Nationwide evaluation of pancreatic cancer networks ten years after the centralization of pancreatic surgery

Background: Due to centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with pancreatic cancer are treated in pancreatic cancer networks, composed of referring hospitals (Spokes) and an expert center (Hub). This study aimed to investigate I) how pancreatic cancer networks are organized and II) evaluated by involved clinicians.Methods: Two online surveys were sent out between January-May 2022. Part I was sent out to the surgical network directors of all hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). Part II was sent out to all involved clinicians in the Hubs-and-Spokes networks. Results: There was a large variety between the 15 networks concerning number of affiliated Spokes (1-7), annual pancreatoduodenectomies (20-129), and use of a service level agreement (SLA) (40%). More Spoke clinicians considered the Spoke the best location for diagnostic workup (74% vs 36%, P < 0.001). Only 30% of Spoke clinicians attended the Hubs multidisciplinary team meeting frequently. More Hub clinicians thought that exchange of patient information should be improved (37% vs 51%, P = 0.005).Conclusion: A large variety in Dutch pancreatic cancer networks was observed concerning number of affiliated Spokes, use of SLAs, and logistic aspects of network care. Improvement of network care concern agreements on diagnostic workup, use of SLA, Spoke participation in the MDT, and patient information exchange.Surgical oncolog

Preoperative misdiagnosis of pancreatic and periampullary cancer in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre retrospective cohort study

Introduction: Whereas neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in pancreatic cancer, it is currently not recommended for other periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancers. This has important implications for the relevance of the preoperative diagnosis for pancreatoduodenectomy. This retrospective multicentre cohort study aimed to determine the frequency of clinically relevant misdiagnoses in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or other periampullary cancer. Methods: Data from all consecutive patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The preoperative diagnosis as concluded by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was compared with the final postoperative diagnosis at pathology to determine the rate of clinically relevant misdiagnosis (defined as missed pancreatic cancer or incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer). Results: In total, 1244 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy of whom 203 (16%) had a clinically relevant misdiagnosis preoperatively. Of all patients with a final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 13% (87/ 679) were preoperatively misdiagnosed as distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41, 6.0%), ampullary cancer (n = 27, 4.0%) duodenal cancer (n = 16, 2.4%), or other (n = 3, 0.4%). Of all patients with a final diagnosis of periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancer, 21% (116/565) were preoperatively incorrectly diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Accuracy of preoperative diagnosis was 84% for pancreatic cancer, 71% for distal cholangiocarcinoma, 73% for ampullary cancer and 73% for duodenal cancer. A prediction model for the preoperative likelihood of pancreatic cancer (versus other periampullary cancer) prior to pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated an AUC of 0.88. Discussion: This retrospective multicentre cohort study showed that 16% of patients have a clinically relevant misdiagnosis that could result in either missing the opportunity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer or inappropriate administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer. A preoperative prediction model is available on www.pancreascalculator.com. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Surgical oncolog

Safety and Tolerability of Online Adaptive High-Field Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiotherapy

Importance: In 2018, the first online adaptive magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) system using a 1.5-T MR-equipped linear accelerator (1.5-T MR-Linac) was clinically introduced. This system enables online adaptive radiotherapy, in which the radiation plan is adapted to size and shape changes of targets at each treatment session based on daily MR-visualized anatomy. Objective: To evaluate safety, tolerability, and technical feasibility of treatment with a 1.5-T MR-Linac, specifically focusing on the subset of patients treated with an online adaptive strategy (ie, the adapt-to-shape [ATS] approach). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults with solid tumors treated with a 1.5-T MR-Linac enrolled in Multi Outcome Evaluation for Radiation Therapy Using the MR-Linac (MOMENTUM), a large prospective international study of MRgRT between February 2019 and October 2021. Included were adults with solid tumors treated with a 1.5-T MR-Linac. Data were collected in Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the US. Data were analyzed in August 2023. Exposure: All patients underwent MRgRT using a 1.5-T MR-Linac. Radiation prescriptions were consistent with institutional standards of care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patterns of care, tolerability, and technical feasibility (ie, treatment completed as planned). Acute high-grade radiotherapy-related toxic effects (ie, grade 3 or higher toxic effects according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0) occurring within the first 3 months after treatment delivery. Results: In total, 1793 treatment courses (1772 patients) were included (median patient age, 69 years [range, 22-91 years]; 1384 male [77.2%]). Among 41 different treatment sites, common sites were prostate (745 [41.6%]), metastatic lymph nodes (233 [13.0%]), and brain (189 [10.5%]). ATS was used in 1050 courses (58.6%). MRgRT was completed as planned in 1720 treatment courses (95.9%). Patient withdrawal caused 5 patients (0.3%) to discontinue treatment. The incidence of radiotherapy-related grade 3 toxic effects was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.9%-2.0%) in the entire cohort and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.0%) in the subset of patients treated with ATS. There were no radiotherapy-related grade 4 or 5 toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients treated on a 1.5-T MR-Linac, radiotherapy was safe and well tolerated. Online adaptation of the radiation plan at each treatment session to account for anatomic variations was associated with a low risk of acute grade 3 toxic effects.

Patient expectation and experience of MR-guided radiotherapy using a 1.5T MR-Linac

Background and Purpose: Online adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is a relatively new form of radiotherapy treatment, delivered using a MR-Linac. It is unknown what patients expect from this treatment and whether these expectations are met. This study evaluates whether patients’ pre-treatment expectations of MRgRT are met and reports patients’ on-table experience on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Materials and methods: All patients treated on the MR-Linac from November 2020 until April 2021, were eligible for inclusion. Patient expectation and experience were captured through questionnaires before, during, and three months after treatment. The on-table experience questionnaire included patient’ physical and psychological coping. Patient-expected side effects, participation in daily and social activity, disease outcome and, disease related symptoms were compared to post-treatment experience. Results: We included 113 patients who were primarily male (n = 100, 89 %), with a median age of 69 years (range 52–90). For on-table experience, ninety percent of patients (strongly) agreed to feeling calm during their treatment. Six and eight percent of patients found the treatment position or bed uncomfortable respectively. Twenty-eight percent of patients felt tingling sensations during treatment. After treatment, 79 % of patients’ expectations were met. Most patients experienced an (better than) expected level of side effects (75 %), participation in daily- (83 %) and social activity (86 %) and symptoms (78 %). However, 33 % expected more treatment efficacy than experienced. Conclusion: Treatment on the 1.5 T MR-Linac is well tolerated and meets patient expectations. Despite the fact that some patients expected greater treatment efficacy and the frequent occurrence of tingling sensations during treatment, most patient experiences were comparable or better than previously expected

Microscopic resection margin status in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - A nationwide analysis

Item does not contain fulltex

Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer patients

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to collect the best available evidence for diagnostic modalities, frequency, and duration of surveillance after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: PDAC guidelines published after 2015 were collected. Furthermore, a systematic search of the literature on postoperative surveillance was performed in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Articles comparing different diagnostic modalities and frequencies of postoperative surveillance in PDAC patients with regard to survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness were selected. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 570 articles. A total of seven guidelines and twelve original clinical studies were eventually evaluated. PDAC guidelines increasingly recommend a combination of tumor marker testing and computed tomography (CT) imaging every three to six months during the first two years after resection. These guidelines are, however, based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. Prospective studies comparing different surveillance strategies are lacking. According to recent studies, surveillance with tumor markers and imaging at regular intervals results in the detection of PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms and more frequent administration of further therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Current evidence for recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is limited and contradictory. Consequently, recommendations on surveillance are conflicting. To define the clinical merit of recurrence-focused surveillance, patients who are most likely to benefit from early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence need to be identified. To this purpose, well-designed prospective studies are needed, accounting for both economical and psychosocial implications of surveillance

Early Recurrence After Resection of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Following Induction Therapy: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish an evidence-based cutoff and predictors for early recurrence in patients with resected locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). BACKGROUND: It is unclear how many and which patients develop early recurrence after LAPC resection. Surgery in these patients is probably of little benefit. METHODS: We analyzed all consecutive patients undergoing resection of LAPC after induction chemotherapy who were included in prospective databases in The Netherlands (2015-2019) and the Johns Hopkins Hospital (2016-2018). The optimal definition for "early recurrence" was determined by the post-recurrence survival (PRS). Patients were compared for overall survival (OS). Predictors for early recurrence were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 168 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 28 months, recurrence was observed in 118 patients (70.2%). The optimal cutoff for recurrence-free survival to differentiate between early (n=52) and late recurrence (n=66) was 6 months ( P <0.001). OS was 8.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.3-9.6] in the early recurrence group (n=52) versus 31.1 months (95% CI: 25.7-36.4) in the late/no recurrence group (n=116) ( P <0.001). A preoperative predictor for early recurrence was postinduction therapy carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9≥100 U/mL [odds ratio (OR)=4.15, 95% CI: 1.75-9.84, P =0.001]. Postoperative predictors were poor tumor differentiation (OR=4.67, 95% CI: 1.83-11.90, P =0.001) and no adjuvant chemotherapy (OR=6.04, 95% CI: 2.43-16.55, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early recurrence was observed in one third of patients after LAPC resection and was associated with poor survival. Patients with post-induction therapy CA 19-9 ≥100 U/mL, poor tumor differentiation and no adjuvant therapy were especially at risk. This information is valuable for patient counseling before and after resection of LAPC