Perception versus reality: A National Cohort Analysis of the surgery-first approach for resectable pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION: Although surgical resection is necessary, it is not sufficient for long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We sought to evaluate survival after up-front surgery (UFS) in anatomically resectable PDAC in the context of three critical factors: (A) margin status; (B) CA19-9; and (C) receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (2010-2015) was reviewed for clinically resectable (stage 0/I/II) PDAC patients. Surgical margins, pre-operative CA19-9, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy were evaluated. Patient overall survival was stratified based on these factors and their respective combinations. Outcomes after UFS were compared to equivalently staged patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. RESULTS: Twelve thousand and eighty-nine patients were included (n = 9197 UFS, n = 2892 ITT neoadjuvant). In the UFS cohort, only 20.4% had all three factors (median OS = 31.2 months). Nearly 1/3rd (32.7%) of UFS patients had none or only one factor with concomitant worst survival (median OS = 14.7 months). Survival after UFS decreased with each failing factor (two factors: 23 months, one factor: 15.5 months, no factors: 7.9 months) and this persisted after adjustment. Overall survival was superior in the ITT-neoadjuvant cohort (27.9 vs. 22 months) to UFS. CONCLUSION: Despite the perceived benefit of UFS, only 1-in-5 UFS patients actually realize maximal survival when known factors highly associated with outcomes are assessed. Patients are proportionally more likely to do worst, rather than best after UFS treatment. Similarly staged patients undergoing ITT-neoadjuvant therapy achieve survival superior to the majority of UFS patients. Patients and providers should be aware of the false perception of \u27optimal\u27 survival benefit with UFS in anatomically resectable PDAC

Safety and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Patients With Melanoma (SAFE-MILND): Report of a Prospective Multi-institutional Trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive inguinal lymph node dissection (MILND) is a novel approach to inguinal lymphadenectomy. SAFE-MILND (NCT01500304) is a multicenter, phase I/II clinical trial evaluating the safety and feasibility of MILND for patients with melanoma in a group of surgeons newly adopting the procedure. METHODS: Twelve melanoma surgeons from 10 institutions without any previous MILND experience, enrolled patients into a prospective study after completing specialized training including didactic lectures, participating in a hands-on cadaveric laboratory, and being provided an instructional DVD of the procedure. Complications and adverse postoperative events were graded using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients underwent a MILND. Seventy-seven cases (88.5%) were completed via a minimally invasive approach. The median total inguinal lymph nodes pathologically examined (SLN + MILND) was 12.0 (interquartile range 8.0, 14.0). Overall, 71% of patients suffered an adverse event (AE); the majority of these were grades 1 and 2, with 26% of patients experiencing a grade 3 AE. No grade 4 or 5 AEs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: After a structured training program, high-volume melanoma surgeons adopted a novel surgical technique with a lymph node retrieval rate that met or exceeded current oncologic guidelines and published benchmarks, and a favorable morbidity profile

Early postoperative CRP predicts major complications following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with significant postoperative complications. Early detection of at-risk patients may lead to improved outcomes. The role of C-reactive protein (CRP) in predicting postoperative complications has only been recently investigated

Hepatic epithelioid haemangioendothelioma: is transplantation the only treatment option?

AbstractBackgroundHepatic epithelioid haemangioendothelioma (HEH) is a rare vascular neoplasm with unpredictable clinical behaviour.AimTo compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between liver resection (LR) and orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for the treatment of HEH.MethodsRetrospective review of 30 patients with HEH treated at Mayo Clinic during 1984 and 2007.ResultsMedian age was 46 years with a female predominance of 2:1. Treatment included LR (n= 11), OLT (n= 11), chemotherapy (n= 5) and no treatment (n= 3). LR was associated with a 1-, 3- and 5-year OS of 100%, 86% and 86% and a DFS of 78%, 62% and 62%, respectively. OLT was associated with a 1-, 3- and 5-year OS of 91%, 73% and 73% and a DFS 64%, 46% and 46%, respectively. Metastases were present in 37% of patients but did not significantly affect OS. Important predictors of a favourable OS and DFS were largest tumour ≤ 10cm and multifocal disease with ≤10 nodules.ConclusionLR and OLT achieve comparable results in the treatment of HEH. LR is appropriate for patients with resectable disease and favourable prognostic factors. OLT is appropriate for patients with unresectable disease and possibly those with unfavourable prognostic factors. Metastases may not be a contraindication to surgical treatment

Repeat Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Recurrent Mucinous Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma: A Viable Treatment Strategy with Demonstrable Benefit.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma experience peritoneal recurrence despite complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Prior work has demonstrated that repeat CRS/HIPEC can prolong survival in select patients. We sought to validate these findings using outcomes from a high-volume center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma who underwent CRS/HIPEC at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2004 and 2021 were stratified by whether they underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease or as part of initial treatment. Only patients who underwent complete CRS/HIPEC were included. Initial and recurrent groups were compared. RESULTS: Of 437 CRS/HIPECs performed for mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, 50 (11.4%) were for recurrent disease. Patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease were more often treated with an oxaliplatin or cisplatin perfusion (35%/44% recurrent vs. 4%/1% initial, p \u3c 0.001), had a longer operative time (median 629 min recurrent vs. 511 min initial, p = 0.002), and had a lower median length of stay (10 days repeat vs. 13 days initial, p \u3c 0.001). Thirty-day complication and 90-day mortality rates did not differ between groups. Both cohorts enjoyed comparable recurrence free survival (p = 0.82). Compared with patients with recurrence treated with systemic chemotherapy alone, this select cohort of patients undergoing repeat CRS/HIPEC enjoyed better overall survival (p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients with recurrent appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma, CRS/HIPEC can provide survival benefit equivalent to primary CRS/HIPEC and that may be superior to that conferred by systemic therapy alone in select patients. These patients should receive care at a high-volume center in the context of a multidisciplinary team

Trans-pacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers

Abstract Background The current standard operation for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers with limited esophageal extension is total gastrectomy (TG). TG is associated with impaired appetite and weight loss due to the loss of gastric functions such as production of ghrelin and with anemia due to intrinsic factor loss and vitamin B12 malabsorption. Theoretically, proximal gastrectomy (PG) can mitigate these problems by preserving gastric function. However, PG with direct esophagogastric reconstruction is associated with severe postoperative reflux, delayed gastric emptying, and poor quality of life (QoL). Minimally invasive PG (MIPG) with antireflux techniques has been increasingly performed by experts but is technically demanding owing to its complexity. Moreover, the actual advantages of MIPG over minimally invasive TG (MITG) with regards to postoperative QoL are unknown. Our overall objective of this study is to determine the short-term QoL benefits of MIPG. Our central hypotheses are that MIPG is safe and that patients have improved appetite after MIPG with effective antireflux techniques, which leads to an overall QoL improvement when compared with MITG. Methods Enrollment of a total of 60 patients in this prospective survey-collection study is expected. Procedures (MITG versus MIPG, antireflux techniques for MIPG [double-tract reconstruction versus the double-flap technique]) will be chosen based on surgeon and/or patient preference. Randomization is not considered feasible because patients often have strong preferences regarding MITG and MIPG. The primary outcome is appetite level (reported on a 0-10 scale) at 3 months after surgery. With an expected 30 patients per cohort (MITG versus MIPG), this study will have 80% power to detect a one-point difference in appetite level. Patient-reported outcomes will be longitudinally collected (including questions about appetite and reflux), and specific QoL items, body weight, body mass index and ghrelin, albumin, and hemoglobin levels will be compared. Discussion Surgeons from the US, Japan, and South Korea formed this collaboration with the agreement that the surgical approach to P/GEJ cancers is an internationally important but controversial topic that requires immediate action. At the completion of the proposed research, our expected outcome is the establishment of the benefit and safety of MIPG. Trial registration This trial was registered with Clinical Trials Reporting Program Registration under the registration number NCI-2022–00267 on January 11, 2022, as well as with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05205343 on January 11, 2022