing curative-intent surgery were identified within the National Cancer Database from 2006 to 2015. Outcomes, including median overall survival and 30- and 90-day mortality, were compared based on treatment sequence (neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or surgery alone). Propensity score matching on likelihood of receiving systemic treatment and landmark analysis were performed to mitigate bias. RESULTS:Of the 2,956 patients meeting inclusion criteria, most patients with known clinical stage had locally advanced disease (72%), of which 53% received systemic therapy (8% neoadjuvant, 45% adjuvant). After landmark analysis on the propensity matched cohort, patients with locally advanced disease who received systemic treatment had longer median overall survival compared to patients who underwent surgery alone (49 vs 40 months, P = .018) and a 20% lower hazard of mortality (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.93, P = .003). Patients who received neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy had similar survival outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Adjuvant therapy was underutilized in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline indications, despite an association with longer median overall survival and decreased hazard of mortality. Neoadjuvant therapy, although rarely used, had similar survival to adjuvant therapy. Given its other potential benefits, systemic treatment in the neoadjuvant setting may be a reasonable option in adequately selected patients with clinically advanced duodenal adenocarcinoma.