Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. RESULTS:Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS:PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Pancreatic cyst management can be distilled into three separate pathways - discharge, monitoring or surgery- based on the risk of malignant transformation. This study compares the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models to clinical care for this task. METHODS:Two explainable boosting machine (EBM) models were developed and evaluated using clinical features only, or clinical features and cyst fluid molecular markers (CFMM) using a publicly available dataset, consisting of 850 cases (median age 64; 65 % female) with independent training (429 cases) and holdout test cohorts (421 cases). There were 137 cysts with no malignant potential, 114 malignant cysts, and 599 IPMNs and MCNs. RESULTS:The EBM and EBM with CFMM models had higher accuracy for identifying patients requiring monitoring (0.88 and 0.82) and surgery (0.66 and 0.82) respectively compared with current clinical care (0.62 and 0.58). For discharge, the EBM with CFMM model had a higher accuracy (0.91) than either the EBM model (0.84) or current clinical care (0.86). In the cohort of patients who underwent surgical resection, use of the EBM-CFMM model would have decreased the number of unnecessary surgeries by 59 % (n = 92), increased correct surgeries by 7.5 % (n = 11), identified patients who require monitoring by 122 % (n = 76), and increased the number of patients correctly classified for discharge by 138 % (n = 18) compared to clinical care. CONCLUSIONS:EBM models had greater sensitivity and specificity for identifying the correct management compared with either clinical management or previous AI models. The model predictions are demonstrated to be interpretable by clinicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIM/OBJECTIVE:Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) management is generally extrapolated from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)-derived PDAC guidelines. However, these are biologically divergent, and heterogeneity further exists between tubular and colloid subtypes. METHODS:Consecutive upfront surgery patients with PanIN-derived and IPMN-derived PDAC were retrospectively identified from international centers (2000-2019). One-to-one propensity score matching for clinicopathologic factors generated three cohorts: IPMN-derived versus PanIN-derived PDAC, tubular IPMN-derived versus PanIN-derived PDAC, and tubular versus colloid IPMN-derived PDAC. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox regression determined corresponding hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS:The median OS (mOS) in 2350 PanIN-derived and 700 IPMN-derived PDAC patients was 23.0 and 43.1 months (P < 0.001), respectively. PanIN-derived PDAC had worse T-stage, CA19-9, grade, and nodal status. Tubular subtype had worse T-stage, CA19-9, grade, nodal status, and R1 margins, with a mOS of 33.7 versus 94.1 months (P < 0.001) in colloid. Matched (n = 495), PanIN-derived and IPMN-derived PDAC had mOSs of 30.6 and 42.8 months (P < 0.001), respectively. In matched (n = 341) PanIN-derived and tubular IPMN-derived PDAC, mOS remained poorer (27.7 vs 37.4, P < 0.001). Matched tubular and colloid cancers (n = 112) had similar OS (P = 0.55). On multivariable Cox regression, PanIN-derived PDAC was associated with worse OS than IPMN-derived (HR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.44-1.90) and tubular IPMN-derived (HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.32-1.77) PDAC. Colloid and tubular subtype was not associated with OS (P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS:PanIN-derived PDAC has worse survival than IPMN-derived PDAC supporting distinct outcomes. Although more indolent, colloid IPMN-derived PDAC has similar survival to tubular after risk adjustment.

OBJECTIVE:To validate the ISGPS definition and grading system of PPAP after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:In 2022, the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) defined post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (PPAP) and recommended a prospective validation of its diagnostic criteria and grading system. METHODS:This was a prospective, international, multicenter study including patients undergoing PD at 17 referral pancreatic centers across Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the United States. PPAP diagnosis required the following three parameters: (1) postoperative serum hyperamylasemia /hyperlipasemia (POH) persisting on postoperative days 1 and 2, (2) radiologic alterations consistent with PPAP, and (3) a clinically relevant deterioration in the patient's condition. To validate the grading system, clinical and economic parameters were analyzed across all grades. RESULTS:Among 2902 patients undergoing PD, 7.5% (n=218) developed PPAP (6.3% grade B and 1.2% grade C). POH occurred in 24.1% of patients. Hospital stay was associated with PPAP grades (No POH/PPAP 10 days (IQR 7-17) days, grade B 22 days (IQR 15-34) days, and grade C 43 days (IQR 27-54) days; P<0.001), as well as intensive care unit admission (No POH/PPAP 5.4%, grade B 12.6%, grade C 82.9%; P<0.010), and hospital readmission rates (No POH/PPAP 7.3%, grade B 16.1%, grade C 18.5%; P<0.05). Costs of grade B and C PPAP were 2 and 11 times greater than uncomplicated clinical course, resp. (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:This first prospective, international validation study of the ISGPS definition and grading system for PPAP highlighted the relevant clinical and financial implications of this condition. These results stress the importance of routine screening for PPAP in patients undergoing PD.

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most aggressive solid tumors. As a systemic disease, despite the improvement of multi-modality treatment strategies, the prognosis of pancreatic cancer was not improved dramatically. For resectable or borderline resectable patients, the surgical strategy centered on improving R0 resection rate is consensus; however, the role of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable patients and the optimal neoadjuvant therapy of chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy in borderline resectable patients were debated. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy of gemcitabine/capecitabine or mFOLFIRINOX is recommended regardless of the margin status. Chemotherapy as the first-line treatment strategy for advanced or metastatic patients included FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, or NALIRIFOX regimens whereas 5-FU plus liposomal irinotecan was the only standard of care second-line therapy. Immunotherapy is an innovative therapy although anti-PD-1 antibody is currently the only agent approved by for MSI-H, dMMR, or TMB-high solid tumors, which represent a very small subset of pancreatic cancers. Combination strategies to increase the immunogenicity and to overcome the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment may sensitize pancreatic cancer to immunotherapy. Targeted therapies represented by PARP and KRAS inhibitors are also under investigation, showing benefits in improving progression-free survival and objective response rate. This review discusses the current treatment modalities and highlights innovative therapies for pancreatic cancer.

The majority of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer already have metastatic disease at the time of presentation, which results in a 5-year survival rate of only 13%. However, multiagent chemotherapy regimens can stabilize the disease in select patients with limited metastatic disease. For such patients, a combination of curative-intent therapy and systemic therapy may potentially enhance outcomes compared to using systemic therapy alone. Of note, the evidence supporting this approach is primarily derived from retrospective studies and may carry a significant selection bias. Looking ahead, ongoing prospective trials are exploring the efficacy of curative-intent therapy in managing oligometastatic pancreatic cancer and the implementation of treatment strategies based on specific biomarkers. The emergence of these trials, coupled with the development of less invasive therapeutic modalities, provides hope for patients with oligometastatic pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Dynamics of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) often inform treatment decisions during and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, considerable dispute persists regarding the clinical relevance of specific CA19-9 thresholds and dynamics. Therefore, we aimed to define optimal thresholds for CA19-9 values and create a biochemically driven composite score to predict survival in CA19-9-producing patients with PDAC after NAT. METHODS:Patients with PDAC who underwent NAT and surgical resection from 2012 to 2022 were retrospectively identified from three high-volume centers. CA19-9 nonproducers and patients with 90-day mortality, and macroscopically incomplete resections were excluded. A composite score was created on the basis of relative CA19-9 change and newly defined optimal thresholds of pre- and postneoadjuvant values for overall survival (OS) using patients from two centers and validated using data from the third center. RESULTS:< .001). Major serological response (90% decrease of CA19-9) had a positive and negative predictive value of 32% and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The composite score consisting of CA19-9 levels at diagnosis, after neoadjuvant treatment, and its dynamics demonstrates prognostic discrimination between low and high scores. However, better predictive biomarkers are needed to facilitate treatment decisions during neoadjuvant treatment.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the impact of total pancreatectomy (TP) on oncological outcomes for patients at high-risk of local recurrence or secondary progression in the remnant gland after partial pancreatectomy (PP) for IPMN-associated cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Major risk factors for invasive progression in the remnant gland include multifocality, diffuse main duct dilation, and the presence of invasive cancer. In these high-risk patients, a TP may be oncologically beneficial. However, current guidelines discourage TP, especially in elderly patients. METHODS:This international multicenter study compares TP versus PP in patients with adenocarcinoma arising from multifocal or diffuse IPMN (2002-2022). Log-rank test and multivariable Cox-analysis with interaction analysis was performed to assess overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local-DFS. RESULTS:Of 359 included patients, 162 (45%) were treated with TP, whereas 197 (55%) underwent PP. Despite TP and PP having similar R0-rates (59% vs. 58%, P=0.866), patients undergoing a TP had significantly longer local-DFS compared to PP (P=0.039). However, no difference in OS was observed between the two surgical approaches (P=0.487). In a multivariable analysis, young age (optimal cut-off ≤63.6 yrs) was associated with an OS benefit derived from TP (HR:0.44, 95%CI:0.22-0.89), whereas no significant difference was observed in elderly patients (HR:1.24, 95%CI:0.92-1.67, Pinteraction=0.007). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Since overall, patients with diffuse or multifocal IPMN with an invasive component do not benefit from TP in terms of OS, the indication for TP may be individualized to young patients who have sufficient life expectancy to benefit from the prevention of secondary progression or local recurrence.

OBJECTIVE:To measure the rate of LTS in resected PDAC and determine the association between predictors of OS and LTS. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Long-term survival (>5 y, LTS) remains rare in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Multiple predictors of overall survival (OS) are known but their association with LTS remains unclear. METHODS:An international, multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Included were patients from 2012-2019 with resected PDAC. Excluded were those with metastases at diagnosis or resection, R2 resections, and 90-day mortality. Predictors of OS were identified using multivariable Cox regression and their prevalence in patients with LTS assessed. LTS was calculated by excluding patients with shorter follow-up and predictors of LTS were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:3,003 patients were included (27.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Elevated baseline CA19-9, high tumor grade, nodal disease, and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were negative independent predictors of OS, while receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy predicted improved OS (all P<0.05). LTS was observed in 220/2,436 patients (9.0%), of whom 198 (90%) harbored poor prognostic factors: elevated baseline CA19-9 (58.1%), poor tumor differentiation (51.0%), nodal disease (46.8%), and perineural invasion (76.0%). Of those without any of these four features, 50.0% achieved LTS as compared to 21.3%, 13.3%, 5.2%, and 3.5% in those with 1, 2, 3, or 4 features. CONCLUSIONS:This bi-national cohort demonstrates a true LTS rate of 9.0% in resected PDAC. Clinicians should remain aware that presence of poor prognostic factors does not preclude LTS.

OBJECTIVE:To measure the rate of LTS in resected PDAC and determine the association between predictors of OS and LTS. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Long-term survival (>5 y, LTS) remains rare in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Multiple predictors of overall survival (OS) are known but their association with LTS remains unclear. METHODS:An international, multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Included were patients from 2012-2019 with resected PDAC. Excluded were those with metastases at diagnosis or resection, R2 resections, and 90-day mortality. Predictors of OS were identified using multivariable Cox regression and their prevalence in patients with LTS assessed. LTS was calculated by excluding patients with shorter follow-up and predictors of LTS were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:3,003 patients were included (27.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Elevated baseline CA19-9, high tumor grade, nodal disease, and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were negative independent predictors of OS, while receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy predicted improved OS (all P<0.05). LTS was observed in 220/2,436 patients (9.0%), of whom 198 (90%) harbored poor prognostic factors: elevated baseline CA19-9 (58.1%), poor tumor differentiation (51.0%), nodal disease (46.8%), and perineural invasion (76.0%). Of those without any of these four features, 50.0% achieved LTS as compared to 21.3%, 13.3%, 5.2%, and 3.5% in those with 1, 2, 3, or 4 features. CONCLUSIONS:This bi-national cohort demonstrates a true LTS rate of 9.0% in resected PDAC. Clinicians should remain aware that presence of poor prognostic factors does not preclude LTS.