Characterization of various cell lines from different ampullary cancer subtypes and cancer associated fibroblast-mediated responses

Ampullary cancer is a relatively rare form of cancer and usually treated by pancreatoduodenectomy, followed by adjuvant therapy. The intestinal subtype is associated with markedly improved prognosis after resection. At present, only few cell lines are available for in vitro studies of ampullary cancer and they have not been collectively characterized

Impact of resection margin status on survival in advanced N stage pancreatic cancer – a multi-institutional analysis

Background!#!The present study aimed to examine the impact of microscopically tumour-infiltrated resection margins (R1) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with advanced lymphonodular metastasis (pN1-pN2) on overall survival (OS).!##!Methods!#!This retrospective, multi-institutional analysis included patients undergoing surgical resection for PDAC at three tertiary university centres between 2005 and 2018. Subcohorts of patients with lymph node status pN0-N2 were stratified according to the histopathological resection status using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.!##!Results!#!The OS of the entire cohort (n = 620) correlated inversely with the pN status (26 [pN0], 18 [pN1], 11.8 [pN2] months, P < 0.001) and R status (21.7 [R0], 12.5 [R1] months, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant OS difference between R0 versus R1 in cases with advanced lymphonodular metastases: 19.6 months (95% CI: 17.4-20.9) versus 13.6 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.0) for pN1 stage and 13.7 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.9) versus 10.1 months (95% CI: 7.9-19.1) for pN2, respectively. Accordingly, N stage-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that R status was a prognostic factor in pN0 cases only. Furthermore, there was no significant survival disadvantage for patients with R0 resection but circumferential resection margin invasion (≤ 1 mm; CRM+; 10.7 months) versus CRM-negative (13.7 months) cases in pN2 stages (P = 0.5).!##!Conclusions!#!An R1 resection is not associated with worse OS in pN2 cases. If there is evidence of advanced lymph node metastasis and a re-resection due to an R1 situation (e.g. at venous or arterial vessels) may substantially increase the perioperative risk, margin clearance in order to reach local control might be avoided with respect to the OS

Alignment of stroma fibers, microvessel density and immune cell populations determine overall survival in pancreatic cancer-An analysis of stromal morphology.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to define histo-morphological stroma characteristics by analyzing stromal components, and to evaluate their impact on local and systemic tumor spread and overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).Methods and materialsPatients who underwent oncologic resections with curative intent for PDAC were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Histological specimens were re-evaluated for morphological stroma features as stromal fibers, fibroblast morphology, stroma matrix density, microvessel density and distribution of immune cell populations.ResultsA total of 108 patients were identified undergoing curative resection for PDAC in the period from 2011-2016. 33 (30.6%) patients showed parallel alignment of stroma fibers while 75 (69.4%) had randomly oriented stroma fibers. As compared to parallel alignment, random orientation of stroma fibers was associated with larger tumor size (median 3.62 cm vs. median 2.87cm, p = 0.037), nodal positive disease (76.0% vs. 54.5%, p = 0.040), higher margin positive resection rates (41.9% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.008) and a trend for higher rates of T3/4 tumors (33.3% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.064). In univariate analysis, patients with parallel alignment of stroma fibers had improved overall survival rates as compared to patients with random orientation of stroma fibers (42 months vs. 22 months, p = 0.046). The combination of random orientation of stroma fibers and low microvessel density was associated with impaired overall survival rates (16 months vs. 36 months, p = 0.019). A high CD4/CD3 ratio (16 months vs. 33 months, p = 0.040) and high stromal density of CD163 positive cells were associated with reduced overall survival (27 months vs. 34 months, p = 0.039). In multivariable analysis, the combination of random orientation of stroma fibers and low microvessel density (HR 1.592, 95%CI 1.098-2.733, p = 0.029), high CD4/CD3 ratio (HR 2.044, 95%CI 1.203-3.508, p = 0.028) and high density of CD163 positive cells (HR 1.596, 95%CI 1.367-1.968, p = 0.036) remained independent prognostic factors.ConclusionAlignment of stroma fibers and microvessel density are simple histomorphological features serving as surrogate markers of local tumor progression dissemination and surgical resectability and determine prognosis in PDAC patients. High CD4/CD3 ratio and CD163 positive cell counts determine poor prognosis

Outcome of pancreatic anastomoses during pancreatoduodenectomy in two national audits

Background: Evidence on the optimal pancreatic anastomosis during pancreatoduodenectomy is inconclusive. Large multicenter and nationwide registries may provide additional insights. The study compared the practice and outcome of different pancreatic anastomoses during pancreatoduodenectomy, focusing on the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, in two large audits of pancreatic surgery.Methods: Posthoc analysis of patients after pancreatoduodenectomy in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit and the German DGAV StuDoQ vertical bar Pancreas registries (January 2014 to December 2017). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery B/C), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery B/C) and Clavien-Dindo >= 3 complications rates were compared for the three most common anastomoses: duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy, and non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy. Multivariable adjustment for potential confounders was performed.Results: Overall, 6,149 patients were included. The most common anastomosis was duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy (duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 59.8%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 21.1%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy 12.4%). The overall postoperative pancreatic fistula rate was 14%: duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 12.9%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 14.4% (P = .162), non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy 18.3% (P = 3 complications was the lowest after duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy: duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 28%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 32.7% (P = .002), non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy 43.1% (P = 3 (odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.1, P = .001) remained significantly higher only for non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy.Conclusion: Data from two national audits showed no difference in the risk-adjusted postoperative pancreatic fistula rate among the three most used pancreatic anastomoses during pancreatoduodenectomy. Pancreatogastrostomy was inferior to pancreatojejunostomy regarding bleeding and overall major complications. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Preoperative Biliary Stenting and Major Morbidity After Pancreatoduodenectomy

International audienc

Adjuvant therapy is associated with improved overall survival in patients with pancreatobiliary or mixed subtype ampullary cancer after pancreatoduodenectomy - A multicenter cohort study

Background/Objective: The benefit of adjuvant therapy in ampullary cancer (AMPAC) patients following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is debated. The aim of this study was to determine the role of adjuvant therapy after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in histological subtypes of AMPAC.Methods: Patients undergoing PD for AMPAC at 5 high-volume European surgical centers from 1996 to 2017 were identified. Patient baseline characteristics, surgical and histopathological parameters, and long-term overall survival (OS) after resection were evaluated.Results: 214 patients undergoing PD for AMPAC were included. ASA score (ASA1-2 149 vs. ASA 3-4 82 months median OS, p = 0.002), preoperative serum CEA (CEA <0.5 ng/ml 128 vs. CEA >0.5 ng/ml 62 months, p = 0.013), preoperative serum CA19-9 (CA19-9 < 40 IU/ml 147 vs. CA19-9 > 40IU/ml 111 months, p = 0.042), T stage (T1-2 163 vs. T3-4 98 months, p < 0.001), N stage (NO 159 vs. N+ 110 months, p < 0.001), grading (G1-2 145 vs. G3-4 113 months, p = 0.026), R status (RO 136 vs. R+ 38 months, p = 0.031), and histological subtype (intestinal subtype 156 vs. PB/M subtype 118 months, p = 0.003) qualified as prognostic parameters. In multivariable analysis, ASA score (HR 1.784, 95%CI 0.997-3.193, p = 0.050) and N stage (HR 1.831, 95%CI 0.904-3.707, p = 0.033) remained independent prognostic factors. In PB/M subtype AMPAC, patients undergoing adjuvant therapy showed an improved median overall survival (adjuvant therapy 85 months vs. no adjuvant therapy 65 months, p = 0.005), and adjuvant therapy remained an independent prognostic parameter in multivariate analysis (HR 0.351, 95% CI 0.151-0.851, p = 0.015). There was no significant benefit of adjuvant therapy in intestinal subtype AMPAC patients.Conclusion: Adjuvant treatment seems indicated in pancreatobiliary or mixed type AMPAC. (C) 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Survival Outcome and Prognostic Factors for Pancreatic Acinar Cell Carcinoma: Retrospective Analysis from the German Cancer Registry Group

Background: Pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma (PACC) is a distinct type of pancreatic cancer with low prevalence. We aimed to analyze prognostic factors and survival outcome for PACC in comparison to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), based on data from the German Cancer Registry Group. Methods: Patients with PACC and PDAC were extracted from pooled data of the German clinical cancer registries (years 2000 to 2019). The distribution of demographic parameters, tumor stage and therapy modes were compared between PACC and PDAC. The Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to delineate prognostic factors for PACC. Propensity score matching was used to compare survival between PACC and PDAC. Results: There were 233 (0.44%) patients with PACC out of 52,518 patients with pancreatic malignancy. Compared to PDAC, patients with PACC were younger (median age 66 versus 70, respectively, p < 0.001) and the percentage of males was higher (66.1% versus 53.3%, respectively, p < 0.001). More patients were resected with PACC than with PDAC (56.2% versus 38.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). The estimated overall median survival in PACC was 22 months (95% confidence interval 15 to 27), compared to 12 months (95% confidence interval 10 to 13) in the matched PDAC cohort (p < 0.001). Surgical resection was the strongest positive prognostic factor for PACC after adjusting for sex, age, and distant metastases (hazard ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.51, p < 0.001). There was no survival benefit for adjuvant therapy in PACC. Conclusions: PACC has overall better prognosis than PDAC. Surgical resection is the best therapeutic strategy for PACC and should be advocated even in advanced tumor stages

Different Periampullary Types and Subtypes Leading to Different Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy:Reality and Not a Myth; An International Multicenter Cohort Study

This international multicenter cohort study included 30 centers. Patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), intestinal-type (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary-type (AmpPB) ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were included. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b≥), clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Overall, 3622 patients were included in the study (370 DAC, 811 AmpIT, 895 AmpPB, 1083 dCCA, and 463 PDAC). Mortality rates were comparable between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, and dCCA (ranging from 3.7% to 5.9%), while lower for PDAC (1.5%, p = 0.013). Major morbidity rate was the lowest in PDAC (4.4%) and the highest for DAC (19.9%, p &lt; 0.001). The highest rates of CR-POPF were observed in DAC (27.3%), AmpIT (25.5%), and dCCA (27.6%), which were significantly higher compared to AmpPB (18.5%, p = 0.001) and PDAC (8.3%, p &lt; 0.001). The shortest LOS was found in PDAC (11 d vs. 14–15 d, p &lt; 0.001). Discussion: In conclusion, this study shows significant variations in perioperative mortality, post-operative complications, and hospital stay among different periampullary cancers, and between the ampullary subtypes. Further research should assess the biological characteristics and tissue reactions associated with each type of periampullary cancer, including subtypes, in order to improve patient management and personalized treatment.</p

Establishment and Molecular Characterization of Two Patient-Derived Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cell Lines as Preclinical Models for Treatment Response

The prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is exceedingly poor. Although surgical resection is the only curative treatment option, multimodal treatment is of the utmost importance, as only about 20% of tumors are primarily resectable at the time of diagnosis. The choice of chemotherapeutic treatment regimens involving gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX is currently solely based on the patient’s performance status, but, ideally, it should be based on the tumors’ individual biology. We established two novel patient-derived primary cell lines from surgical PDAC specimens. LuPanc-1 and LuPanc-2 were derived from a pT3, pN1, G2 and a pT3, pN2, G3 tumor, respectively, and the clinical follow-up was fully annotated. STR-genotyping revealed a unique profile for both cell lines. The population doubling time of LuPanc-2 was substantially longer than that of LuPanc-1 (84 vs. 44 h). Both cell lines exhibited a typical epithelial morphology and expressed moderate levels of CK7 and E-cadherin. LuPanc-1, but not LuPanc-2, co-expressed E-cadherin and vimentin at the single-cell level, suggesting a mixed epithelial-mesenchymal differentiation. LuPanc-1 had a missense mutation (p.R282W) and LuPanc-2 had a frameshift deletion (p.P89X) in TP53. BRCA2 was nonsense-mutated (p.Q780*) and CREBBP was missense-mutated (p.P279R) in LuPanc-1. CDKN2A was missense-mutated (p.H83Y) in LuPanc-2. Notably, only LuPanc-2 harbored a partial or complete deletion of DPC4. LuPanc-1 cells exhibited high basal and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1-induced migratory activity in real-time cell migration assays, while LuPanc-2 was refractory. Both LuPanc-1 and LuPanc-2 cells responded to treatment with TGF-β1 with the activation of SMAD2; however, only LuPanc-1 cells were able to induce TGF-β1 target genes, which is consistent with the absence of DPC4 in LuPanc-2 cells. Both cell lines were able to form spheres in a semi-solid medium and in cell viability assays, LuPanc-1 cells were more sensitive than LuPanc-2 cells to treatment with gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX. In summary, both patient-derived cell lines show distinct molecular phenotypes reflecting their individual tumor biology, with a unique clinical annotation of the respective patients. These preclinical ex vivo models can be further explored for potential new treatment strategies and might help in developing personalized (targeted) therapy regimens