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

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.MethodsAn online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy.ResultsThe response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive).DiscussionThe step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Impact of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and infant mortality:a national quasi-experimental study

Smoke-free legislation is associated with improved early-life outcomes; however its impact on perinatal survival is unclear. We linked individual-level data with death certificates for all registered singletons births in England (1995-2011). We used interrupted time series logistic regression analysis to study changes in key adverse perinatal events following the July 2007 national, comprehensive smoke-free legislation. We studied 52,163 stillbirths and 10,238,950 live-births. Smoke-free legislation was associated with an immediate 7.8% (95%CI 3.5-11.8; p < 0.001) reduction in stillbirth, a 3.9% (95%CI 2.6-5.1; p < 0.001) reduction in low birth weight, and a 7.6% (95%CI 3.4-11.7; p = 0.001) reduction in neonatal mortality. No significant impact on SIDS was observed. Using a counterfactual scenario, we estimated that in the first four years following smoke-free legislation, 991 stillbirths, 5,470 cases of low birth weight, and 430 neonatal deaths were prevented. In conclusion, smoke-free legislation in England was associated with clinically important reductions in severe adverse perinatal outcomes