Faculty Bibliography

The REDISCOVER guidelines present 34 recommendations for the selection and perioperative care of borderline-resectable (BR-PDAC) and locally advanced ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (LA-PDAC). These guidelines represent a significant shift from previous approaches, prioritizing tumor biology over anatomical features as the primary indication for resection. Condensed herein, they provide a practical management algorithm for clinical practice. However, the guidelines also highlight the need to redefine LA-PDAC to align with modern treatment strategies and to solve some contradictions within the current definition, such as grouping "difficult" and "impossible" to resect tumors together. Furthermore, the REDISCOVER guidelines highlight several areas requiring urgent research. These include the resection of the superior mesenteric artery, the management strategies for patients with LA-PDAC who are fit for surgery but unable to receive multi-agent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the approach to patients with LA-PDAC who are fit for surgery but demonstrate high serum Ca 19.9 levels even after neoadjuvant treatment, and the optimal timing and number of chemotherapy cycles prior to surgery. Additionally, the role of primary chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in LA-PDAC, the timing of surgical resection post-neoadjuvant/primary chemoradiotherapy, the efficacy of ablation therapies, and the management of oligometastasis in patients with LA-PDAC warrant investigation. Given the limited evidence for many issues, refining existing management strategies is imperative. The establishment of the REDISCOVER registry ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ) offers promise of a unified research platform to advance understanding and improve the management of BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC.

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.

The notion that technically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma presents as localized disease is now known to be inaccurate. Evidence supports that most patients have subclinical systemic dissemination at the time of diagnosis. It is now widely accepted that both a local and systemic component of disease coexist, each requiring treatment of improved survival and potential cure. The advent of multiagent chemotherapy regimens has resulted in a modest improvement in survival. Consequently, this article will emphasize the expanding potential and significance of circulating tumor cells in the prognostication and management of patients with pancreatic cancer.

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.

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The benefit of adjuvant therapy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear because of severely limited evidence. Although biologically distinct entities, adjuvant therapy practices for IPMN-derived PDAC are largely founded on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia-derived PDAC. We aimed to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in IPMN-derived PDAC. METHODS:This international multicenter retrospective cohort study (2005-2018) was conceived at the Verona Evidence-Based Medicine meeting. Cox regressions were performed to identify risk-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) associated with overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were employed for survival analysis. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors motivating adjuvant chemotherapy administration. A decision tree was proposed and categorized patients into overtreated, undertreated, and optimally treated cohorts. RESULTS:> .05). Based on this model, we observed undertreatment in 18.1% and overtreatment in 61.2% of patients. Factors associated with chemotherapy administration included younger age, R1-margin, poorer differentiation, and nodal disease. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Almost half of patients with resected IPMN-derived PDAC may be overtreated or undertreated. In patients with node-negative disease or normal CA19-9, adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with a survival benefit, whereas those with node-positive disease and elevated CA19-9 have an associated benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. A decision tree was proposed. Randomized controlled trials are needed for validation.

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.

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.

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.