BACKGROUND: Prognosis after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is typically reported from the date of surgery. Survival estimates, however, are dynamic and may change based on the time already survived. The authors sought to assess conditional survival among a large cohort of patients who underwent resection of PDAC. METHODS: Between 1970 and 2008, 1822 patients who underwent resection for PDAC with curative intent were identified. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to validate established predictors of survival, and results were compared with 2-year conditional survival. RESULTS: Actuarial survival was 18% at 5 years, with a median survival of 18 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size, lymph node ratio, and positive margins were associated with worse survival (all P < .001). Differences in actuarial versus conditional survival estimates were greater the more years already survived by the patient. The 2-year conditional survival at 3 years-the probability of surviving to postoperative year 5 given that the patient had already survived 3 years-was 66% versus a 5-year actuarial survival calculated from the time of surgery of 18%. Stratification of 2-year conditional survival by lymph node ratio and margin status revealed that patients with high lymph node ratio or positive margins saw the greatest increase in 2-year conditional survival as more time elapsed (both P ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in actuarial versus conditional survival estimates were more pronounced based on the additional years already survived by the patient. Conditional survival may be a helpful tool in counseling patients with PDAC, as it is a more accurate assessment of future survival for those patients who have already survived a certain amount of time.
BACKGROUND: Prognosis after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is typically reported from the date of surgery. Survival estimates, however, are dynamic and may change based on the time already survived. The authors sought to assess conditional survival among a large cohort of patients who underwent resection of PDAC. METHODS: Between 1970 and 2008, 1822 patients who underwent resection for PDAC with curative intent were identified. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to validate established predictors of survival, and results were compared with 2-year conditional survival. RESULTS: Actuarial survival was 18% at 5 years, with a median survival of 18 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size, lymph node ratio, and positive margins were associated with worse survival (all P < .001). Differences in actuarial versus conditional survival estimates were greater the more years already survived by the patient. The 2-year conditional survival at 3 years-the probability of surviving to postoperative year 5 given that the patient had already survived 3 years-was 66% versus a 5-year actuarial survival calculated from the time of surgery of 18%. Stratification of 2-year conditional survival by lymph node ratio and margin status revealed that patients with high lymph node ratio or positive margins saw the greatest increase in 2-year conditional survival as more time elapsed (both P ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in actuarial versus conditional survival estimates were more pronounced based on the additional years already survived by the patient. Conditional survival may be a helpful tool in counseling patients with PDAC, as it is a more accurate assessment of future survival for those patients who have already survived a certain amount of time.
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Stefan Post; Peter Neuhaus; Klaus Gellert; Jan Langrehr; Karsten Ridwelski; Harald Schramm; Joerg Fahlke; Carl Zuelke; Christof Burkart; Klaus Gutberlet; Erika Kettner; Harald Schmalenberg; Karin Weigang-Koehler; Wolf-Otto Bechstein; Marco Niedergethmann; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Lars Roll; Bernd Doerken; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
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 P Neoptolemos; Deborah D Stocken; Helmut Friess; Claudio Bassi; Janet A Dunn; Helen Hickey; Hans Beger; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Christos Dervenis; François Lacaine; Massimo Falconi; Paolo Pederzoli; Akos Pap; David Spooner; David J Kerr; Markus W Büchler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas S Swords; Mary C Mone; Chong Zhang; Angela P Presson; Sean J Mulvihill; Courtney L Scaife Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Stefan Buettner; Georgios Antonios Margonis; Yuhree Kim; Faiz Gani; Cecilia G Ethun; George A Poultsides; Thuy Tran; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Bradley Krasnick; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Robert C G Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Rivfka Shenoy; Shishir K Maithel; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Yuhree Kim; Georgios A Margonis; Jason D Prescott; Thuy B Tran; Lauren M Postlewait; Shishir K Maithel; Tracy S Wang; Jason A Glenn; Ioannis Hatzaras; Rivfka Shenoy; John E Phay; Kara Keplinger; Ryan C Fields; Linda X Jin; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Jason K Sicklick; Shady Gad; Adam C Yopp; John C Mansour; Quan-Yang Duh; Natalie Seiser; Carmen C Solorzano; Colleen M Kiernan; Konstantinos I Votanopoulos; Edward A Levine; George A Poultsides; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Russell Lewis; Jeffrey A Drebin; Mark P Callery; Douglas Fraker; Tara S Kent; Jenna Gates; Charles M Vollmer Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Mary A Waterhouse; Elizabeth A Burmeister; Dianne L O'Connell; Emma L Ballard; Susan J Jordan; Neil D Merrett; David Goldstein; David Wyld; Monika Janda; Vanessa L Beesley; Madeleine E Payne; Helen M Gooden; Rachel E Neale Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.452