Sivesh K Kamarajah1,2, Samer A Naffouje3, George I Salti4,5, Fadi S Dahdaleh6. 1. Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK. 2. Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Newcastle, UK. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 4. Department of General Surgery, University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Edward-Elmhurst Health, Naperville, IL, USA. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Edward-Elmhurst Health, Naperville, IL, USA. Fadi.Dahdaleh@EEHealth.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) being increasingly utilized and possibly associated with improved oncological outcomes, the impact of NAC on textbook outcomes following pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains debated. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database of patients undergoing resection of non-metastatic PDAC from 2004 to 2016 was performed. Propensity score matching was used to account for treatment selection bias in patients with and without NAC (noNAC). A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the association of NAC with length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 7975 (11%) NAC patients and 65,338 (89%) noNAC patients, 2911 NAC and 2911 noNAC patients remained in the cohort after matching. Clinicopathologic and demographic variables were well-balanced after matching. After matching, NAC was associated with significantly lower rates of 30-day readmission (5.5% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.006), which remained after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.92; p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in LOS and 30- and 90-day mortality in patients receiving NAC and noNAC. Stratified analyses by surgery type (i.e. pancreaticoduodenectomy [PD] and distal pancreatectomy [DP]) demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION: Receipt of NAC in PDAC patients undergoing DP or PD is associated with lower readmission rates and does not otherwise compromise short-term outcomes. These data reaffirm the safety of strategies incorporating NAC and is important to consider when devising policies aimed at quality improvement in achieving textbook outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Despite neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) being increasingly utilized and possibly associated with improved oncological outcomes, the impact of NAC on textbook outcomes following pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains debated. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database of patients undergoing resection of non-metastatic PDAC from 2004 to 2016 was performed. Propensity score matching was used to account for treatment selection bias in patients with and without NAC (noNAC). A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the association of NAC with length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 7975 (11%) NACpatients and 65,338 (89%) noNAC patients, 2911 NAC and 2911 noNAC patients remained in the cohort after matching. Clinicopathologic and demographic variables were well-balanced after matching. After matching, NAC was associated with significantly lower rates of 30-day readmission (5.5% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.006), which remained after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.92; p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in LOS and 30- and 90-day mortality in patients receiving NAC and noNAC. Stratified analyses by surgery type (i.e. pancreaticoduodenectomy [PD] and distal pancreatectomy [DP]) demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION: Receipt of NAC in PDAC patients undergoing DP or PD is associated with lower readmission rates and does not otherwise compromise short-term outcomes. These data reaffirm the safety of strategies incorporating NAC and is important to consider when devising policies aimed at quality improvement in achieving textbook outcomes.
Authors: Tsung-Yen Cheng; Ketan Sheth; Rebekah R White; Tomio Ueno; Cheng-Fang Hung; Bryan M Clary; Theodore N Pappas; Douglas S Tyler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Pascal Hammel; Mohamed Hebbar; Meher Ben Abdelghani; Alice C Wei; Jean-Luc Raoul; Laurence Choné; Eric Francois; Pascal Artru; James J Biagi; Thierry Lecomte; Eric Assenat; Roger Faroux; Marc Ychou; Julien Volet; Alain Sauvanet; Gilles Breysacher; Frédéric Di Fiore; Christine Cripps; Petr Kavan; Patrick Texereau; Karine Bouhier-Leporrier; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Jean-Louis Legoux; Béata Juzyna; Sophie Gourgou; Christopher J O'Callaghan; Claire Jouffroy-Zeller; Patrick Rat; David Malka; Florence Castan; Jean-Baptiste Bachet Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John P Neoptolemos; Daniel H Palmer; Paula Ghaneh; Eftychia E Psarelli; Juan W Valle; Christopher M Halloran; Olusola Faluyi; Derek A O'Reilly; David Cunningham; Jonathan Wadsley; Suzanne Darby; Tim Meyer; Roopinder Gillmore; Alan Anthoney; Pehr Lind; Bengt Glimelius; Stephen Falk; Jakob R Izbicki; Gary William Middleton; Sebastian Cummins; Paul J Ross; Harpreet Wasan; Alec McDonald; Tom Crosby; Yuk Ting Ma; Kinnari Patel; David Sherriff; Rubin Soomal; David Borg; Sharmila Sothi; Pascal Hammel; Thilo Hackert; Richard Jackson; Markus W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jordan M Cloyd; Huamin Wang; Michael Overman; Jun Zhao; Jason Denbo; Laura Prakash; Michael P Kim; Rachna Shroff; Milind Javle; Gauri R Varadhachary; David Fogelman; Robert A Wolff; Eugene J Koay; Prajnan Das; Anirban Maitra; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Jason B Fleming; Jeffrey E Lee; Matthew H G Katz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Karl Y Bilimoria; James S Tomlinson; Jennifer L Paruch; Jason B Fleming; Mark S Talamonti; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 12.969