Gender differences in tumor characteristics, treatment allocation and survival in stage I–III pancreatic cancer:a nationwide study

Introduction: Sex and gender are modulators of health and disease and may have impact on treatment allocation and survival in patients with cancer. In this study, we analyzed the impact of sex and gender on treatment allocation and overall survival in patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer diagnosed between 2015 and 2020 were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between sex and gender and the probability of receiving surgical and/or systemic treatment were examined with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Overall survival was assessed with log rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis. Results: Among 6855 patients, 51.2 % were female. Multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for known confounders (age, performance status, comorbidities, tumor location, tumor stage and previous malignancies) showed that females less often received systemic chemotherapy compared to males (OR 0.799, 95 %CI 0.703–0.909, p &lt; .001). No difference was found in the probability for undergoing surgical resection. Furthermore, females had worse overall survival compared to males (median OS 8.5 and 9.2 months respectively, 95 %CI 8.669–9.731). Conclusion: This nationwide study found that female patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer significantly less often received systemic treatment and had worse overall survival as compared to males. Disparities in pancreatic cancer care can be decreased by recognizing and resolving potential obstacles or biases in treatment decision-making.</p

Gender differences in tumor characteristics, treatment allocation and survival in stage I–III pancreatic cancer:a nationwide study

Introduction: Sex and gender are modulators of health and disease and may have impact on treatment allocation and survival in patients with cancer. In this study, we analyzed the impact of sex and gender on treatment allocation and overall survival in patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer diagnosed between 2015 and 2020 were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between sex and gender and the probability of receiving surgical and/or systemic treatment were examined with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Overall survival was assessed with log rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis. Results: Among 6855 patients, 51.2 % were female. Multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for known confounders (age, performance status, comorbidities, tumor location, tumor stage and previous malignancies) showed that females less often received systemic chemotherapy compared to males (OR 0.799, 95 %CI 0.703–0.909, p &lt; .001). No difference was found in the probability for undergoing surgical resection. Furthermore, females had worse overall survival compared to males (median OS 8.5 and 9.2 months respectively, 95 %CI 8.669–9.731). Conclusion: This nationwide study found that female patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer significantly less often received systemic treatment and had worse overall survival as compared to males. Disparities in pancreatic cancer care can be decreased by recognizing and resolving potential obstacles or biases in treatment decision-making.</p

Effect of centralization and regionalization of pancreatic surgery on resection rates and survival

Contains fulltext : 236824.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access

Assessment of available evidence in the management of gallbladder and bile duct stones:a systematic review of international guidelines

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease is a frequent disorder in the Western world with a prevalence of 10-20%. Recommendations for the assessment and management of gallstones vary internationally. The aim of this systematic review was to assess quality of guideline recommendations for treatment of gallstones. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and websites of relevant associations were systematically searched. Guidelines without a critical appraisal of literature were excluded. Quality of guidelines was determined using the AGREE II instrument. Recommendations without consensus or with low level of evidence were considered to define problem areas and clinical research gaps. RESULTS: Fourteen guidelines were included. Overall quality of guidelines was low, with a mean score of 57/100 (standard deviation 19). Five of 14 guidelines were considered suitable for use in clinical practice without modifications. Ten recommendations from all included guidelines were based on low level of evidence and subject to controversy. These included major topics, such as definition of symptomatic gallstones, indications for cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiography. CONCLUSION: Only five guidelines on gallstones are evidence-based and of a high quality, but even in these controversy exists on important topics. High quality evidence is needed in specific areas before an international guideline can be developed and endorsed worldwide

Age and prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer:a population-based study

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has an enormous impact on patients, and even more so if they are of younger age. It is unclear how their treatment and outcome compare to older patients. This study compares clinicopathological characteristics and overall survival (OS) of PDAC patients aged <60 years to older PDAC patients. METHOD: This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study using Netherlands Cancer Registry data of patients diagnosed with PDAC (1 January 2015-31 December 2018). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess OS. RESULTS: Overall, 10,298 patients were included, of whom 1551 (15%) were <60 years. Patients <60 years were more often male, had better performance status, less comorbidities and less stage I disease, and more often received anticancer treatment (67 vs. 33%, p < 0.001) than older patients. Patients <60 years underwent resection of the tumour more often (22 vs. 14%p < 0.001), more often received chemotherapy, and had a better median OS (6.9 vs. 3.3 months, p < 0.001) compared to older patients. No differences in median OS were demonstrated between both age groups of patients who underwent resection (19.7 vs. 19.4 months, p = 0.123), received chemotherapy alone (7.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.191), or received no anticancer treatment (1.8 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.600). Patients <60 years with stage-IV disease receiving chemotherapy had a somewhat better OS (7.5 vs. 6.3 months, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Patients with PDAC <60 years more often underwent resection despite less stage I disease and had superior OS. Stratified for treatment, however, survival was largely similar

Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. Methods/design: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. Discussion: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011)