Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Despite strong evidence demonstrating the clinical and economic benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), utilization of MIS in the Medicare population is highly variable and tends to be lower than in the general population. We sought to compare the post-operative and economic outcomes of MIS versus open surgery for seven common surgical procedures in the Medicare population. METHODS:Using the 2014 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Inpatient Limited Data Set, patients undergoing bariatric, cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, inguinal hernia, thoracic, and ventral hernia procedures were identified using DRG and ICD-9 codes. Adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities, the odds of complication and all-cause 30-day re-admission were compared among patients undergoing MIS versus open surgery stratified by operation type. A generalized linear model was used to calculate the estimated difference in length of stay (LOS), Medicare claim cost, and Medicare reimbursement. RESULTS:Among 233,984 patients, 102,729 patients underwent an open procedure versus 131,255 who underwent an MIS procedure. The incidence of complication after MIS was lower for 5 out of the 7 procedures examined (OR 0.36-0.69). Re-admission was lower for MIS for 6 out of 7 procedures (OR 0.43-0.87). MIS was associated with shorter LOS for 6 procedures (point estimate range 0.35-2.47 days shorter). Medicare claim costs for MIS were lower for 4 (range $3010.23-$4832.74 less per procedure) and Medicare reimbursements were lower for 3 (range $841.10-$939.69 less per procedure). CONCLUSIONS:MIS benefited Medicare patients undergoing a range of surgical procedures. MIS was associated with fewer complications and re-admissions as well as shorter LOS and lower Medicare costs and reimbursements versus open surgery. MIS may represent a better quality and cost proposition in the Medicare population.

BACKGROUND:The impact of neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy on postoperative complications for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains unclear. Limited studies have compared neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional chemoradiation therapy. A retrospective study was performed to determine if perioperative complications were different among patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma receiving neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy or chemoradiation therapy. METHODS:Patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy or chemoradiation therapy followed by pancreatectomy at the Johns Hopkins Hospital between 2008 and 2015 were included. Predictive factors for severe complications (Clavien grade ≥ III) were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS:A total of 168 patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and RT followed by pancreatectomy. Sixty-one (36%) patients underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy and 107 (64%) patients received chemoradiation therapy. Compared with the chemoradiation therapy cohort, the neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy cohort was more likely to have locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (62% vs 43% P = .017) and require a vascular resection (54% vs 37%, P = .027). Multiagent chemotherapy was used more commonly in the stereotactic body radiation therapy cohort (97% vs 75%, P < .001). Postoperative complications (Clavien grade ≥ III 23% vs 28%, P = .471) were similar between stereotactic body radiation therapy and chemoradiation therapy cohort. No significant difference in postoperative bleeding or infection was noted in either group. CONCLUSION:Compared with chemoradiation therapy, neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy appears to offer equivalent rates of perioperative complications in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma despite a greater percentage of locally advanced disease and more complex operative treatment.

OBJECTIVES:The tumor suppressor gene SMAD4 (DPC4) is genetically inactivated in approximately half of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAs). We examined whether Smad4 tumor status was associated with outcomes after adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) for resected PDAs. METHODS:Patients treated with adjuvant CRT were identified (N = 145). Smad4 status was determined by immunolabeling and graded as intact or lost. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable competing risk analyses were performed. RESULTS:On multivariate competing risk analysis, Smad4 loss was associated with increased risk of local recurrence (LR) (hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-5.11; P = 0.027), distant failure (DF) (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.83; P = 0.037), and synchronous LR and DF at first recurrence (14.9 % vs 5.3%, P = 0.07) compared with Smad4 intact cancers. Smad4 loss was not associated with median overall survival (22 vs 22 months; P = 0.63) or disease-free survival (lost [13.6 months] vs intact [13.5 months], P = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS:After PDA resection and adjuvant CRT, Smad4 loss correlated with higher risk of LR and DF, but not with survival. Smad4 loss may help predict which surgical patients are at higher risk for failure after definitive management and may benefit from intensified adjuvant therapy.

This statement was developed to promote international consensus on the definition of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) which was adopted by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in 2006, but which has changed yearly and become more complicated. Based on a symposium held during the 20th meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) in Sendai, Japan, in 2016, the presenters sought consensus on issues related to BR-PDAC. We defined patients with BR-PDAC according to the three distinct dimensions: anatomical (A), biological (B), and conditional (C). Anatomic factors include tumor contact with the superior mesenteric artery and/or celiac artery of less than 180° without showing stenosis or deformity, tumor contact with the common hepatic artery without showing tumor contact with the proper hepatic artery and/or celiac artery, and tumor contact with the superior mesenteric vein and/or portal vein including bilateral narrowing or occlusion without extending beyond the inferior border of the duodenum. Biological factors include potentially resectable disease based on anatomic criteria but with clinical findings suspicious for (but unproven) distant metastases or regional lymph nodes metastases diagnosed by biopsy or positron emission tomography-computed tomography. This also includes a serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 level more than 500 units/ml. Conditional factors include the patients with potentially resectable disease based on anatomic and biologic criteria and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or more. The definition of BR-PDAC requires one or more positive dimensions (e.g. A, B, C, AB, AC, BC or ABC). The present definition acknowledges that resectability is not just about the anatomic relationship between the tumor and vessels, but that biological and conditional dimensions are also important. The aim in presenting this consensus definition is also to highlight issues which remain controversial and require further research.

Telomere end-to-end fusions are an important source of chromosomal instability that arise in cells with critically shortened telomeres. We developed a nested real-time quantitative PCR method for telomere fusion detection in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), and IPMN cyst fluids. Ninety-one pancreatic cancer cell lines and xenograft samples, 93 IPMNs, and 93 surgically aspirated IPMN cyst fluid samples were analyzed. The association between telomere shortening, telomerase activity, and telomere fusion detection was evaluated. Telomere fusions were detected in 56 of 91 pancreatic cancers (61.5%). Telomere fusion-positive cell lines had significantly shorter telomere lengths than fusion-negative lines (P = 0.003). Telomere fusions were undetectable in normal pancreas or IPMNs with low-grade dysplasia (0.0%) and were detected in IPMN with high-grade dysplasia (HGD; 48.0%) (P < 0.001). In IPMN cyst fluids, telomere fusions were more frequent in IPMNs with HGD (26.9%) or associated invasive cancer (42.9%) than IPMN with intermediate-grade dysplasia (15.4%) or low-grade dysplasia (0%) (P = 0.025). Telomerase activity levels were higher in cyst fluids with fusions than in those without (P = 0.0414). Cyst fluid telomere fusion status was an independent predictor of HGD/invasive cancer by multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 6.23; 95% CI, 1.61-28.0). Telomere fusions are detected in later stages of IPMN progression and can serve as a marker for predicting the presence of HGD and/or invasive cancer.

INTRODUCTION:, Inc., Seattle, WA) and second, the ISET system (Rarecells Diagnostics, France), a CTC detection method based on cell size-exclusion. METHODS:system), and pancytokeratin, vimentin (Vim) and CD45 (ISET system). RESULTS:system was moderately correlated with the PanCK+/Vim- CTCs, and strongly correlated with the PanCK+/Vim+ CTCs (r = 0.700, P = 0.004 and r = 0.810, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION:Our results highlight significant disparities in the enumeration and phenotype of CTCs detected by both techniques. Although the median amount of CTCs/7.5 mL differed significantly, total CTC counts of both methods were strongly correlated. For future studies, a more uniform approach to the isolation and definition of CTCs based on immunofluorescent stains is needed to provide reproducible results that can be correlated with clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:The outcomes of sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with germline mutations of BRCA1/BRCA2 remains unclear. The prognostic significance of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations on survival is not well established. STUDY DESIGN:We performed targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) to identify BRCA1/BRCA2 germline mutations in resected sporadic PDAC cases from 2000 to 2015. Germline BRCA mutation carriers were matched by age and tumor location to those with BRCA1/BRCA2 wild-type genes from our institutional database. Demographics, clinicopathologic features, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were abstracted from medical records and compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS:Twenty-two patients with sporadic cancer and BRCA1 (n = 4) or BRCA2 (n = 18) germline mutations and 105 wild-type patients were identified for this case-control study. The BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations were associated with inferior median OS (20.2 vs 27.8 months, p = 0.034) and DFS (8.4 vs 16.7 months, p < 0.001) when compared with the matched wild-type controls. On multivariable analyses, a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.10, p < 0.001), positive margin status (HR 1.72, p = 0.021), and lack of adjuvant therapy (HR 2.38, p < 0.001), were all independently associated with worse survival. Within the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutated group, having had platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 10) was associated with better survival than alternative chemotherapy (n = 8) or no adjuvant therapy (n = 4) (31.0 vs 17.8 vs 9.3 months, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation with sporadic PDAC had a worse survival after pancreatectomy than their BRCA wild-type counterparts. However, platinum-based chemotherapy regimens were associated with markedly improved survival in patients with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, with survival differences no longer appreciated with wild-type patients.

Earlier detection is key to reducing cancer deaths. Here, we describe a blood test that can detect eight common cancer types through assessment of the levels of circulating proteins and mutations in cell-free DNA. We applied this test, called CancerSEEK, to 1005 patients with nonmetastatic, clinically detected cancers of the ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, esophagus, colorectum, lung, or breast. CancerSEEK tests were positive in a median of 70% of the eight cancer types. The sensitivities ranged from 69 to 98% for the detection of five cancer types (ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, and esophagus) for which there are no screening tests available for average-risk individuals. The specificity of CancerSEEK was greater than 99%: only 7 of 812 healthy controls scored positive. In addition, CancerSEEK localized the cancer to a small number of anatomic sites in a median of 83% of the patients.