Asmita Chopra1, Mazen Zenati1, Melissa E Hogg2, Herbert J Zeh3, David L Bartlett1, Nathan Bahary4, Amer H Zureikat1, Joal D Beane5,6. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. joaldbeane@gmail.com. 6. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Ohio State University, James Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. joaldbeane@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A positive microscopic margin (R1) following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) can occur in up to 80% of patients and is associated with reduced survival and increased recurrence. Our aim was to characterize the impact of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) on survival and recurrence in patients with PDAC following an R1 resection. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with PDAC who underwent pancreatectomy from 2008 to 2017 was performed. Patients were staged according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition and stratified based on resection margin (R0 vs. R1) and treatment sequence (NAT vs. surgery first [SF]). Conditional survival analysis was performed using Cox regression and inverse probability weighted estimates. RESULTS: Among 580 patients, 59% received NAT and 41% underwent SF. On final pathology, the NAT cohort had smaller tumors and less lymph node (LN) positivity (p < 0.05). NAT was not associated with an R1 resection (50%, p = 0.653). Compared with the R1 cohort, the R0 cohort had a higher median overall survival (OS; 39.6 vs. 22.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.6, p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS; 19 vs. 13 months; HR 1.35, p = 0.004). After risk adjustment, NAT was not associated with OS, regardless of margin status (R0, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-)7.31-27.07, p = 0.26; or R1, 95% CI (-)36.99-15.25, p = 0.42). However, NAT was associated with improved DFS in the R1 cohort (95% CI 1.79-11.91, p = 0.008) but not in the R0 cohort (95% CI (-)11.22-10.54, p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: An R0 resection remains an important determinant of overall and disease-free survival, even when NAT is administered. For patients with an R1 resection, receipt of NAT may prolong DFS.
INTRODUCTION: A positive microscopic margin (R1) following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) can occur in up to 80% of patients and is associated with reduced survival and increased recurrence. Our aim was to characterize the impact of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) on survival and recurrence in patients with PDAC following an R1 resection. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with PDAC who underwent pancreatectomy from 2008 to 2017 was performed. Patients were staged according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition and stratified based on resection margin (R0 vs. R1) and treatment sequence (NAT vs. surgery first [SF]). Conditional survival analysis was performed using Cox regression and inverse probability weighted estimates. RESULTS: Among 580 patients, 59% received NAT and 41% underwent SF. On final pathology, the NAT cohort had smaller tumors and less lymph node (LN) positivity (p < 0.05). NAT was not associated with an R1 resection (50%, p = 0.653). Compared with the R1 cohort, the R0 cohort had a higher median overall survival (OS; 39.6 vs. 22.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.6, p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS; 19 vs. 13 months; HR 1.35, p = 0.004). After risk adjustment, NAT was not associated with OS, regardless of margin status (R0, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-)7.31-27.07, p = 0.26; or R1, 95% CI (-)36.99-15.25, p = 0.42). However, NAT was associated with improved DFS in the R1 cohort (95% CI 1.79-11.91, p = 0.008) but not in the R0 cohort (95% CI (-)11.22-10.54, p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: An R0 resection remains an important determinant of overall and disease-free survival, even when NAT is administered. For patients with an R1 resection, receipt of NAT may prolong DFS.
Authors: Linda M Youngwirth; Daniel P Nussbaum; Samantha Thomas; Mohamed A Adam; Dan G Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Eva Versteijne; Mustafa Suker; Karin Groothuis; Janine M Akkermans-Vogelaar; Marc G Besselink; Bert A Bonsing; Jeroen Buijsen; Olivier R Busch; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Ronald M van Dam; Ferry A L M Eskens; Sebastiaan Festen; Jan Willem B de Groot; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Ignace H de Hingh; Marjolein Y V Homs; Jeanin E van Hooft; Emile D Kerver; Saskia A C Luelmo; Karen J Neelis; Joost Nuyttens; Gabriel M R M Paardekooper; Gijs A Patijn; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Judith de Vos-Geelen; Johanna W Wilmink; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Cornelis J Punt; Casper H van Eijck; Geertjan van Tienhoven Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paula Ghaneh; Jorg Kleeff; Christopher M Halloran; Michael Raraty; Richard Jackson; James Melling; Owain Jones; Daniel H Palmer; Trevor F Cox; Chloe J Smith; Derek A O'Reilly; Jakob R Izbicki; Andrew G Scarfe; Juan W Valle; Alexander C McDonald; Ross Carter; Niall C Tebbutt; David Goldstein; Robert Padbury; Jennifer Shannon; Christos Dervenis; Bengt Glimelius; Mark Deakin; Alan Anthoney; Markus M Lerch; Julia Mayerle; Attila Oláh; Charlotte L Rawcliffe; Fiona Campbell; Oliver Strobel; Markus W Büchler; John P Neoptolemos Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amr I Al Abbas; Mazen Zenati; Caroline J Reiser; Ahmad Hamad; Jae Pil Jung; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Melissa E Hogg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Vincent P Groot; Georgios Gemenetzis; Alex B Blair; Roberto J Rivero-Soto; Jun Yu; Ammar A Javed; Richard A Burkhart; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar; John L Cameron; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 13.787