Lily V Saadat1, Joanne F Chou2, Mithat Gonen2, Kevin C Soares1, T Peter Kingham1, Anna M Varghese3, William R Jarnagin1, Michael I D'Angelica1, Jeffrey A Drebin1, Eileen M O'Reilly3,4,5, Alice C Wei1,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 5. David M. Rubenstein Center for Pancreas Cancer Research, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is uncommon in patients younger than 50 years, although its incidence is increasing. This study characterizes treatment utilization for early-onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC) versus average-age-onset pancreatic cancer (AOPC) and identifies factors associated with failure to receive treatment. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for patients with EOPC (age < 50 years) or AOPC (age ≥ 50 years) from 2004 to 2016. Multinomial regression was used to compare utilization (single modality vs multimodal treatment with or without surgery vs no treatment) between EOPC and AOPC. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 248,634 patients, 15,710 (6.3%) had EOPC. There were more male patients (56% vs 50%), non-White patients, and privately insured patients (61% vs 30%) with EOPC versus AOPC, without notable differences in clinical stage distribution. Patients with EOPC received more chemotherapy (38% vs 29%), surgery (9% vs 6.9%), chemoradiation (12% vs 9.2%), and multimodal treatment (21% vs 15%). The odds of receiving multimodal curative therapy were significantly higher for patients with EOPC versus patients with AOPC after adjustments for confounders (odds ratio, 3.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.66-4.15; P < .001). Nineteen percent of patients with EOPC, in contrast to 39% of patients with AOPC, received no treatment. Patients with AOPC more frequently declined chemotherapy (15% vs 9.5%). One-year OS was higher for EOPC versus AOPC across each stage (0/I/II, 72% [95% CI, 71%-74%] vs 53% [95% CI, 53%-54%]; III, 48% [95% CI, 45%-50%] vs 38% [95% CI, 37%-38%]; IV, 25% [95% CI, 24%-26%] vs 15% [95% CI, 15%-15%]) and treated patients (0/I/II, 75% [95% CI, 74%-77%] vs 64% [95% CI, 63%-64%]; III, 51% [95% CI, 49%-54%] vs 47% [95% CI, 47%-48%]; IV, 29% [95% CI, 28%-31%] vs 23% [95% CI, 23%-24%]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EOPC receive more oncologic therapy than patients with AOPC, although the intensity, type, and duration of chemotherapy are not available in the NCDB; however, 19% and 39%, respectively, receive no therapy. Underutilization may explain suboptimal oncologic outcomes. Efforts to improve access and treatment utilization in all age groups are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is uncommon in patients younger than 50 years, although its incidence is increasing. This study characterizes treatment utilization for early-onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC) versus average-age-onset pancreatic cancer (AOPC) and identifies factors associated with failure to receive treatment. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for patients with EOPC (age < 50 years) or AOPC (age ≥ 50 years) from 2004 to 2016. Multinomial regression was used to compare utilization (single modality vs multimodal treatment with or without surgery vs no treatment) between EOPC and AOPC. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 248,634 patients, 15,710 (6.3%) had EOPC. There were more male patients (56% vs 50%), non-White patients, and privately insured patients (61% vs 30%) with EOPC versus AOPC, without notable differences in clinical stage distribution. Patients with EOPC received more chemotherapy (38% vs 29%), surgery (9% vs 6.9%), chemoradiation (12% vs 9.2%), and multimodal treatment (21% vs 15%). The odds of receiving multimodal curative therapy were significantly higher for patients with EOPC versus patients with AOPC after adjustments for confounders (odds ratio, 3.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.66-4.15; P < .001). Nineteen percent of patients with EOPC, in contrast to 39% of patients with AOPC, received no treatment. Patients with AOPC more frequently declined chemotherapy (15% vs 9.5%). One-year OS was higher for EOPC versus AOPC across each stage (0/I/II, 72% [95% CI, 71%-74%] vs 53% [95% CI, 53%-54%]; III, 48% [95% CI, 45%-50%] vs 38% [95% CI, 37%-38%]; IV, 25% [95% CI, 24%-26%] vs 15% [95% CI, 15%-15%]) and treated patients (0/I/II, 75% [95% CI, 74%-77%] vs 64% [95% CI, 63%-64%]; III, 51% [95% CI, 49%-54%] vs 47% [95% CI, 47%-48%]; IV, 29% [95% CI, 28%-31%] vs 23% [95% CI, 23%-24%]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EOPC receive more oncologic therapy than patients with AOPC, although the intensity, type, and duration of chemotherapy are not available in the NCDB; however, 19% and 39%, respectively, receive no therapy. Underutilization may explain suboptimal oncologic outcomes. Efforts to improve access and treatment utilization in all age groups are warranted.
Authors: Daniele Campa; Manuel Gentiluomo; Ofure Obazee; Alba Ballerini; Ludmila Vodickova; Péter Hegyi; Pavel Soucek; Hermann Brenner; Anna Caterina Milanetto; Stefano Landi; Xin Gao; Dania Bozzato; Gabriele Capurso; Francesca Tavano; Yogesh Vashist; Thilo Hackert; Franco Bambi; Simona Bursi; Martin Oliverius; Domenica Gioffreda; Ben Schöttker; Audrius Ivanauskas; Beatrice Mohelnikova-Duchonova; Erika Darvasi; Raffaele Pezzilli; Ewa Małecka-Panas; Oliver Strobel; Maria Gazouli; Verena Katzke; Andrea Szentesi; Giulia Martina Cavestro; Gyula Farkas; Jakob R Izbicki; Stefania Moz; Livia Archibugi; Viktor Hlavac; Áron Vincze; Renata Talar-Wojnarowska; Borislav Rusev; Juozas Kupcinskas; Bill Greenhalf; Frederike Dijk; Nathalia Giese; Ugo Boggi; Angelo Andriulli; Olivier R Busch; Giuseppe Vanella; Pavel Vodicka; Michael Nentwich; Rita T Lawlor; George E Theodoropoulos; Krzysztof Jamroziak; Raffaella Alessia Zuppardo; Lucia Moletta; Laura Ginocchi; Rudolf Kaaks; John P Neoptolemos; Maurizio Lucchesi; Federico Canzian Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Renee A Desmond; C Mel Wilcox; Reda J Wilson; Pavan Manchikalapati; Mona M Fouad; Isam Eltoum; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ted A James; David G Sheldon; Ashwani Rajput; Boris W Kuvshinoff; Milind M Javle; Hector R Nava; Judy L Smith; John F Gibbs Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sara Raimondi; Patrick Maisonneuve; J-Matthias Löhr; Albert B Lowenfels Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Clifford Y Ko; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Mark S Talamonti Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael LaPelusa; Chan Shen; Nina D Arhin; Dana Cardin; Marcus Tan; Kamran Idrees; Sunil Geevarghese; Bapsi Chakravarthy; Jordan Berlin; Cathy Eng Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 6.639