Quality of life and quality of care as experienced by patients with advanced cancer and their relatives: A multicentre observational cohort study (eQuiPe)

Aim: This study aims to assess the quality of life and quality of care as experienced by patients with advanced cancer and their relatives while taking their interdependency into account.

Methods: A prospective multicentre observational study (eQuiPe study) was conducted. Quality of life scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) was compared to a matched normative population and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the relation between high emotional functioning (EF, measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30) and experienced quality of care (IN-PATSAT32, CQ-index PC).

Results: In total, 1103 (65%) patients and 831 (71%) relatives completed the baseline questionnaire, including 699 unique patient-relative couples. Patients experienced lower EF than the normative population (78 versus 87, p < .001). Compared to patients, relatives reported clinically relevantly lower EF (69 versus 78, p < .001). Being more satisfied with care in general (p < .05) and clarity about the key health-care provider (p < .05) was positively associated with high EF in patients. For relatives, experienced continuity of care (p < .01) and information for the patient (p < .05) were positively associated with high EF. The EF of patients (p < .001) and relatives (p < .001) were positively associated with each other and continuity of care as perceived by relatives was positively associated with high EF in patients (p < .01).

Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer reported low levels of EF but their relatives reported even lower levels of EF. Experienced integrated organisation and satisfaction with care were positively related to EF. The interdependent relation between patients' and relatives' EF and their care experiences suggests that a family-centred approach can optimise palliative cancer care.

Trial registration: The eQuiPe study is registered as NTR6584 in the Netherlands Trial Register.

The fear of cancer recurrence and progression in patients with pancreatic cancer

Keywords: Fear of cancer progression; Fear of cancer recurrence; Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; Pancreatic neoplasms.

The impact of cancer treatment on quality of life in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

Background: The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear.

Methods: This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with EORTC QLQ-C30 and -PAN26 questionnaires at baseline and three-months follow-up of pancreatic and periampullary cancer patients (2015-2018). Propensity score matching (1:3) of group without to group with treatment was performed. Linear mixed model regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between cancer treatment and HRQoL at follow-up.

Results: After matching, 247 of 629 available patients remained (68 (27.5%) no treatment, 179 (72.5%) treatment). Treatment consisted of resection (n = 68 (27.5%)), chemotherapy only (n = 111 (44.9%)), or both (n = 40 (16.2%)). At follow-up, cancer treatment was associated with better global health status (Beta-coefficient 4.8, 95% confidence-interval 0.0-9.5) and less constipation (Beta-coefficient -7.6, 95% confidence-interval -13.8-1.4) compared to no cancer treatment. Median overall survival was longer for the cancer treatment group compared to the no treatment group (15.4 vs. 6.2 months, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer reported slight improvement in global HRQoL and less constipation at three months-follow up compared to patients without cancer treatment, while overall survival was also improved.

Relationship Between Quality of Life and Survival in Patients With Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis.

Background: A relationship between quality of life (QoL) and  survival has been shown for several types of cancer, mostly in clinical trials with highly selected patient groups. The relationship between QoL and survival for patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer is unclear.

Methods: This study analyzed QoL data from a prospective multicenter patient-reported outcome registry in patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma registered in the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2018). Baseline and delta QoL, between baseline and 3-month follow-up, were assessed with the Happiness, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires. The relationship between QoL and survival was assessed using Cox regression models, and additional prognostic value of separate items was assessed using Nagelkerke R2 (explained variance).

Results: For the baseline and delta analyses, 233 and 148 patients were available, respectively. Most were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=194; 83.3%) and had stage III disease (n=77; 33.0%), with a median overall survival of 13.6 months. Multivariate analysis using baseline scores indicated several scales to be of prognostic value for the total cohort (ie, happiness today, role functioning, diarrhea, pancreatic pain, and body image; hazard ratios all P<.05) and for patients without resection (ie, overall satisfaction with life, physical and cognitive functioning, QLQ-C30 summary score, fatigue, pain, constipation, diarrhea, and body image; hazard ratios all P<.05). Except for diarrhea, all QoL items accounted for >5% of the additional explained variance and were of added prognostic value. Multivariate analysis using delta QoL revealed that only constipation was of prognostic value for the total cohort, whereas no association with survival was found for subgroups with or without resection.

Conclusions: In a multicenter cohort of patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma, QoL scores predicted survival regardless of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. QoL scores may thus be used for shared decision-making regarding disease management and treatment choice.

Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life Before and After Treatment of Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

Background: This study sought to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) before and after treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter study of patients treated for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. General patient satisfaction was measured using the EORTC satisfaction with care questionnaire (IN-PATSAT32) at baseline and 3 months after treatment initiation, with a 10-point change on the Likert scale considered clinically meaningful. QoL was measured using the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). The influence of treatment (curative and palliative) on patient satisfaction and QoL was determined.

Results: Of 100 patients, 71 completed follow-up questionnaires. General satisfaction with care decreased from 74.3 before treatment to 61.9 after treatment (P<.001), whereas global QoL increased from 68.4 to 71.4 (P=.39). Clinically meaningful reductions were also observed for the reported interpersonal skills of doctors (from 73.4 to 63.3) and exchange of information within the care team (from 63.5 to 52.5). Satisfaction scores were lower for patients treated with curative intent than for those treated with palliative intent regarding interpersonal skills of doctors (P=.01), information provision by doctors (P=.004), information provision by nurses (P=.02), availability of nurses (P=.004), exchange of information within the care team (P=.01), and hospital access (P=.02). In multivariable analysis, clinicopathologic or QoL factors were not independently associated with general patient satisfaction.

Conclusions: Satisfaction with care, but not QoL, decreased after pancreatic cancer treatment. Improvements in communication and interpersonal skills are needed to maintain patient satisfaction after treatment.

New developments in the treatment of pancreatic cancer

The incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing due to the ageing population among other things, while 5-year survival has improved in the past two decades from 3 to 7%.- In case of biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer, biliary drainage before surgery or ablative therapy using a covered metal stent instead of plastic reduces the rate of complications.- In patients with metastasized pancreatic cancer a combination of folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) results in improved survival. Approximately 20% of patients with locally, unresectable pancreatic cancer can undergo surgical resection following treatment with FOLFIRINOX.- The effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation, irreversible electroporation and stereotactic radiotherapy for locally, unresectable pancreatic cancer is currently investigated in multicenter trials.- The effectiveness of neo-adjuvant chemoradiation and minimal invasive surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer is currently investigated in randomized multicenter trials.

The use of adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer varies widely between hospitals: a nationwide population-based analysis

Adjuvant chemotherapy after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer is currently considered standard of care. In this nationwide study, we investigated which characteristics determine the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and its effect on overall survival. The data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. All patients alive 90 days after pancreatoduodenectomy for M0 -pancreatic cancer between 2008 and 2013 in the Netherlands were included in this study. The likelihood to receive adjuvant chemotherapy was analyzed by multilevel logistic regression analysis and differences in time-to-first-chemotherapy were tested for significance by Mann-Whitney U test. Overall survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. Of the 1195 patients undergoing a pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer, 642 (54%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Proportions differed significantly between the 19 pancreatic centers, ranging from 26% to 74% (P < 0.001). Median time-to-first-chemotherapy was 6.7 weeks and did not differ between centers. Patients with a higher tumor stage, younger age, and diagnosed more recently were more likely to receive adjuvant treatment. The 5-year overall survival was significantly prolonged in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy-23% versus 17%, log-rank = 0.01. In Cox regression analysis, treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy significantly prolonged survival compared with treatment without adjuvant chemotherapy. The finding that elderly patients and patients with a low tumor stage are less likely to undergo treatment needs further attention, especially since adjuvant treatment is known to prolong survival in most of these patients.

Impact of a Nationwide Training Program in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy (LAELAPS)

OBJECTIVE:

To study the feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP)

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:

Superior outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy have been reported. In the Netherlands (2005 to 2013) only 10% of distal pancreatectomies were in a minimally invasive fashion and 85% of surgeons welcomed MIDP training. The feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program is unknown.

METHODS:

From 2014 to 2015, 32 pancreatic surgeons from 17 centers participated in a nationwide training program in MIDP, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring on-site. Outcomes of MIDP before training (2005-2013) were compared with outcomes after training (2014-2015).

RESULTS:

In total, 201 patients were included; 71 underwent MIDP in 9 years before training versus 130 in 22 months after training (7-fold increase, P < 0.001). The conversion rate (38% [n = 27] vs 8% [n = 11], P < 0.001) and blood loss were lower after training and more pancreatic adenocarcinomas were resected (7 [10%] vs 28 [22%], P = 0.03), with comparable R0-resection rates (4/7 [57%] vs 19/28 [68%], P = 0.67). Clavien-Dindo score ≥III complications (15 [21%] vs 19 [15%], P = 0.24) and pancreatic fistulas (20 [28%] vs 41 [32%], P = 0.62) were not significantly different. Length of hospital stay was shorter after training (9 [7-12] vs 7 [5-8] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3% vs 0% (P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION:

A nationwide MIDP training program was feasible and followed by a steep increase in the use of MIDP, also in patients with pancreatic cancer, and decreased conversion rates. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Cohort and Registry Studies

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to appraise and to evaluate the current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy only in comparative cohort and registry studies.

BACKGROUND:

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising, but most data come from single-center, noncomparative series.

METHODS:

Comparative cohort and registry studies on MIPD versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published before August 23, 2015 were identified systematically and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were mortality and International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

RESULTS:

After screening 2293 studies, 19 comparative cohort studies (1833 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 2 original registry studies (19,996 patients) were included. For cohort studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 14. Selection bias was present for cancer diagnosis. No differences were found in mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6-1.9] or POPF [(OR) = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.8 to 1.3]. Publication bias was present for POPF. MIPD was associated with prolonged operative times [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 74 minutes, 95% CI = 29-118], but lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -385 mL, 95% CI = -616 to -154), less delayed gastric emptying (OR = 0.6, 95% = CI 0.5-0.8), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3 days, 95% CI = -5 to -2). For registry studies, the median annual hospital MIPD volume was 2.5. Mortality after MIPD was increased in low-volume hospitals (7.5% vs 3.4%; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS:

Outcomes after MIPD seem promising in comparative cohort studies, despite the presence of bias, whereas registry studies report higher mortality in low-volume centers. The introduction of MIPD should be closely monitored and probably done only within structured training programs in high-volume centers.

Prognostic value of lymph node metastases detected during surgical exploration for pancreatic or periampullary cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:

Hepatic-artery and para-aortic lymph node metastases (LNM) may be detected during surgical exploration for pancreatic (PDAC) or periampullary cancer. Some surgeons will continue the resection while others abort the exploration.

METHODS:

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for studies investigating survival in patients with intra-operatively detected hepatic-artery or para-aortic LNM. Survival was stratified for node positive (N1) disease.

RESULTS:

After screening 3088 studies, 13 studies with 2045 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were included. No study reported survival data after detection of LNM and aborted surgical exploration. In 110 patients with hepatic-artery LNM, median survival ranged between 7 and 17 months. Estimated pooled mean survival in 84 patients with hepatic-artery LNM was 15 [95%CI 12-18] months (13 months in PDAC), compared to 19 [16-22] months in 270 patients with N1-disease without hepatic-artery LNM (p = 0.020). In 192 patients with para-aortic LNM, median survival ranged between 5 and 32 months. Estimated pooled mean survival in 169 patients with para-aortic LNM was 13 [8-17] months (11 months in PDAC), compared to 17 (6-27) months in 506 patients with N1-disease without para-aortic LNM (p < 0.001). Data on the impact of (neo)adjuvant therapy on survival were lacking.

CONCLUSION:

Survival after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with intra-operatively detected hepatic-artery and especially para-aortic LNM is inferior to patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with other N1 disease. It remains unclear what the consequence of this should be since data on (neo-)adjuvant therapy and survival after aborted exploration are lacking

Pancreatoduodenectomy with colon resection for cancer: A nationwide retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND:

Microscopically radical (R0) resection of pancreatic, periampullary, or colon cancer may occasionally require a pancreatoduodenectomy with colon resection (PD-colon), but the benefits of this procedure have been disputed, and multicenter studies on morbidity and oncologic outcomes after PD-colon are lacking. This study aimed to assess complications and survival after PD-colon.

METHODS:

Patients who had undergone PD-colon from 2004-2014 in 1 of 13 centers were analyzed retrospectively. Ninety-day morbidity was scored using the Clavien-Dindo score and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI, 0 = no complications, 100 = death). Survival was analyzed per histopathologic diagnosis.

RESULTS:

After screening 3,218 consecutive PDs, 50 (1.6%) PD-colon patients (median age 66 years [interquartile range 55-72], 33 [66%] men) were included. Twenty-three (46%) patients had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), 19 (38%) other pathology, and 8 (16%) colon cancer. Ninety-day Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications occurred in 30 (60%) patients without differences per diagnosis (P > .99); mean CCI was 39 (standard deviation 27). Colonic anastomosis leak, pancreatic fistula, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3 (6%), 2 (4%), and 4 (8%) patients, respectively. A total of 11/23 (48%) patients with PDAC and 8/8 (100%) patients with colon cancer underwent an R0 resection. Patients with PDAC had a median postoperative survival of 13 months (95% confidence interval = 5-21). One-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative survival was 56%, 21%, and 14%, respectively. Median survival after R0 resection for PDAC was 21 months (95% confidence interval = 6-35). All patients with colon cancer were alive at end of follow-up (median 24 months [95% confidence interval = 9-110]).

CONCLUSION:

In this retrospective, multicenter study, PD-colon was associated with considerable complications and acceptable survival rates when a tumor negative resection margin was achieved.

Volume-outcome relationships in pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND:

Volume-outcome relationships in pancreatic surgery are well established, but an optimal volume remains to be determined. Studies analyzing outcomes in volume categories exceeding 20 procedures annually are lacking.

STUDY DESIGN:

A consecutive 3420 patients underwent PD for primary pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma (2005-2013) and were registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Relationships between hospital volume (< 5, 5-19, 20-39 and ≥ 40 PDs/year) and mortality and survival were explored.

RESULTS:

There was a non-significant decrease in 90-day mortality from 8.1 to 6.7% during the study period (p = 0.23). Ninety-day mortality was 9.7% in centers performing < 5 PDs/year (n = 185 patients), 8.9% for 5-19 PDs/year (n = 1432), 7.3% for 20-39 PDs/year (n = 240) and 4.3% for ≥ 40 PDs/year (n = 562, p = 0.004). Within volume categories, 90-day mortality did not change over time. After adjustment for confounding factors, significantly lower mortality was found in the ≥ 40 category compared to 20-39 PDs/year (OR = 1.72 (1.08-2.74)). Overall survival adjusted for confounding factors was better in the ≥ 40 category compared to categories under 20 PDs/year: HR (≥ 40 vs 5-19/year) = 1.24 (1.09-1.42). In the ≥ 40 category significantly more patients received adjuvant chemotherapy and had > 10 lymph nodes retrieved compared to lower volume categories.

CONCLUSIONS:

Volume-outcome relationships in pancreatic surgery persist in centers performing ≥ 40 PDs annually, regarding both mortality and survival. The volume plateau for pancreatic surgery has yet to be determined.

Developing a core set of patient-reported outcomes in pancreatic cancer: A Delphi survey

BACKGROUND:

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are amongst the most relevant outcome measures in pancreatic cancer care and research. However, it is unknown which out of the numerous PROs are most important to patients and health care professionals (HCPs) in this setting. The aim of this study was to identify a core set of PROs to be incorporated in a nationwide prospective multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We performed a two-round Delphi survey among 150 patients diagnosed with pancreatic or periampullary cancer (treated either with curative intent or in palliative setting) and 78 HCPs (surgeons, medical oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiotherapists, nurses, and dietitians) in The Netherlands. In round 1, participants were invited to rate the importance of 53 PROs, which were extracted from 17 different PRO measures and grouped into global domains, on a 1-9 Likert scale. PROs rated as very important (score 7-9) by the majority (≥ 80%) of curative and/or palliative patients as well as HCPs were considered sufficiently important to be incorporated in the core set. PROs not fulfilling these criteria in round 1 were presented again to the participants in round 2 along with individual and group feedback.

RESULTS:

A total of 97 patients (94%) in curative-intent setting, 38 patients (81%) in palliative setting and 73 HCPs (94%) completed both rounds 1 and 2. After the first round, 7 PROs were included in the core set: general quality of life, general health, physical ability, satisfaction with caregivers, satisfaction with services and care organisation, coping and defecation. After the second round, 10 additional PROs were added: appetite, ability to work/do usual activities, medication use, weight changes, fatigue, negative feelings, positive feelings, fear of recurrence, relationship with partner/family, and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy use.

CONCLUSION:

This study provides a core set of PROs selected by patients and HCPs, which may be incorporated in pancreatic cancer care and research. Validation outside the Dutch context is recommended for generalisation and use in international studies.

Preoperative radiochemotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND:

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth largest cause of cancer death in the United States and Europe with over 100,000 deaths per year in Europe alone. The overall 5-year survival ranges from 2-7 % and has hardly improved over the last two decades. Approximately 15 % of all patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, and of those, only a subgroup has a resectable tumour at surgical exploration. Data from cohort studies have suggested that outcome can be improved by preoperative radiochemotherapy, but data from well-designed randomized studies are lacking. Our PREOPANC phase III trial aims to test the hypothesis that median overall survival of patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer can be improved with preoperative radiochemotherapy.

METHODS/DESIGN:

The PREOPANC trial is a randomized, controlled, multicentric superiority trial, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Patients with (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer are randomized to A: direct explorative laparotomy or B: after negative diagnostic laparoscopy, preoperative radiochemotherapy, followed by explorative laparotomy. A hypofractionated radiation scheme of 15 fractions of 2.4 gray (Gy) is combined with a course of gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m(2)/dose on days 1, 8 and 15, preceded and followed by a modified course of gemcitabine. The target volumes of radiation are delineated on a 4D CT scan, where at least 95 % of the prescribed dose of 36 Gy in 15 fractions should cover 98 % of the planning target volume. Standard adjuvant chemotherapy is administered in both treatment arms after resection (six cycles in arm A and four in arm B). In total, 244 patients will be randomized in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint is overall survival by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints are (R0) resection rate, disease-free survival, time to locoregional recurrence or distant metastases and perioperative complications. Secondary endpoints for the experimental arm are toxicity and radiologic and pathologic response.

DISCUSSION:

The PREOPANC trial is designed to investigate whether preoperative radiochemotherapy improves overall survival by means of increased (R0) resection rates in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Trial open for accrual: 3 April 2013 The Netherlands National Trial Register - NTR3709 (8 November 2012) EU Clinical Trials Register - 2012-003181-40 (11 December 2012).

Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND:

Large multicenter series on outcomes and predictors of survival after distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are scarce.

METHODS:

Adults who underwent DP for PDAC in 17 Dutch pancreatic centers between January 2005 and September 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was survival, and predictors of survival were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS:

In total, 761 consecutive patients after DP were assessed, of whom 620 patients were excluded because of non-PDAC histopathology (n = 616) or a lack of data (n = 4), leaving a total of 141 patients included in the study [45 % (n = 63) male, mean age 64 years (SD = 10)]. Multivisceral resection was performed in 43 patients (30 %) and laparoscopic resection was performed in 7 patients (5 %). A major complication (Clavien-Dindo score of III or higher) occurred in 46 patients (33 %). Mean tumor size was 44 mm (SD 23), and histopathological examination showed 70 R0 resections (50 %), while 30-day and 90-day mortality was 3 and 6 %, respectively. Overall, 63 patients (45 %) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median survival was 17 months [interquartile range (IQR) 13-21], with a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 8-29). Cumulative survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 64, 29, and 22 %, respectively. Independent predictors of worse postoperative survival were R1/R2 resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.4], pT3/pT4 stage (HR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.3-2.9), a major complication (HR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1-2.5), and not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.0-2.3).

CONCLUSION:

Survival after DP for PDAC is poor and is related to resection margin, tumor stage, surgical complications, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies should assess to what extent prevention of surgical complications and more extensive use of adjuvant chemotherapy can improve survival.

Hospital of diagnosis and likelihood of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND:

Surgical resection for pancreatic cancer offers the only chance of cure. Assessment of the resectability of a pancreatic tumour is therefore of great importance. The aim of the study was to investigate whether centre of diagnosis influences the likelihood of surgery and whether this affects long-term survival.

METHODS:

Patients diagnosed with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer (M0) between 2005 and 2013 in the Netherlands were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were classified as a pancreatic centre (at least 20 resections/year) or a non-pancreatic centre (fewer than 20 resections/year). The relationship between centre of diagnosis and likelihood of surgery was analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Influence of centre on overall survival was assessed by means of multivariable Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS:

Some 8141 patients were diagnosed with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer, of whom 3123 (38·4 per cent) underwent surgery. Of the 2712 patients diagnosed in one of 19 pancreatic centres, 52·4 per cent had exploratory laparotomy compared with 31·4 per cent of 5429 patients diagnosed in one of 74 non-pancreatic centres (P < 0·001). A pancreatectomy was performed in 42·8 and 24·6 per cent of the patients respectively (P < 0·001). Multivariable analysis revealed that patients diagnosed in a pancreatic center had a higher chance of undergoing surgery (odds ratio 2·21, 95 per cent c.i. 1·98 to 2·47). Centre of diagnosis was not associated with improved long-term survival (hazard ratio 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 1·00).

CONCLUSION:

Patients with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer had a greater likelihood of having surgical treatment when the diagnosis was established in a pancreatic centre.

Impact of centralization of pancreatoduodenectomy on reported radical resections rates in a nationwide pathology database

BACKGROUND:

Centralization of a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) leads to a lower post-operative mortality, but is unclear whether it also leads to improved radical (R0) or overall resection rates.

METHODS:

Between 2004 and 2009, pathology reports of 1736 PDs for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasms from a nationwide pathology database were analysed. Pre-malignant lesions were excluded. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing ≥ 20 PDs annually. The relationship between R0 resections, PD-volume trends, quality of pathology reports and hospital volume was analysed.

RESULTS:

During the study period, the number of hospitals performing PDs decreased from 39 to 23. High-volume hospitals reported more R0 resections in the pancreatic head and distal bile duct tumours than low-volume hospitals (60% versus 54%, P = 0.035) although they operated on more advanced (T3/T4) tumours (72% versus 58%, P < 0.001). The number of PDs increased from 258 in 2004 to 394 in 2009 which was partly explained by increased overall resection rates of pancreatic head and distal bile duct tumours (11.2% in 2004 versus 17.5% in 2009, P < 0.001). The overall reported R0 resection rate of pancreatic head and distal bile duct tumours increased (6% in 2004 versus 11% in 2009, P < 0.001). Pathology reports of low-volume hospitals lacked more data including tumour stage (25% versus 15%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Centralization of PD was associated with both higher resection rates and more reported R0 resections. The impact of this finding on overall survival should be further assessed.

Diagnostic value of a pancreatic mass on computed tomography in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for presumed pancreatic cancer.

INTRODUCTION:

Previous studies have shown that 5-14% of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy ultimately are diagnosed with benign disease. A "pancreatic mass" on computed tomography (CT) is considered to be the strongest predictor of malignancy, but studies describing its diagnostic value are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of a pancreatic mass on CT in patients with presumed pancreatic cancer, as well as the interobserver agreement among radiologists and the additional value of reassessment by expert-radiologists.

METHODS:

Reassessment of preoperative CT scans was performed within a previously described multicenter retrospective cohort study in 344 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy (2003-2010). Preoperative CT scans were reassessed by 2 experienced abdominal radiologists separately and subsequently in a consensus meeting, after defining a pancreatic mass as "a measurable space occupying soft tissue density, except for an enlarged papilla or focal steatosis".

RESULTS:

CT scans of 86 patients with benign and 258 patients with (pre)malignant disease were reassessed. In 66% of patients a pancreatic mass was reported in the original CT report, versus 48% and 50% on reassessment by the 2 expert radiologists separately and 44% in consensus (P < .001 vs original report). Interobserver agreement between the original CT report and expert consensus was fair (kappa = 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.42). Among both expert-radiologists agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.56), with disagreement on the presence of a pancreatic mass in 29% of cases. The specificity for malignancy of pancreatic masses identified in expert consensus was twice as high compared with the original CT report (87% vs 42%, respectively). Positive predictive value increased to 98% after expert consensus, but negative predictive value was low (12%).

CONCLUSION:

Clinicians need to be aware of potential considerable disagreement among radiologists about the presence of a pancreatic mass. The specificity for malignancy doubled by expert radiologist reassessment when a uniform definition of "pancreatic mass" was used.

A nationwide comparison of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant disease

BACKGROUND:

Cohort studies from expert centers suggest that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is superior to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay. But the generalizability of these findings is unknown because nationwide data on LDP are lacking.

STUDY DESIGN:

Adults who had undergone distal pancreatectomy in 17 centers between 2005 and 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. First, all LDPs were compared with all ODPs. Second, groups were matched using a propensity score. Third, the attitudes of pancreatic surgeons toward LDP were surveyed. The primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III).

RESULTS:

Among 633 included patients, 64 patients (10%) had undergone LDP and 569 patients (90%) had undergone ODP. Baseline characteristics were comparable, except for previous abdominal surgery and mean tumor size. In the full cohort, LDP was associated with fewer major complications (16% vs 29%; p = 0.02) and a shorter median [interquartile range, IQR] hospital stay (8 days [7-12 days] vs 10 days [8-14 days]; p = 0.03). Of all LDPs, 33% were converted to ODP. Matching succeeded for 63 LDP patients. After matching, the differences in major complications (9 patients [14%] vs 19 patients [30%]; p = 0.06) and median [IQR] length of hospital stay (8 days [7-12 days] vs 10 days [8-14 days]; p = 0.48) were not statistically significant. The survey demonstrated that 85% of surgeons welcomed LDP training.

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite nationwide underuse and an impact of selection bias, outcomes of LDP seemed to be at least noninferior to ODP. Specific training is welcomed and could improve both the use and outcomes of LDP.

Preoperative characteristics of patients with presumed pancreatic cancer but ultimately benign disease: a multicenter series of 344 pancreatoduodenectomies

BACKGROUND:

Preoperative differentiation between malignant and benign pancreatic tumors can be difficult. Consequently, a proportion of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy will ultimately have benign disease. The aim of this study was to compare preoperative clinical and diagnostic characteristics of patients with unexpected benign disease after pancreatoduodenectomy with those of patients with confirmed (pre)malignant disease.

METHODS:

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in 1,629 consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy between 2003 and 2010 in 11 Dutch centers. Preoperative characteristics were compared in a benign:malignant ratio of 1:3. Malignant cases were selected from the entire cohort by using a random number list. A multivariable logistic regression prediction model was constructed to predict benign disease.

RESULTS:

Of 107 patients (6.6 %) with unexpected benign disease after pancreatoduodenectomy, 86 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were compared with 258 patients with (pre)malignant disease. Patients with benign disease presented more often with pain (56 vs. 38 %; P = 0.004), but less frequently with jaundice (60 vs. 80 %; P < 0.01), a pancreatic mass (13 vs. 54 %, P < 0.001), or a double duct sign on computed tomography (21 vs. 47 %; P < 0.001). In a prediction model using these parameters, only 19 % of patients with benign disease were correctly predicted, and 1.4 % of patients with malignant disease were missed.

CONCLUSIONS:

Nearly 7 % of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy were ultimately diagnosed with benign disease. Although some preoperative clinical and imaging characteristics might indicate absence of malignancy, their discriminatory value is insufficient for clinical use.

Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality

BACKGROUND:

The impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) on mortality is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyse changes in hospital volumes and in-hospital mortality after PD in the Netherlands between 2004 and 2009.

METHODS:

Nationwide data on International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) code 5-526 (PD, including Whipple), patient age, sex and mortality were retrieved from the independent nationwide KiwaPrismant registry. Based on established cut-off points of annually performed PDs, hospitals were categorized as very low (fewer than 5), low (5-10), medium (11-19) or high (at least 20) volume. A subgroup analysis based on a cut-off age of 70 years was also performed.

RESULTS:

Some 2155 PDs were included. The number of hospitals performing PD decreased from 48 in 2004 to 30 in 2009 (P = 0·011). In these specific years, the proportion of patients undergoing PD in a medium- or high-volume centre increased from 52·9 to 91·2 per cent (P < 0·001). Nationwide mortality rates after PD decreased from 9·8 to 5·1 per cent (P = 0·044). The mortality rate during the 6-year period was 14·7, 9·8, 6·3 and 3·3 per cent in very low-, low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals respectively (P < 0·001). The difference in mortality between medium- and high-volume centres was statistically significant (P = 0·004). The volume-outcome relationship was not influenced by age (P = 0·467). The mortality rate after PD in patients aged at least 70 years was 10·4 per cent compared with 4·4 per cent in younger patients (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION:

With nationwide centralization of PD, the in-hospital mortality rate after this procedure decreased. Further centralization of PD is likely to decrease mortality further, especially in the elderly.