Comparison of Invasive Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma versus Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm: A National Cancer Database Analysis

Background: Current evidence on overall survival (OS) between invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) is limited to single-center reports. We aimed to compare the characteristics, management, and OS of invasive PDAC vs. IPMN using a national United States (US) database. Methods: Invasive PDAC or IPMN adult (≥18 years) patients were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004–2016). OS was assessed with the Kaplan–Meier method and the stratified log-rank test. Results: We included 101,190 patients (100,834 PDAC, 356 IPMN). A higher proportion of PDAC vs. IPMN patients had clinical N1 (36.8% vs. 15.7%, p p p p p = 0.04). A higher proportion of surgical patients with PDAC vs. IPMN underwent margin-positive resection (23.0% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.001). The median OS for PDAC vs. IPMN was 8.3 vs. 33.4 months. In the stratified analysis for N0M0 disease, the median OS for PDAC vs. IPMN was 12.8 vs. 43.3 months, for N1M0, it was 11.5 vs. 17.0 months, while for M1, it was 4.0 vs. 7.0 months. In both diagnoses, surgery yielded improved OS, while stratified analysis in the surgical cohort demonstrated similar findings. Conclusions: Invasive PDAC is more aggressive than invasive IPMN, yet in the case of metastasis, OS is equally poor. Excellent long-term OS is achievable with surgical resection in highly selected cases, and efforts should focus on facilitating surgical treatment

Ductal Dilatation of ≥5 mm in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm Should Trigger the Consideration for Pancreatectomy : A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Resected Cases

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) are common but difficult to manage since accurate tools for diagnosing malignancy are unavailable. This study tests the diagnostic value of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter for detecting IPMN malignancy using a meta-analysis of published data of resected IPMNs. Collected from a comprehensive literature search, the articles included in this analysis must report malignancy cases (high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and invasive carcinoma (IC)) and MPD diameter so that two MPD cut-offs could be created. The sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratios of the two cutoffs for predicting malignancy were calculated. A review of 1493 articles yielded 20 retrospective studies with 3982 resected cases. A cutoff of ≥5 mm is more sensitive than the ≥10 mm cutoff and has pooled sensitivity of 72.20% and 75.60% for classification of HGD and IC, respectively. Both MPD cutoffs of ≥5 mm and ≥10 mm were associated with malignancy (OR = 4.36 (95% CI: 2.82, 6.75) vs. OR = 3.18 (95% CI: 2.25, 4.49), respectively). The odds of HGD and IC for patients with MPD ≥5 mm were 5.66 (95% CI: 3.02, 10.62) and 7.40 (95% CI: 4.95, 11.06), respectively. OR of HGD and IC for MPD ≥10 mm cutoff were 4.36 (95% CI: 3.20, 5.93) and 4.75 (95% CI: 2.39, 9.45), respectively. IPMN with MPD of >5 mm could very likely be malignant. In selected IPMN patients, pancreatectomy should be considered when MPD is >5 mm

Comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: National Cancer Database cohort analysis

Background: Neoadjuvant treatment is important for improving the rate of R0 surgical resection and overall survival outcome in treating patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the true efficacy of radiotherapy (RT) for neoadjuvant treatment of PDAC is uncertain. This retrospective study evaluated the treatment outcome of neoadjuvant RT in the treatment of PDAC. Methods: Collected from the National Cancer Database, information on patients with PDAC who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and pancreatectomy between 2010 to 2016 was used in this study. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) and NAC. Results: The study included 6936 patients, of whom 3185 received NACRT and 3751 NAC. The groups showed no difference in overall survival (NACRT 16.1 months versus NAC 17.4 months; P = 0.054). NACRT is associated with more frequent margin negative resection (86.1 versus 80.0 per cent; P < 0.001) but a more unfavourable 90-day mortality than NAC (6.4 versus 3.6 per cent; P < 0.001). The odds of 90-day mortality were higher in the radiotherapy group (odds ratio 1.81; P < 0.001), even after adjusting for significant covariates. Patients who received NACRT received single-agent chemotherapy more often than those who received NAC (31.5 versus 10.7 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion: This study failed to show a survival benefit for NACRT over NAC alone, despite its association with negative margin resection. The significantly higher mortality in NACRT warrants further investigation into its efficacy in the treatment of pancreatic cancer