BACKGROUND: Although invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is thought to be more indolent than sporadic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC), the natural history remains poorly defined. The authors compared survival and identify prognostic factors after resection for invasive IPMN versus stage-matched PAC. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1991-2005) was used to identify 729 patients with invasive IPMN and 8082 patients with PAC who underwent surgical resection. RESULTS: Patients with resected invasive IPMN experienced improved overall survival when compared with resected PAC (median survival, 21 vs 14 months; P<.001). Stratification by nodal status demonstrated no difference in survival among lymph node-positive patients; however, median survival of resected, lymph node-negative, invasive IPMN was significantly improved compared with lymph node-negative PAC (34 vs 18 months; P<.001). On multivariate analysis, PAC histology was an adverse predictor of overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.50) compared with invasive IPMN. For patients with invasive IPMN, positive lymph nodes (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.50-2.60), high tumor grade (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.31), tumor size>2 cm (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19), and age>66 years (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73) were adverse predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although lymph node-negative invasive IPMN showed improved survival after resection compared with lymph node-negative PAC, the natural history of lymph node-positive invasive IPMN mimicked that of lymph node-positive PAC. The authors also identified adverse predictors of survival in invasive IPMN to guide discussions regarding use of adjuvant therapies and prognosis after resection of invasive IPMN. Copyright (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Although invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is thought to be more indolent than sporadic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC), the natural history remains poorly defined. The authors compared survival and identify prognostic factors after resection for invasive IPMN versus stage-matched PAC. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1991-2005) was used to identify 729 patients with invasive IPMN and 8082 patients with PAC who underwent surgical resection. RESULTS:Patients with resected invasive IPMN experienced improved overall survival when compared with resected PAC (median survival, 21 vs 14 months; P<.001). Stratification by nodal status demonstrated no difference in survival among lymph node-positive patients; however, median survival of resected, lymph node-negative, invasive IPMN was significantly improved compared with lymph node-negative PAC (34 vs 18 months; P<.001). On multivariate analysis, PAC histology was an adverse predictor of overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.50) compared with invasive IPMN. For patients with invasive IPMN, positive lymph nodes (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.50-2.60), high tumor grade (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.31), tumor size>2 cm (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19), and age>66 years (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73) were adverse predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although lymph node-negative invasive IPMN showed improved survival after resection compared with lymph node-negative PAC, the natural history of lymph node-positive invasive IPMN mimicked that of lymph node-positive PAC. The authors also identified adverse predictors of survival in invasive IPMN to guide discussions regarding use of adjuvant therapies and prognosis after resection of invasive IPMN. Copyright (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Suresh T Chari; Dhiraj Yadav; Thomas C Smyrk; Eugene P DiMagno; Laurence J Miller; Massimo Raimondo; Jonathan E Clain; Ian A Norton; Randall K Pearson; Bret T Petersen; Maurits J Wiersema; Michael B Farnell; Michael G Sarr Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Roberto Salvia; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo; Claudio Bassi; Sarah P Thayer; Massimo Falconi; William Mantovani; Paolo Pederzoli; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael D'Angelica; Murray F Brennan; Arief A Suriawinata; David Klimstra; Kevin C Conlon Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nabil Wasif; Clifford Y Ko; James Farrell; Zev Wainberg; Oscar J Hines; Howard Reber; James S Tomlinson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Yuichi Kitagawa; Trisha A Unger; Shari Taylor; Richard A Kozarek; L William Traverso Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Taylor A Sohn; Charles J Yeo; John L Cameron; Ralph H Hruban; Noriyoshi Fukushima; Kurtis A Campbell; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Deborah Mukherji; Walid Faraj; Mohamed Khalife; Ali Shamseddine; Nadim El Majzoub; Ghazi Zaatari; Manish Shah; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Eileen M O'Reilly Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2012-01
Authors: Eran Sadot; Olca Basturk; David S Klimstra; Mithat Gönen; Anna Lokshin; Richard Kinh Gian Do; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; T Peter Kingham; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Neda Rezaee; Carlotta Barbon; Ahmed Zaki; Jin He; Bulent Salman; Ralph H Hruban; John L Cameron; Joseph M Herman; Nita Ahuja; Anne Marie Lennon; Matthew J Weiss; Laura D Wood; Christopher L Wolfgang Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.647