BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is controversial. Minimal data exists regarding the clinical significance of margin clearance distance and lymph node (LN) parameters, such as extent of dissection and LN ratio. We assessed the impact of these variables on clinical outcomes to more clearly define the subset of patients who may benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: We identified 106 patients with resected stage 1-3 PDA from 2007-2013. Resection margins were categorized as positive (tumor at ink), ≤1, or >1 mm. LN evaluation included total number examined (NE), number of positive nodes (NP), ratio of NP to NE (NR), extent of dissection, and positive periportal LNs. The impact of these variables was assessed on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) using multivariate cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: In patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) alone, greater margin clearance led to improved DFS (P=0.0412, HR =0.51). Range of NE was 4-37, with a mean of 19. NE was not associated with DFS or OS, yet absolute NP of 5 or more was associated with a significantly worse DFS (P=0.005). Whereas periportal lymphadenectomy did not result in improved DFS or OS, patients with positive periportal LN had worse clinical outcomes (DFS, P=0.0052; OS, P=0.023). The use of adjuvant CRT was associated with improved OS (P=0.049; HR=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving adjuvant CT alone, there was a clinically significant benefit to clearing the surgical margin beyond tumor at ink. Having ≥5 NP and positive periportal LN led to significantly worse clinical outcomes. The addition of adjuvant RT to CT in resected PDA improved OS. A comprehensive evaluation of resection margin distance and LN parameters may identify more patients at risk for locoregional failure who may benefit from adjuvant CRT.
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is controversial. Minimal data exists regarding the clinical significance of margin clearance distance and lymph node (LN) parameters, such as extent of dissection and LN ratio. We assessed the impact of these variables on clinical outcomes to more clearly define the subset of patients who may benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: We identified 106 patients with resected stage 1-3 PDA from 2007-2013. Resection margins were categorized as positive (tumor at ink), ≤1, or >1 mm. LN evaluation included total number examined (NE), number of positive nodes (NP), ratio of NP to NE (NR), extent of dissection, and positive periportal LNs. The impact of these variables was assessed on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) using multivariate cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: In patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) alone, greater margin clearance led to improved DFS (P=0.0412, HR =0.51). Range of NE was 4-37, with a mean of 19. NE was not associated with DFS or OS, yet absolute NP of 5 or more was associated with a significantly worse DFS (P=0.005). Whereas periportal lymphadenectomy did not result in improved DFS or OS, patients with positive periportal LN had worse clinical outcomes (DFS, P=0.0052; OS, P=0.023). The use of adjuvant CRT was associated with improved OS (P=0.049; HR=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving adjuvant CT alone, there was a clinically significant benefit to clearing the surgical margin beyond tumor at ink. Having ≥5 NP and positive periportal LN led to significantly worse clinical outcomes. The addition of adjuvant RT to CT in resected PDA improved OS. A comprehensive evaluation of resection margin distance and LN parameters may identify more patients at risk for locoregional failure who may benefit from adjuvant CRT.
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: Irene Esposito; Jörg Kleeff; Frank Bergmann; Caroline Reiser; Esther Herpel; Helmut Friess; Peter Schirmacher; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J P Neoptolemos; J A Dunn; D D Stocken; J Almond; K Link; H Beger; C Bassi; M Falconi; P Pederzoli; C Dervenis; L Fernandez-Cruz; F Lacaine; A Pap; D Spooner; D J Kerr; H Friess; M W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-11-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J H Klinkenbijl; J Jeekel; T Sahmoud; R van Pel; M L Couvreur; C H Veenhof; J P Arnaud; D G Gonzalez; L T de Wit; A Hennipman; J Wils Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Pedrazzoli; V DiCarlo; R Dionigi; F Mosca; P Pederzoli; C Pasquali; G Klöppel; K Dhaene; F Michelassi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David K Chang; Amber L Johns; Neil D Merrett; Anthony J Gill; Emily K Colvin; Christopher J Scarlett; Nam Q Nguyen; Rupert W L Leong; Peter H Cosman; Mark I Kelly; Robert L Sutherland; Susan M Henshall; James G Kench; Andrew V Biankin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C J Yeo; J L Cameron; K D Lillemoe; J V Sitzmann; R H Hruban; S N Goodman; W C Dooley; J Coleman; H A Pitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Fiona Campbell; Richard A Smith; Philip Whelan; Robert Sutton; Michael Raraty; John P Neoptolemos; Paula Ghaneh Journal: Histopathology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Elizabeth J Olecki; Kelly Stahl; June S Peng; Matthew Dixon; Niraj J Gusani; Chan Shen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Yan Shi; Guanghai Dai; Shasha Guan; Yang Chen; Quanli Han; Guochao Deng; Yanrong Wang Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.241