Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To analyze postrecurrence progression in the context of recurrence sites and assess implications for postrecurrence treatment. BACKGROUND:Most patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) recur within 2 years. Different survival outcomes for location-specific patterns of recurrence are reported, highlighting their prognostic value. However, a lack of understanding of postrecurrence progression and survival remains. METHODS:This retrospective analysis included surgically treated patients with PDAC at NYU Langone Health (2010-2021). Sites of recurrence were identified at the time of diagnosis and further follow-up. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test, and Cox regression analyses were applied to assess survival outcomes. RESULTS:Recurrence occurred in 57.3% (196/342) patients with a median time to recurrence of 11.3 months (95% CI: 12.6-16.5). The first site of recurrence was local in 43.9% of patients, liver in 23.5%, peritoneal in 8.7%, lung in 3.6%, whereas 20.4% had multiple sites of recurrence. Progression to secondary sites was observed in 11.7%. Only lung involvement was associated with significantly longer survival after recurrence compared with other sites (16.9 vs 8.49 months, P = 0.003). In local recurrence, 21 (33.3%) patients were alive after 1 year without progression to secondary sites. This was associated with a CA19-9 of <100 U/mL at the time of primary diagnosis ( P = 0.039), nodal negative disease ( P = 0.023), and well-moderate differentiation ( P = 0.042) compared with patients with progression. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Except for lung recurrence, postrecurrence survival after PDAC resection is associated with poor survival. A subset of patients with local-only recurrence do not quickly succumb to systemic spread. This is associated with markers for favorable tumor biology, making them candidates for potential curative re-resections when feasible.

BACKGROUND:The appropriate surgical approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is determined by the tumor's relation to the porto-mesenteric axis. Although the extent and location of lymphadenectomy is dependent on the type of resection, a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), distal pancreatectomy (DP), or total pancreatectomy (TP) are considered equivalent oncologic operations for pancreatic neck tumors. Therefore, we aimed to assess differences in histopathological and oncological outcomes for surgical approaches in the treatment of pancreatic neck tumors. METHODS:Patients with resected PDAC located in the pancreatic neck were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2020). Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. Furthermore, patients with 90-day mortality and R2-resections were excluded from the multivariable Cox-regression analysis. RESULTS:Among 846 patients, 58% underwent PD, 25% DP, and 17% TP with similar R0-resection rates (p = 0.722). Significant differences were observed in nodal positivity (PD:44%, DP:34%, TP:57%, p < 0.001) and mean-number of examined lymph nodes (PD:17.2 ± 10.4, DP:14.7 ± 10.5, TP:21.2 ± 11.0, p < 0.001). Furthermore, inadequate lymphadenectomy (< 12 nodes) was observed in 30%, 44%, and 19% of patients undergoing PD, DP, and TP, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis yielded similar overall survival after DP (HR:0.83, 95%CI:0.63-1.11), while TP was associated with worse survival (HR:1.43, 95%CI:1.08-1.89) compared to PD. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While R0-rates are similar amongst all approaches, DP is associated with inadequate lymphadenectomy which may result in understaging disease. However, this had no negative influence on survival. In the premise that an oncological resection of the pancreatic neck tumor is feasible with a partial pancreatectomy, no benefit is observed by performing a TP.

OBJECTIVE:We aimed to better understand patients' treatment preferences and quantify the level of cancer risk at which treatment preferences change (risk threshold) to inform better counseling of patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:The complexity of IPMN management provides an opportunity to align treatment with individual preference. METHODS:We surveyed a sample of healthy volunteers simulating a common scenario: undergoing an imaging study that incidentally identifies an IPMN. In the scenario, the estimated risk of cancer in the IPMN was 5%. Patients were asked their treatment preference (surgery or surveillance), to quantify the level of cancer risk in the IPMN at which their treatment preference would change (i.e. risk threshold), and their level of cancer anxiety as measured on a 5-point Likert scale. We examined associations between participant characteristics, treatment preferences, and risk threshold using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS:The median risk threshold among the 520 participants was 25% (IQR 2.3-50%). The risk threshold had a bimodal distribution: 40% of participants had a risk threshold between 0-10% and 47% had a risk threshold above 30%. When informed that the risk of cancer was 5%, 62% of participants (n=323) preferred surveillance, and the remaining 38% (n=197) preferred surgery. After adjusting for potential confounders, participants who expressed "worry" or "extreme worry" about the malignancy risk of IPMN had significantly lower risk thresholds than participants who were "not at all worried" (Coefficient -12, 95%CI -21 to -2, P=0.015 and Coefficient -18, 95%CI -29 to -8, P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Participants varied in treatment preference and risk threshold of incidentally identified IPMNs. Given the uncertainty in estimating the true malignant potential of IPMNs, a better understanding of a patient's risk threshold, as influenced by patient concern about malignancy, will help inform the shared decision-making process.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Approximately 20-30% of patients will develop hepatic metastasis in the form of synchronous or metachronous disease. The treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach, with chemotherapy and a variety of locoregional treatments, such as ablation and portal vein embolization, playing a crucial role. However, resection remains a core tenet of management, serving as the gold standard for a curative-intent therapy. As such, the input of a dedicated hepatobiliary surgeon is paramount for appropriate patient selection and choice of surgical approach, as significant advances in the field have made management decisions extremely nuanced and complex. We herein aim to review the contemporary surgical management of colorectal liver metastasis with respect to both perioperative and operative considerations.

OBJECTIVES:We aimed to determine whether surgeon variation in management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) is driven by differences in risk perception and quantify surgeons' risk threshold for changing their recommendations. BACKGROUND:Surgeons vary widely in management of IPMN. METHODS:We conducted a survey of members of the Americas HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association, presented participants with 2 detailed clinical vignettes and asked them to choose between surgical resection and surveillance. We also asked them to judge the likelihood that the IPMN harbors cancer and that the patient would have a serious complication if surgery was performed. Finally, we asked surgeons to rate the level of cancer risk at which they would change their treatment recommendation. We examined the association between surgeons' treatment recommendations and their risk perception and risk threshold. RESULTS:One hundred fifty surgeons participated in the study. Surgeons varied in their recommendations for surgery [19% for vignette 1 (V1) and 12% for V2] and in their perception of the cancer risk (interquartile range: 2%-10% for V1 and V2) and risk of surgical complications (V1 interquartile range: 10%-20%, V2 20-30%). After adjusting for surgeon characteristics, surgeons who were above the median in cancer risk perception were 22 percentage points (27% vs 5%) more likely to recommend resection than those who were below the median (95% CI: 11%-4%; P <0.001). The median risk threshold at which surgeons would change their recommendation was 15% (V1 and V2). Surgeons who recommended surgery had a lower risk threshold for changing their recommendation than those who recommended surveillance (V1: 10.0 vs 15.0, P =0.06; V2: 7.0 vs 15.0, P =0.05). CONCLUSIONS:The treatment that patients receive for IPMNs depends greatly on how their surgeons perceive the risk of cancer in the lesion. Efforts to improve cancer risk prediction for IPMNs may lead to decreased variations in care.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to determine whether surgeon variation in management of IPMN is driven by differences in risk perception and quantify surgeons' risk threshold for changing their recommendations. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Surgeons vary widely in management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). METHODS:We conducted a survey of members of the Americas HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association (AHPBA), presented participants with 2 detailed clinical vignettes and asked them to choose between surgical resection and surveillance. We also asked them to judge the likelihood that the IPMN harbors cancer and that the patient would have a serious complication if surgery was performed. Finally, we asked surgeons to rate the level of cancer risk at which they would change their treatment recommendation. We examined the association between surgeons' treatment recommendations and their risk perception and risk threshold. RESULTS:150 surgeons participated in the study. Surgeons varied in their recommendations for surgery (19% for vignette 1 (V1) and 12% for V2) and in their perception of the cancer risk (interquartile range [IQR] 2-10% for V1 and V2) and risk of surgical complications (V1 IQR 10-20%, V2 20-30%). After adjusting for surgeon characteristics, surgeons who were above the median in cancer risk perception were 22 percentage points (27% vs. 5%) more likely to recommend resection than those who were below the median (95% CI 11,34%; P<0.001). The median risk threshold at which surgeons would change their recommendation was 15% (V1 and V2). Surgeons who recommended surgery had a lower risk threshold for changing their recommendation than those who recommended surveillance (V1: 10.0 vs. 15.0, P=0.06; V2: 7.0 vs. 15.0, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS:The treatment that patients receive for IPMNs depends greatly on how their surgeons perceive the risk of cancer in the lesion. Efforts to improve cancer risk prediction for IPMNs may lead to decreased variations in care.

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.