Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To assess the prognostic impact of margin status in patients with resected intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to inform future intraoperative decision-making on handling differing degrees of dysplasia on frozen section. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:The ideal oncologic surgical outcome is a negative transection margin with normal pancreatic epithelium left behind. However, the prognostic significance of reresecting certain degrees of dysplasia or invasive cancer at the pancreatic neck margin during pancreatectomy for IPMN-derived PDAC is debatable. METHODS:Consecutive patients with resected and histologically confirmed IPMN-derived PDAC (2002-2022) from six international high-volume centers were included. The prognostic relevance of a positive resection margin (R1) and degrees of dysplasia at the pancreatic neck margin were assessed by log-rank test and multivariable Cox-regression for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS:Overall, 832 patients with IPMN-derived PDAC were included with 322 patients (39%) having an R1-resection on final pathology. Median OS (mOS) was significantly longer in patients with an R0 status compared to those with an R1 status (65.8 vs. 26.3 mo P<0.001). Patients without dysplasia at the pancreatic neck margin had similar OS compared to those with low-grade dysplasia (mOS: 78.8 vs. 66.8 months, P=0.344). However, high-grade dysplasia (mOS: 26.1 mo, P=0.001) and invasive cancer (mOS: 25.0 mo, P<0.001) were associated with significantly worse OS compared to no or low-grade dysplasia. Patients who underwent conversion of high-risk margins (high-grade or invasive cancer) to a low-risk margin (low-grade or no dysplasia) after intraoperative frozen section had significantly superior OS compared to those with a high-risk neck margin on final pathology (mOS: 76.9 vs. 26.1 mo P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In IPMN-derived PDAC, normal epithelium or low-grade dysplasia at the neck have similar outcomes while pancreatic neck margins with high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer are associated with poorer outcomes. Conversion of a high-risk to low-risk margin after intraoperative frozen section is associated with survival benefit and should be performed when feasible.

BACKGROUND:Little is known about the prognostic significance of pancreatic duct (PD) dilation following pancreatoduodenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). Although PD dilation is typically the hallmark radiographic feature of IPMN, other causes of PD dilation exist, including anastomotic stricture, pancreatitis, senescence, and postsurgical passive dilation. Therefore, PD dilation after pancreatoduodenectomy for IPMN represents a diagnostic and management dilemma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the significance of PD dilation after pancreatoduodenectomy for noninvasive IPMN. METHODS:All patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for noninvasive IPMN at nine pancreatic academic centers between 2013 and 2018 were included. Variables were entered prospectively into institutional databases and retrospectively reviewed for the purpose of this study. Dilation of the PD remnant was defined as a duct diameter of ≥5 mm, according to international guidelines. RESULTS:Four-hundred and eighty-one patients were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 66 years (range 30-90). Patients were surveilled for a median of 4.5 (+/-2.3; max 10.6) years. During follow-up, 132 patients (27.4%) developed PD dilation in the remnant tissue after a median of 3.3 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that older age at the time of pancreatoduodenectomy (P=0.01) and longer surveillance duration (P=0.002) were predictors of PD dilation. Interestingly, neither the pathological IPMN subtype (branch-duct vs. main duct/mixed, P=0.96) nor the preoperative PD diameter (P=0.14) was associated with an increased risk of PD dilation in the remnant. During follow-up, IPMN recurrence was suspected in the remaining 72 patients (18.4%), solely because of ductal dilation on cross-sectional imaging in 97% (70/72). Completion pancreatectomy was performed in only 16 patients (3.3%), of whom only four (0.8%) had invasive carcinoma. Three of these four patients had high-grade dysplasia in the original pancreatoduodenectomy specimen, whereas only one had a low-grade dysplastic lesion initially. On multivariable analysis, no variable was predictive of IPMN recurrence in the remnant. CONCLUSIONS:New main duct dilation in the pancreatic remnant after pancreatoduodenectomy for IPMN is common, occurring in 27% of the patients. The duration of surveillance is the main factor associated with remnant PD dilation, suggesting that this is likely a physiologic phenomenon. Although recurrence of IPMN in the remnant is often suspected, only 0.8% of patients develop an invasive carcinoma in the pancreatic remnant requiring completion pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the role of site-specific metastatic patterns over time and assess factors associated with extended survival in metastatic PDAC. Half of all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) present with metastatic disease. The site of metastasis plays a crucial role in clinical decision making due to its prognostic value. METHODS:We examined 56,757 stage-IV PDAC patients from the National Cancer Database (2016-2019), categorizing them by metastatic site: multiple, liver, lung, brain, bone, carcinomatosis, or other. The site-specific prognostic value was assessed using log-rank tests while time-varying effects were assessed by Aalen's linear hazards model. Factors associated with extended survival (>3years) were assessed with logistic regression. RESULTS:Median overall survival (mOS) in patients with distant lymph node-only metastases (9.0 months) and lung-only metastases (8.1 months) was significantly longer than in patients with liver-only metastases (4.6 months, p < 0.001). However, after six months, the metastatic site lost prognostic value. Logistic regression identified extended survivors (3.6 %) as more likely to be younger, Hispanic, privately insured, Charlson-index <2, having received chemotherapy, or having undergone primary or distant site surgery (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While synchronous liver metastases are associated with worse outcomes than lung-only and lymph node-only metastases, this predictive value is diminished after six months. Therefore, treatment decisions beyond this time should not primarily depend on the metastatic site. Extended survival is possible in a small subset of patients with favorable tumor biology and good conditional status, who are more likely to undergo aggressive therapies.

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.

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.