Literature DB >> 29056856

Surgical resection of a primary tumor improves survival of metastatic pancreatic cancer: a population-based study.

Lianyuan Tao1, Chunhui Yuan1, Zhaolai Ma1, Bin Jiang1, Dianrong Xiu1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease with a very poor prognosis. This study investigates survival of patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) based on local treatment of the primary tumor.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage IV mPC between 2004 and 2013 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were examined. CSS and OS were examined by using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test. Multivariable survival analyses of CSS and OS were conducted using the Cox proportional hazard model.
RESULTS: A total of 28918 patients with mPC were included in this analysis. There were 467 patients who received surgical resection (1.6%) and 28451 patients who did not (98.4%). Patients who were younger than 70 years (odds ratio [OR]=1.45, 95% CI=1.04-2.03, p=0.03), diagnosed from 2004 to 2008 (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.25-1.80, p<0.001), female (OR=1.31, 95% CI=1.08-1.58, p<0.001), married (OR=1.56, 95% CI=1.27-1.90, p<0.001), at T3 stage (OR=3.53, 95% CI=1.10-11.37, p=0.035), at N1 stage (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.68-2.50, p<0.001), presenting histological types other than adenocarcinoma (OR=2.04, 95% CI=1.43-2.94, p<0.001), and with tumor of the pancreatic head (OR=1.90, 95% CI=1.27-2.82, p=0.002) were more likely to be treated with surgical resection. The results of multivariate analysis showed that surgical resection of the primary tumor was associated with CSS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.58, 95% CI=0.52-0.64, p<0.001) and OS (HR=0.59, 95% CI=0.53-0.65, p<0.001) benefits. In addition, not receiving chemotherapy (HR=2.33, 95% CI=2.27-2.39, p<0.001), age >50 years (HR=1.25, 95% CI=1.09-1.42, p=0.001), male (HR=1.121, 95% CI=1.09-1.15, p<0.001), black ethnicity (HR=1.11, 95% CI=1.1-1.15, p<0.001), unmarried (HR=1.20, 95% CI=1.17-1.23, p<0.001), histological type of adenocarcinoma (HR=1.18, 95% CI=1.14-1.22, p<0.001), and primary site other than the pancreatic head (HR=1.08, 95% CI=1.05-1.11, p<0.001) are factors associated with poor survival.
CONCLUSION: This study reveals that local treatment has the primary benefit of both CSS and OS in patients with mPC. These results may guide the management of this patient population.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SEER; metastasis; pancreatic cancer; surgical resection; survival

Year:  2017        PMID: 29056856      PMCID: PMC5635848          DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S145722

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Manag Res        ISSN: 1179-1322            Impact factor:   3.989


Introduction

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease with very poor prognosis. Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US in 2017 and is projected to become the second by 2030.1,2 The early stage of pancreatic cancer is often asymptomatic and as a result, at the time of the first diagnosis it has often become an advanced cancer. More than 38% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients were found to have metastasis, and only a small number of patients have the opportunity to receive surgical resection according to clinical guidelines. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is ~2%3,4 and has not improved for decades. Chemotherapy is the primary treatment for mPC.5 Leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOL-FIRINOX) regimens and gemcitabine alone or in combination with other chemotherapeutic drugs is recommended according to the performance status (PS) and comorbidity profile of the patient.4 Surgical resection of the primary tumor is not suggested by clinical guidelines and is not usually considered by practitioners. However, current evidence suggests that local treatment of the primary tumor results in prolonged survival in a variety of metastatic cancer types, including renal cell cancer,6 colorectal cancer,7 and prostate cancer.8,9 Two recent large-scale population-based studies further demonstrated the survival benefit of local treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.9,10 These findings have potential implications for the surgical management of mPC. For mPC patients, there is no consensus on the eligibility criteria for surgical resection of primary cancer in the current data. However, based on our clinical experience and literature reports,11–13 the criteria may include at least four aspects: first, the patient can tolerate operation; second, the patient has a strong willingness to receive the operation; third, the operation may solve some other major symptoms, such as obstruction; and fourth, the operation can ensure total removal of the cancer tissues, including the metastases. In addition to the former two aspects, patients need to meet the third or the fourth. In the current study, we used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to investigate the survival outcomes of patients with mPC who were treated with or without surgical resection of the primary tumor in a contemporary cohort.

Methods

Patient cohort

The data of this study were extracted from the SEER-18 registry of the National Cancer Institute. The database is publicly available, and we retrieved the data using SEER*Stat software Version 8.3.4. Because the SEER database used deidentified data, this study was exempted from institutional review board oversight. We identified patients diagnosed between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013, with a primary site of “pancreas”, with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage (sixth edition) IV and with International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3) codes 8010, 8020, 8140, 8141, and 8144 from the SEER database (variants of adenocarcinoma). Patients with unknown survival data, with unknown surgery information, or treated with postoperative radiation were excluded. The process of patient selection is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Flowchart of the selection process of eligible patients from the SEER database.

Abbreviations: SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; ICD-O-3, International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition.

Data collection

The following demographic information was collected from each patient: age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, gender, primary site of tumor, T stage, N stage, M stage, surgical resection of the primary site (yes or no), receipt of chemotherapy, marital status, SEER cause-specific death classification, survival months, and vital status. Pancreatic cancer-specific survival (CSS) was defined as the time from diagnosis to death from pancreatic cancer, and OS was defined as the duration from diagnosis to death from any cause. The PS, comorbidity profile of the patients, and regimen of chemotherapy were not provided by the SEER database. The last date of follow-up was on December 31, 2013.

Statistical analysis

The primary end point of this study was CSS, and the secondary end point was OS. The chi-square test was utilized to compare the differences in clinical and demographic features between patients treated with or without surgical resection. CSS and OS were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method with the log-rank test. Associations between demographic factors with receipt of surgical resection were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Multivariable survival analyses of CSS and OS were conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model. p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA)

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 28918 patients with mPC were included in the current analysis (Table 1). The median age was 68 years. Most patients were White (n=22784, 78.8%), and male patients comprised 52.8% (n=15270). There were 467 patients (1.6%) who received surgical resection and 28451 (98.4%) patients who did not. More than half of patients were married (n=15562, 53.8%). Compared with patients who did not receive surgical resection of the primary tumor, patients in the surgery group were younger (median age: 64 vs 68 years, p<0.001). Moreover, the surgery group had a larger proportion of N1 stage cancer (54.2% vs 26.9%). There was no significant difference among distributions of gender and race between the groups. The detailed patient characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of metastatic pancreatic patients included in the analysis (N=28918)

CharacteristicsTotal, n (%)N=28918Surgical resection, n (%)n=467No surgical resection, n (%)n=28451p-value
Age (years)<0.001
<40261 (0.9)9 (1.9)252 (0.9)
40–491628 (5.6)47 (10.1)1581 (5.6)
50–595539 (19.2)112 (24)5427 (19.1)
60–698317 (28.8)140 (30)8177 (28.7)
70–797752 (26.8)110 (23.6)7642 (26.9)
>805421 (18.7)49 (10.5)5372 (18.9)
Year of diagnosis0.003
2004–200813386 (46.3)248 (53.1)13138 (46.2)
2009–201315532 (53.7)219 (46.9)15313 (53.8)
Gender0.322
Male15270 (52.8)236 (50.5)15034 (52.8)
Female13648 (47.2)231 (49.5)13417 (47.2)
Race0.574
White22784 (78.8)361 (77.3)22423 (78.8)
Black3838 (13.3)63 (13.5)3775 (13.3)
Others2296 (7.9)43 (9.2)2253 (7.9)
Marital status<0.001
Married15562 (53.8)300 (64.2)15262 (53.6)
Unmarried12265 (42.4)150 (32.1)12115 (42.6)
Unknown1091 (3.8)17 (3.6)1074 (3.8)
T stage<0.001
T0320 (1.1)3 (0.6)317 (1.1)
T1618 (2.1)11 (2.4)607 (2.1)
T26285 (21.7)56 (12)6229 (21.9)
T37032 (24.3)246 (52.7)6786 (23.9)
T44804 (16.6)93 (19.9)4711 (16.6)
TX9859 (34.1)58 (12.4)9801 (34.4)
N stage<0.001
N013010 (45)175 (37.5)12835 (45.1)
N17912 (27.4)253 (54.2)7659 (26.9)
NX7996 (27.7)39 (8.4)7957 (28)
Tumor location<0.001
Pancreatic head10166 (35.2)233 (49.9)9933 (34.9)
Pancreatic body/tail9619 (33.3)129 (27.6)9490 (33.4)
Other6579 (22.8)77 (16.5)6502 (22.9)
Overlapping lesion2554 (8.8)28 (6)2526 (8.9)
Chemotherapy<0.001
No/unknown15841 (54.8)222 (47.5)15619 (54.9)
Yes13077 (45.2)245 (52.5)12832 (45.1)
Histology type<0.001
Adenocarcinoma24580 (85)425 (91)24155 (84.9)
Others4338 (15)42 (9)4296 (15.1)
Tumor size<0.001
≤20 mm19578 (67.7)361 (77.4)19217 (67.5)
>20 mm115 (0.4)4 (0.8)111 (0.4)
Unknown9225 (31.9)102 (21.8)9123 (32.1)

Factors associated with receipt of surgical resection

To better understand the method of patient selection, we analyzed the clinicopathological factors associated with removal of the primary tumor. As shown in Table 2, the univariate analysis demonstrated that age <80 years, diagnosed at 2004–2008, married, T3 stage, N1 stage, other histological types other than adenocarcinoma, and receipt of chemotherapy, and tumor of the pancreatic head were associated with an increased possibility of receiving surgery, compared to each referent group. The multivariate analysis showed that patients younger than 70 years, diagnosed at 2004–2008, female, married, at T3 stage, at N1 stage, and having a tumor of the pancreatic head were more likely to be treated with surgical resection.
Table 2

Factors associated with receipt of surgical resection of the primary tumor

VariablesUnivariate model
Multivariate model
OR (95% CI)p-valueOR (95% CI)p-value
Age (years)
<403.92 (1.9–8.1)<0.0012.78 (1.34–5.81)0.006
40–493.26 (2.18–4.88)<0.0012.42 (1.6–3.66)<0.001
50–592.26 (1.61–3.17)<0.0011.72 (1.22–2.44)0.002
60–691.88 (1.35–2.6)<0.0011.45 (1.04–2.03)0.03
70–791.58 (1.13–2.21)0.0081.34 (0.95–1.89)0.092
≥801 (referent)1 (referent)
Year of diagnosis
2004–20081.32 (1.01–1.59)0.0031.49 (1.24–1.8)<0.001
2009–20131 (referent)1 (referent)
Gender
Male1 (referent)1 (referent)
Female1.1 (0.91–1.32)0.3221.31 (1.08–1.58)0.006
Race
White1 (referent)1 (referent)
Black1.04 (0.79–1.36)0.7941.11 (0.84–1.47)0.47
Others1.19 (0.86–1.63)0.2961.21 (0.87–1.69)0.255
Marital status
Married1.59 (1.3–1.93)<0.0011.56 (1.27–1.9)<0.001
Unmarried1 (referent)1 (referent)
Unknown0.81 (0.49–1.32)0.3890.91 (0.55–1.5)0.718
T stage
T01 (referent)1 (referent)
T11.92 (0.53–6.91)0.3211.82 (0.49–6.74)0.367
T20.95 (0.3–3.05)0.9311 (0.3–3.3)1
T33.83 (1.22–12.03)0.0213.53 (1.1–11.37)0.035
T42.09 (0.66–6.62)0.2121.79 (0.55–5.82)0.331
TX0.63 (0.2–2.01)0.430.8 (0.25–2.61)0.715
N stage
N01 (referent)1 (referent)
N12.42 (1.99–2.94)<0.0012.05 (1.68–2.5)<0.001
NX0.36 (0.25–0.51)<0.0010.43 (0.3–0.62)<0.001
Tumor location
Pancreatic head2.12 (1.43–3.14)<0.0011.89 (1.27–2.82)0.002
Pancreatic body/tail1.23 (0.81–1.85)0.3311.26 (0.83–1.91)0.275
Other1.07 (0.69–1.65)0.7661.79 (1.14–2.8)0.011
Overlapping lesion1 (referent)1 (referent)
Chemotherapy
No/unknown1 (referent)1 (referent)
Yes1.34 (1.13–1.61)<0.0011.11 (0.92–1.33)0.272
Histological type
Adenocarcinoma1 (referent)1 (referent)
Others2.5 (1.72–3.57)<0.0012.04 (1.43–2.94)<0.001
Tumor size
≤20 mm1 (referent)1 (referent)
>20 mm1.84 (0.68–5)0.2331.84 (0.66–2.47)<0.001
Unknown0.59 (0.48–0.74)<0.0010.87 (0.68–1.12)<0.001

Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; TX, unknown T stage; NX, unknown N stage.

Survival outcomes

Of a total of 28918 patients, mortality occurred in 27113 (93.8% of 28918) patients at the end of the follow-up. In addition, 25899 (89.6% of 28918) patients were dead due to pancreatic cancer. Regarding CSS, the 1-year CSS rates were 31.1% in the surgery group and 10.4% in the nonsurgery group. The median survival time was 7 months (95% CI=6.04–7.96) for the surgery group and 2 months (95% CI=1.94–2.06) for the nonsurgery group (p<0.001). Concerning OS, the 1-year OS rates were 28.9% and 9.4% in the surgery group and nonsurgery group, respectively. The median survival time was 7 months (95% CI=6.2–7.8) for the surgery group and 2 months (95% CI=1.94–2.06) for the nonsurgery group (p<0.001). The survival curves of CSS and OS are shown in Figure 2. After adjusting for treatment, age, year of diagnosis, gender, race, marital status, T stage, N stage, chemotherapy receipt, histological type, and tumor size, the multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that receipt of surgical resection was associated with a better CSS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.58, 95% CI=0.52–0.64) and OS (HR=0.59, 95% CI=0.53–0.65; Table 3). Moreover, the results demonstrated that factors associated with poor CSS include the following: age >50 years, male, black ethnicity, unmarried, no receipt of chemotherapy, adenocarcinoma, and a primary site other than the pancreatic head. In addition, poor OS was inclined to occur in patients with the following characteristics: age >50 years, male, black ethnicity, unmarried, no receipt of chemotherapy, adenocarcinoma, and primary site other than pancreatic head. Taken together, these data define a high-risk population profile of patients with mPC.
Figure 2

Survival curves with the log-rank test of (A) CSS (p<0.001) and (B) OS (p<0.001).

Abbreviations: CSS, cancer-specific survival; OS, overall survival.

Table 3

Multivariate analysis of CSS and OS in mPC

VariablesCSS
OS
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Treatment
No surgical resection1 (referent)1 (referent)
Surgical resection0.58 (0.52–0.64)<0.0010.59 (0.53–0.65)<0.001
Age (years)
<401 (referent)1 (referent)
40–491.1 (0.96–1.27)0.1821.1 (0.96–1.27)0.171
50–591.24 (1.08–1.42)0.0021.25 (1.09–1.42)0.001
60–691.38 (1.21–1.58)<0.0011.39 (1.22–1.59)<0.001
70–791.62 (1.41–1.85)<0.0011.64 (1.43–1.87)<0.001
≥802.16 (1.89–2.48)<0.0012.2 (1.93–2.52)<0.001
Year of diagnosis
2004–20081 (referent)1 (referent)
2009–20130.93 (0.91–0.95)<0.0010.93 (0.91–0.96)<0.001
Gender
Male1 (referent)1 (referent)
Female0.89 (0.87–0.92)<0.0010.89 (0.87–0.91)<0.001
Race
White1 (referent)1 (referent)
Black1.09 (1.05–1.13)<0.0011.11 (1.07–1.15)<0.001
Others0.95 (0.9–0.99)0.020.96 (0.92–1.01)0.105
Marital status
Married1 (referent)1 (referent)
Unmarried1.19 (1.16–1.22)<0.0011.2 (1.17–1.23)<0.001
Unknown1.07 (1–1.15)0.0361.08 (1.01–1.15)0.028
T stage
T01 (referent)1 (referent)
T10.81 (0.7–0.93)0.0030.89 (0.77–1.02)0.094
T20.96 (0.85–1.08)0.5121.02 (0.91–1.15)0.761
T30.87 (0.77–0.98)0.0180.93 (0.82–1.04)0.208
T40.89 (0.79–1)0.0440.93 (0.82–1.04)0.212
TX1.05 (0.94–1.18)0.3971.1 (0.98–1.23)0.116
N stage
N01 (referent)1 (referent)
N11.02 (0.99–1.05)0.1581.02 (0.99–1.05)0.268
NX1.07 (1.04–1.1)<0.0011.06 (1.02–1.09)0.001
Tumor location
Pancreatic head1 (referent)1 (referent)
Pancreatic body/tail1.09 (1.06–1.12)<0.0011.08 (1.05–1.11)<0.001
Other1.12 (1.08–1.16)<0.0011.13 (1.09–1.17)<0.001
Overlapping lesion1.12 (1.07–1.17)<0.0011.11 (1.06–1.16)<0.001
Chemotherapy
Yes1 (referent)1 (referent)
No/unknown2.3 (2.24–2.36)<0.0012.33 (2.27–2.39)<0.001
Histological type
Adenocarcinoma1.16 (1.12–1.2)<0.0011.18 (1.14–1.22)<0.001
Others1 (referent)1 (referent)
Tumor size
≤20 mm1 (referent)1 (referent)
>20 mm1.11 (0.91–1.35)0.2911.11 (0.92–1.34)0.297
Unknown1.02 (0.99–1.06)0.0881.03 (0.99–1.06)0.128

Abbreviations: CSS, cancer-specific survival; OS, overall survival; mPC, metastatic pancreatic cancer; HR, hazard ratio.

Discussion

mPC has a very poor prognosis, with a median survival ranging from 4 to 6 months.14 Systemic chemotherapy as the mainstay treatment is suggested by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.4 Few studies have investigated the role of surgical resection in the treatment of mPC. We were inspired by the encouraging results from studies on local treatment for metastatic renal cell cancer and colorectal cancer.6,7 We explored the association between local treatments on mPC and the survival outcomes, relying on the SEER database. The results showed that surgical resection of the primary tumor was associated with a survival benefit (p<0.001). Patients younger than 70 years, female, married, at T3 stage, at N1 stage, and with tumor of the pancreatic head are likely to be treated with surgery. In addition, multivariate Cox regression confirmed that patients receiving surgical resection had a better CSS and OS. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the role of local treatment in mPC on the population level. Liver is the most common site of pancreatic cancer metastasis due to its anatomical situation.15 Previous studies have found that a “metastatic niche” already existed in the liver even before the metastases formed.16,17 The tumor microenvironment in the metastatic niche is created with the help of a variety of immune cells, including natural killer (NK) cells, T cells, and neutrophils.16,18 A subpopulation of migrating CD133+CXCR4+ cancer stem cells (CSC) is essential for tumor metastasis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.19 Cytokines such as TNF-α and TGF-β are found to be upregulated in the tumor microenvironment and may enhance metastasis through inducing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT).20 Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) can also colonize their tumors of origin, which is termed tumor self-seeding.21 These changes in tumor biology in pancreatic cancer metastasis could be implicated in the process of cancer cell dissemination and could shed light on the rationale for using primary tumor resection. Moreover, evidence showed that the presence of a primary tumor suppresses T-cell and antibody responses; however, surgical removal of the primary tumor restores immunocompetence and enhances the antitumor activity of the immune system.22 In addition, surgical removal of the primary tumor also inhibits or delays the process of “self-seeding”; as a result, patients receiving surgical resection experience a better prognosis.23 Current evidence shows that the local treatment of the primary tumor by either radiation therapy or surgery demonstrates a survival benefit in both OS and CSS in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.9,24,25 Culp et al9 used the SEER database to show that the 5-year OS and predicted disease-free survival are each significantly higher in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (67.4% and 75.8%, respectively) or brachytherapy (52.6% and 61.3%, respectively) compared with patients who have no local treatment (22.5% and 48.7%, respectively; p<0.001). These results are in line with those of the current study. Moreover, 10 studies in the literature reported that surgical removal of the primary lesion in metastatic breast cancer was associated with a significantly higher OS rate with a pooled HR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.59–0.72), favoring the patients undergoing surgery.26 Another population-based study also revealed that in stage IV colorectal cancer, patients who received primary-cancer-directed surgery (CDS) had a longer OS (median: 10 months) than patients who did not (median: 3 months; p<0.05).7 Therefore, the benefit of primary tumor removal in metastatic cancer has been shown in previous and in the current studies. Of note, the results showed that in recent years of diagnosis, married status and location on the pancreatic head are predictive of a favorable prognosis. Because patients diagnosed in recent years (2009–2013) have had a relatively short follow-up, the end point event (death) might compare less to the patient cohort recruited several years before (2004–2008). Moreover, married status has been shown to play a favorable prognostic role in various cancers, including PC,27–29 which highlights the potentially significant impact of social support on cancer treatment and survival. Pancreatic head cancer is symptomatic earlier than cancer in other locations, and therefore, pancreatic head cancer is relatively easy to diagnose and treat early. We noted that, for CSS analysis, patients with T1, T3, and T4 stages had a better survival than patients with T0 stage. The possible reason is that mPC with T0 stage may have a stronger tendency for invasiveness and metastasis than mPC with T4, as the metastasis of T0-staged mPC occurred at an earlier stage. Therefore, survival of mPC patients with T0 could be poorer. Pancreatoduodenectomy is the gold standard operation for malignant disease of the pancreas.30 In clinical practice, to reduce postoperative complications, particularly pancreatic fistula, different surgical techniques and their modifications have been proposed. Because the best method to address a pancreatic stump is still controversial and remains a matter of speculation, surgeons should master multiple techniques to manage the pancreatic remnant.30 In addition, when faced with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, surgeons should also take conservative observational management and parenchyma-sparing pancreas resections into consideration.31 There are several limitations to the present study. First, it is limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis; therefore, selection bias could occur. Second, demographic information provided by the SEER database did not include comorbidity, PS, smoking, alcohol consumption, and other detailed factors. The contribution of these factors to the survival benefit could not be evaluated. Third, data on the interval from the surgery until the start of chemotherapy and the regimen of chemotherapy could also have an impact on survival outcomes and provide important implications for clinical practice. However, since the SEER database does not include this information, the influence of these factors could not be evaluated. Despite the stated limitations, our study is a population-based study that included a large number of mPC patients, and the results are convincing.

Conclusion

Our study reveals that local treatment of the primary cancer benefits both CSS and OS in patients with mPC. This result may suggest better procedures for the management of this patient population. Further prospective trials are still needed to validate our results.
  30 in total

1.  Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa-2b compared with interferon alfa-2b alone for metastatic renal-cell cancer.

Authors:  R C Flanigan; S E Salmon; B A Blumenstein; S I Bearman; V Roy; P C McGrath; J R Caton; N Munshi; E D Crawford
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.

Authors:  Davendra P S Sohal; Pamela B Mangu; Alok A Khorana; Manish A Shah; Philip A Philip; Eileen M O'Reilly; Hope E Uronis; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Christopher H Crane; Anitra Engebretson; Joseph T Ruggiero; Mehmet S Copur; Michelle Lau; Susan Urba; Daniel Laheru
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Liver immunity and tumour surveillance.

Authors:  Caitriona Canning; Margaret O'Brien; John Hegarty; Cliona O'Farrelly
Journal:  Immunol Lett       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 3.685

4.  Cancer Statistics, 2017.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Marital status is an independent prognostic factor for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors patients: An analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Authors:  Huaqiang Zhou; Yuanzhe Zhang; Yiyan Song; Wulin Tan; Zeting Qiu; Si Li; Qinchang Chen; Shaowei Gao
Journal:  Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 2.947

6.  Use of surgery among elderly patients with stage IV colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Larissa K F Temple; Lillian Hsieh; W Douglas Wong; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Tumor self-seeding by circulating cancer cells.

Authors:  Mi-Young Kim; Thordur Oskarsson; Swarnali Acharyya; Don X Nguyen; Xiang H-F Zhang; Larry Norton; Joan Massagué
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 8.  Tumor cell intravasation.

Authors:  Serena P H Chiang; Ramon M Cabrera; Jeffrey E Segall
Journal:  Am J Physiol Cell Physiol       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 4.249

Review 9.  Preparing the "soil": the premetastatic niche.

Authors:  Rosandra N Kaplan; Shahin Rafii; David Lyden
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2006-12-01       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Marital status independently predicts pancreatic cancer survival in patients treated with surgical resection: an analysis of the SEER database.

Authors:  Xiao-Dong Wang; Jian-Jun Qian; Dou-Sheng Bai; Zhen-Nan Li; Guo-Qing Jiang; Jie Yao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-04-26
View more
  14 in total

1.  Second-generation inflammation-related scores are more effective than systemic inflammation ratios in predicting prognosis of patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Authors:  Giuseppe A Colloca; Antonella Venturino; Domenico Guarneri
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.064

2.  Prognostic Nomogram for Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A TRIPOD-Compliant Retrospective Long-Term Survival Analysis.

Authors:  Dong Xu; Kai Zhang; Mingna Li; J P Neoptolemos; Junli Wu; Wentao Gao; Pengfei Wu; Baobao Cai; Jie Yin; Guodong Shi; Zipeng Lu; Kuirong Jiang; Yi Miao
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Outcome of head compared to body and tail pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 93 studies.

Authors:  Gianluca Tomasello; Michele Ghidini; Antonio Costanzo; Antonio Ghidini; Alessandro Russo; Sandro Barni; Rodolfo Passalacqua; Fausto Petrelli
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2019-04

4.  Primary tumor-induced immunity eradicates disseminated tumor cells in syngeneic mouse model.

Authors:  Raziye Piranlioglu; EunMi Lee; Maria Ouzounova; Roni J Bollag; Alicia H Vinyard; Ali S Arbab; Daniela Marasco; Mustafa Guzel; John K Cowell; Muthushamy Thangaraju; Ahmed Chadli; Khaled A Hassan; Max S Wicha; Esteban Celis; Hasan Korkaya
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  Aggressiveness of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: A literature review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Emmanuel Ii Uy Hao; Ho Kyung Hwang; Dong-Sub Yoon; Woo Jung Lee; Chang Moo Kang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Handheld macroscopic Raman spectroscopy imaging instrument for machine-learning-based molecular tissue margins characterization.

Authors:  François Daoust; Tien Nguyen; Patrick Orsini; Jacques Bismuth; Marie-Maude de Denus-Baillargeon; Israel Veilleux; Alexandre Wetter; Philippe Mckoy; Isabelle Dicaire; Maroun Massabki; Kevin Petrecca; Frédéric Leblond
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 3.170

7.  Clinical features and prognostic factors of elderly patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  Tao Lianyuan; Li Deyu; Yu Haibo; Dong Yadong; Tian Guanjing
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 5.682

8.  Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinomas could be classified into M1a and M1b category by the number of metastatic organs.

Authors:  Fang Feng; Wei Cai; Gaoming Wang; Weigang Chen; Haochang Yang; Mingyu Sun; Li Zhou
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-08-27       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Analyses of the local control of pulmonary Oligometastases after stereotactic body radiotherapy and the impact of local control on survival.

Authors:  Takaya Yamamoto; Yuzuru Niibe; Masahiko Aoki; Takashi Shintani; Kazunari Yamada; Mitsuru Kobayashi; Hideomi Yamashita; Masatoki Ozaki; Yoshihiko Manabe; Hiroshi Onishi; Katsuya Yahara; Atsushi Nishikawa; Kuniaki Katsui; Ryoong-Jin Oh; Atsuro Terahara; Keiichi Jingu
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  Locoregional Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Utilizing Resection, Ablation and Embolization: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Florentine E F Timmer; Bart Geboers; Sanne Nieuwenhuizen; Evelien A C Schouten; Madelon Dijkstra; Jan J J de Vries; M Petrousjka van den Tol; Martijn R Meijerink; Hester J Scheffer
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.