BACKGROUND: Despite studies demonstrating improved outcomes, pessimism persists regarding the effectiveness of surgery for pancreatic cancer. Our objective was to evaluate utilization of surgery in early stage disease and identify factors predicting failure to undergo surgery. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (1995-2004), 9559 patients were identified with potentially resectable tumors (pretreatment clinical Stage I: T1N0M0 and T2N0M0). Multivariate models were employed to identify factors predicting failure to undergo surgery and assess the impact of pancreatectomy on survival. RESULTS: Of clinical Stage I patients 71.4% (6823/9559) did not undergo surgery; 6.4% (616/9559) were excluded due to comorbidities; 4.2% (403/9559) refused surgery; 9.1% (869/9559) were excluded due to age; and 38.2% (3,644/9559) with potentially resectable cancers were classified as "not offered surgery." Of the 28.6% (2736/9559) of patients who underwent surgery, 96.0% (2630/2736) underwent pancreatectomy, and 4.0% (458/2736) had unresectable tumors. Patients were less likely to undergo surgery if they were older than 65 years, were black, were on Medicare or Medicaid, had pancreatic head lesions, earned lower annual incomes, or had less education (P < 0.0001). Patients were less likely to receive surgery at low-volume and community centers. Patients underwent surgery more frequently at National Cancer Institute/National Comprehensive Cancer Network-designated cancer centers (P < 0.0001). Patients who were not offered surgery had significantly better survival than those with Stage III or IV disease but worse survival than patients who underwent pancreatectomy for Stage I disease (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to characterize the striking underuse of pancreatectomy in the United States. Of early stage pancreatic cancer patients without any identifiable contraindications, 38.2% failed to undergo surgery.
BACKGROUND: Despite studies demonstrating improved outcomes, pessimism persists regarding the effectiveness of surgery for pancreatic cancer. Our objective was to evaluate utilization of surgery in early stage disease and identify factors predicting failure to undergo surgery. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (1995-2004), 9559 patients were identified with potentially resectable tumors (pretreatment clinical Stage I: T1N0M0 and T2N0M0). Multivariate models were employed to identify factors predicting failure to undergo surgery and assess the impact of pancreatectomy on survival. RESULTS: Of clinical Stage I patients 71.4% (6823/9559) did not undergo surgery; 6.4% (616/9559) were excluded due to comorbidities; 4.2% (403/9559) refused surgery; 9.1% (869/9559) were excluded due to age; and 38.2% (3,644/9559) with potentially resectable cancers were classified as "not offered surgery." Of the 28.6% (2736/9559) of patients who underwent surgery, 96.0% (2630/2736) underwent pancreatectomy, and 4.0% (458/2736) had unresectable tumors. Patients were less likely to undergo surgery if they were older than 65 years, were black, were on Medicare or Medicaid, had pancreatic head lesions, earned lower annual incomes, or had less education (P < 0.0001). Patients were less likely to receive surgery at low-volume and community centers. Patients underwent surgery more frequently at National Cancer Institute/National Comprehensive Cancer Network-designated cancer centers (P < 0.0001). Patients who were not offered surgery had significantly better survival than those with Stage III or IV disease but worse survival than patients who underwent pancreatectomy for Stage I disease (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to characterize the striking underuse of pancreatectomy in the United States. Of early stage pancreatic cancerpatients without any identifiable contraindications, 38.2% failed to undergo surgery.
Authors: T A Sohn; C J Yeo; J L Cameron; L Koniaris; S Kaushal; R A Abrams; P K Sauter; J Coleman; R H Hruban; K D Lillemoe Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Charles S Fuchs; Edward Guadagnoli; Cynthia M Creech; Rosemary D Cress; Lilia C O'Connor; Dee W West; Mark E Allen; Robert E Wolf; William E Wright Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Katherine L Kahn; John Adams; Lorna Kwan; Marianne Laouri; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-06-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Axel Richter; Marco Niedergethmann; Jörg W Sturm; Dietmar Lorenz; Stefan Post; Michael Trede Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-02-27 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: James Edward Carroll; Jillian K Smith; Jessica P Simons; Melissa M Murphy; Sing Chau Ng; Shimul A Shah; Zheng Zhou; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Margaret A Tempero; J Pablo Arnoletti; Stephen Behrman; Edgar Ben-Josef; Al B Benson; Jordan D Berlin; John L Cameron; Ephraim S Casper; Steven J Cohen; Michelle Duff; Joshua D I Ellenhorn; William G Hawkins; John P Hoffman; Boris W Kuvshinoff; Mokenge P Malafa; Peter Muscarella; Eric K Nakakura; Aaron R Sasson; Sarah P Thayer; Douglas S Tyler; Robert S Warren; Samuel Whiting; Christopher Willett; Robert A Wolff Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Michael L Kendrick; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Abhishek D Parmar; Gabriela M Vargas; Nina P Tamirisa; Kristin M Sheffield; Taylor S Riall Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Rose M Kakoza; Charles M Vollmer; Keith E Stuart; Tamara Takoudes; Douglas W Hanto Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Vishnu V Chandrabalan; Donald C McMillan; Roger Carter; John Kinsella; Colin J McKay; C Ross Carter; Euan J Dickson Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: M V Perini; A L Montagnini; J Jukemura; S Penteado; E E Abdo; R Patzina; I Cecconello; J E M Cunha Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2008 Impact factor: 3.647