Faculty Bibliography

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.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with extensive peripancreatic vessel involvement is classified as locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). For this group of patients, the current standard of care does not include considering a potentially curative oncologic resection. However, recent advances in multiagent chemotherapy and surgical techniques are challenging this paradigm. Moreover, the current determination of anatomic resectability is vague and unreliable. Here we propose a definition of local resectability, based on pre- and intra-operative assessment. This anatomic definition of resectability assumes careful patient selection based on tumor biology and patient condition. The pre-operative evaluation of vascular anatomy and tumor involvement is conducted using 3D-rendering of pancreas-protocol computed tomography. Identifying a disease-free arterial or venous segment above and below the tumor involvement ("suitable target") is the single critical factor that determines anatomic resectability. Intraoperative isolation of these target vessels confirms the feasibility of vascular reconstruction before resection. This approach, which focuses on identifying target vessels rather than circumferential involvement, offers a more straightforward and clinically relevant method for assessing surgical eligibility in LAPC patients at centers of excellence. In summary, reconstructability-based on surgical expertise and guided by tumor biology-now defines the modern paradigm of resectability in LAPC.

BACKGROUND:The 2024 Kyoto guidelines for the management of intraductal mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) build on previous guidelines that consider worrisome features (WF) and high-risk stigmata (HRS) to recommend surveillance or resection. These new guidelines have not yet been validated. METHODS:Patients undergoing pancreatectomy for an IPMN at an academic medical center between 2012 and 2023 were included. IPMNs were categorized as low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or invasive carcinoma (IC). Preoperative imaging was used to determine HRS and WF in accordance with the 2024 Kyoto guidelines. We compared IPMNs with LGD to those with HGD or IC using univariate analyses and evaluated logistic regression models with c-statistics. RESULTS:Of 211 patients, 84 (40%) had LGD, 49 (23%) had HGD, and 78 (37%) had IC. Among HRS, obstructive jaundice (p = 0.004), pancreatic duct ≥ 10 mm (p < 0.001), and suspicious or positive cytology (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with HGD/IC. An increasing number of HRS were associated with higher rates of HGD/IC. Among WFs, an abrupt change in the caliber of pancreatic duct with distal pancreatic atrophy (p = 0.001) and cystic growth ≥ 2.5 mm/year (p = 0.033) were significantly associated with higher rates of HGD/IC. Increasing numbers of WFs were also associated with higher rates of HGD/IC. The 2024 Kyoto model showed improved discrimination (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.849) compared with the 2017 Fukuoka model (AUC=0.780, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The risk of HGD/IC in IPMNs increased in a stepwise fashion as the number of WFs increased. The 2024 guidelines represent an advancement over the 2017 guidelines, notably with the inclusion of suspicious cytology as an HRS.

BACKGROUND:Prognostic factors in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have been determined under the assumption that hazard ratios (HRs) remain static. However, PDAC is a dynamic disease with evolving conditional survival. The aim of this study was to determine if the impact of prognostic factors in PDAC is time-varying. METHODS:This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of the prospectively maintained Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Recurrence Database and New York University and Johns Hopkins Hospital Institutional Databases. Patients with complete macroscopic resection of histopathologically proven PDAC between 2014 and 2019 and available follow-up data were included. The time-varying impact of prognostic factors identified by univariable Cox regression was modeled using Aalen's Additive Regression Models (Aalen's models) and visualized as plots of cumulative hazard. RESULTS:In total, 3104 patients were included, of whom 938 (30.2%) received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), whereas the rest underwent upfront surgery (US). A total of 201 (6.5%) patients achieved observed long-term survival (>5 years). Aalen's models showed that lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and nodal disease were prognostic up to 2 years postoperatively. At varying points thereafter, these variables lost their impact in the NAT but not US patients. Similarly, during the fourth year of follow-up, American Society of Anesthesiology scores became impactful in the NAT but not in the US patients. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The impact of prognostic factors in resected PDAC across NAT and US patients is time-varying. Our results suggest that aggressive disease drives early mortality but, after NAT, tumor-biological factors lose prognostic importance to frailty and comorbidities over time.

BACKGROUND:Pancreatic cancer is a challenging malignancy with an aggressive biology and limited treatment options, contributing to low survival rates. Supportive and palliative care play a key role in improving the quality of life and psychological distress for patients and their families. However, appropriate delivery and effectiveness of these interventions may be influenced by social determinants of health (SDOH). These factors create significant barriers for patients, influencing their access to care and ability to make informed decisions. This review explores the role of SDOH in supportive and palliative care of pancreatic cancer patients and identifies areas for improvement to enhance this type of care for vulnerable populations. METHODS:A thorough narrative review was carried out to evaluate the influence of social determinants of health on supportive and palliative care in the management of pancreatic cancer, focusing on symptom management, psychosocial support, nutritional support, advance care planning, rehabilitation, functional support, and care coordination. RESULTS:This review demonstrates that disparities exist. Black and Asian patients receive less pain medications; those with lower level of education struggle to access psychological support; Hispanic and Black patients often do not receive needed nutritional care; and end-of-life planning is less common among non-White and less-educated patients. CONCLUSIONS:SDOH significantly affects the experience and delivery of supportive and palliative care in pancreatic cancer patients, exacerbating inequities across multiple domains of care. Addressing these disparities requires coordinated efforts at clinical, organizational, and policy levels to ensure equitable access to care for all patients in their final phase of life. Integrating attention to SODH into care delivery models can improve outcomes and enhance quality of life for these patients.

This manuscript describes the evolution in the operative management of pancreatic cancer. Early attempts at pancreatic resection were met with daunting peri‑operative outcomes but were fine-tuned to yield today's established pancreatic resections. Advances in medical therapy, including neo-adjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancers and refined adjuvant regimens, have improved oncologic outcomes and are allowing surgeons to move beyond current anatomic distinctions of resectability. Venous, hepatic artery and celiac axis resection during pancreatectomy are now common vascular operations at specialty centers which have been associated with favorable oncologic outcomes. Recent efforts are addressing locally advanced pancreatic cancer with superior mesenteric artery and/or multivessel involvement using either arterial divestment or arterial resection and reconstruction. An additional consideration in the treatment of pancreatic cancer is the benefit and risks of neoadjuvant radiation in locally advanced cases which has been avoided thus far given concerns regarding the effect of radiation on the vasculature. Therefore, with these improvements in peri‑operative therapy and robust preoperative planning often with the aid of vascular and microvascular surgeons, several centers have been exploring new frontiers in the operative management of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND:Antithrombotic therapy (AT) aims to strike a balance between preventing thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications. However, evidence for AT management after pancreatectomy with vascular reconstruction is lacking. We aimed to provide an overview of the current use of AT for pancreatic surgery with vascular reconstructions. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:A web-based survey was distributed to 123 surgeons from high-volume pancreas centers (>50 pancreatic resections/year). AT management after different types of vascular reconstruction were investigated. An "aggressive" protocol was defined as the use of any AT protocol other than prophylactic heparin, aspirin, or their combination. RESULTS:The survey was completed by 80 surgeons (59% Europe, 30% USA, 11% Asia). In Europe/Asia, prophylactic heparin was the most commonly reported protocol after partial venous resection/end-to-end anastomosis/human graft (71%/65%/50%, respectively), and an "aggressive" protocol (86%) was the most frequently used after prosthetic graft reconstruction. Conversely, in the USA, prophylactic heparin + aspirin was the most commonly reported protocol after all types of venous reconstruction. Following arterial reconstruction, heparin + aspirin was the most commonly reported protocol, regardless of region. An "aggressive" protocol was more frequently used in Europe/Asia (odds ratio (OR) 1.28; p < 0.001) and following vein reconstruction with either human graft (OR 1.2; p = 0.007) or prosthetic graft (OR 1.56, p <0.001), while ultrasound (OR 1.65; p < 0.001) and arterial reconstruction (OR 1.64; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with antiplatelet use. CONCLUSIONS:In an international cohort of high-volume pancreas surgeons, significant variation in the use of AT following pancreatectomy with vascular reconstruction was observed. This variation was driven by geographical differences and the type of vascular reconstructions performed. In an international cohort of high-volume pancreas surgeons, this Worldwide Snapshot Survey analyzed the current use of antithrombotic therapy for pancreatic surgery with vascular reconstruction. A significant heterogeneity in antithrombotic practice was found and it was mainly driven by geographical differences and the type of vascular reconstructions performed.