Neoadjuvant Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Review Article

Context Pancreatic cancer is still associated with a high mortality and morbidity for affected patients. To this date the role of neoadjuvant therapy in the standard treatment of pancreatic cancer remains elusive. The aim of our study was to review the latest results and current approaches in neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer. Methods We performed a literature review for neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer. We divided the results into resectable disease and local advanced pancreatic cancer. Results Neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer is safe. But currently no standard guidelines exist in neoadjuvant approaches on pancreatic cancer. For local advanced pancreatic cancer the available data tends to show a positive effect on survival rates for neoadjuvant approaches. Conclusion For resectable disease we found no benefit of neoadjuvant therapy. The negative or positive effects of neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer remain unclear for the lack of sufficient and prospective data.Image: University of Luebeck logo. Luebeck, Germany

A reciprocal repression between ZEB1 and members of the miR-200 family promotes EMT and invasion in cancer cells

The embryonic programme ‘epithelial–mesenchymal transition' (EMT) is thought to promote malignant tumour progression. The transcriptional repressor zinc-finger E-box binding homeobox 1 (ZEB1) is a crucial inducer of EMT in various human tumours, and was recently shown to promote invasion and metastasis of tumour cells. Here, we report that ZEB1 directly suppresses transcription of microRNA-200 family members miR-141 and miR-200c, which strongly activate epithelial differentiation in pancreatic, colorectal and breast cancer cells. Notably, the EMT activators transforming growth factor β2 and ZEB1 are the predominant targets downregulated by these microRNAs. These results indicate that ZEB1 triggers an microRNA-mediated feedforward loop that stabilizes EMT and promotes invasion of cancer cells. Alternatively, depending on the environmental trigger, this loop might switch and induce epithelial differentiation, and thus explain the strong intratumorous heterogeneity observed in many human cancers

A Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of the Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor Cell Lines BON-1 and QGP-1

Experimental models of neuroendocrine tumor disease are scarce, with only a few existing neuroendocrine tumor cell lines of pancreatic origin (panNET). Their molecular characterization has so far focused on the neuroendocrine phenotype and cancer-related mutations, while a transcription-based assessment of their developmental origin and malignant potential is lacking. In this study, we performed immunoblotting and qPCR analysis of neuroendocrine, epithelial, developmental endocrine-related genes as well as next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of microRNAs (miRs) on three panNET cell lines, BON-1, QGP-1, and NT-3. All three lines displayed a neuroendocrine and epithelial phenotype; however, while insulinoma-derived NT-3 cells preferentially expressed markers of mature functional pancreatic β-cells (i.e., INS, MAFA), both BON-1 and QGP-1 displayed high expression of genes associated with immature or non-functional β/δ-cells genes (i.e., NEUROG3), or pancreatic endocrine progenitors (i.e., FOXA2). NGS-based identification of miRs in BON-1 and QGP-1 cells revealed the presence of all six members of the miR-17-92 cluster, which have been implicated in b-cell function and differentiation, but also have roles in cancer being both oncogenic or tumor suppressive. Notably, both BON-1 and QGP-1 cells expressed several miRs known to be negatively associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition, invasion or metastasis. Moreover, both cell lines failed to exhibit migratory activity in vitro. Taken together, NT-3 cells resemble mature functional β-cells, while both BON-1 and QGP-1 are more similar to immature/non-functional pancreatic β/δ-cells or pancreatic endocrine progenitors. Based on the recent identification of three transcriptional subtypes in panNETs, NT-3 cells resemble the "islet/insulinoma tumors" (IT) subtype, while BON-1 and QGP-1 cells were tentatively classified as "metastasis-like/primary" (MLP). Our results provide a comprehensive characterization of three panNET cell lines and demonstrate their relevance as neuroendocrine tumor models

Ideal Outcome After Pancreatoduodenectomy:A Transatlantic Evaluation of a Harmonized Composite Outcome Measure

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to define and assess Ideal Outcome in the national or multicenter registries of North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. BACKGROUND: Assessing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy among centers and countries requires a broad evaluation that cannot be captured by a single parameter. Previously, 2 composite outcome measures (textbook outcome and optimal pancreatic surgery) for pancreatoduodenectomy have been described from Europe and the United States. These composites were harmonized into ideal outcome (IO). METHODS: This analysis is a transatlantic retrospective study (2018-2020) of patients after pancreatoduodenectomy within the registries from North America, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden. After 3 consensus meetings, IO for pancreatoduodenectomy was defined as the absence of all 6 parameters: (1) in-hospital mortality, (2) severe complications-Clavien-Dindo ≥3, (3) postoperative pancreatic fistula-International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) grade B/C, (4) reoperation, (5) hospital stay &gt;75th percentile, and (6) readmission. Outcomes were evaluated using relative largest difference (RLD) and absolute largest difference (ALD), and multivariate regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 21,036 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included, of whom 11,194 (54%) reached IO. The rate of IO varied between 55% in North America, 53% in Germany, 52% in The Netherlands, and 54% in Sweden (RLD: 1.1, ALD: 3%, P &lt;0.001). Individual components varied with an ALD of 2% length of stay, 4% for in-hospital mortality, 12% severe complications, 10% postoperative pancreatic fistula, 11% reoperation, and 9% readmission. Age, sex, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, biliary drainage, absence of vascular resection, and histologic diagnosis were associated with IO. In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, country, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy also was associated with improved IO. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed composite outcome measure "Ideal Outcome" can be used for auditing and comparing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy. The observed differences can be used to guide collaborative initiatives to further improve the outcomes of pancreatic surgery.</p

Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden: Comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes

Background: Registries of pancreatic surgery have become increasingly popular as they facilitate both quality improvement and clinical research. We aimed to compare registries for design, variables collected, patient characteristics, treatment strategies, clinical outcomes, and pathology. Methods: Registered variables and outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (2014–2017) in 4 nationwide or multicenter pancreatic surgery registries from the United States of America (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program), Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie - Studien-, Dokumentations- und Qualitätszentrum), the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit), and Sweden (Swedish National Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer Registry) were compared. A core registry set of 55 parameters was identified and evaluated using relative and absolute largest differences between extremes (smallest versus largest). Results: Overall, 22,983 pancreatoduodenectomies were included (15,224, 3,558, 2,795, and 1,406 in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). Design of the registries varied because 20 out of 55 (36.4%) core parameters were not available in 1 or more registries. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was administered in 27.6%, 4.9%, 7.0%, and 3.4% (relative largest difference 8.1, absolute largest difference 24.2%, P < .001). Minimally invasive surgery was performed in 7.8%, 4.5%, 13.5%, and unknown (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 9.0%, P < .001). Median length of stay was 8.0, 16.0, 12.0, and 11.0 days (relative largest difference 2.0, absolute largest difference 8.0, P < .001). Reoperation was performed in 5.7%, 17.1%, 8.7%, and 11.2% (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 11.4%, P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.3%, 4.7%, 3.6%, and 2.7% (relative largest difference 3.6, absolute largest difference 3.4%, P < .001). Conclusion: Considerable differences exist in the design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes in 4 Western registries of pancreatic surgery. The absolute largest differences of 24.3% for the use of preoperative chemotherapy, 9.0% for minimally invasive surgery, 11.4% for reoperation rate, and 3.4% for in-hospital mortality require further study and improvement. This analysis provides 55 core parameters for pancreatic surgery registries

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma:A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG)

BackgroundPancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP +/- PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.ResultsOverall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.ConclusionsPVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality

International differences in the selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy:A transatlantic analysis

Background: The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. Methods: All patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014–2020 were included. Results: Overall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159–2.300, P = .005). Conclusions: Considerable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve.</p

Ideal Outcome After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Transatlantic Evaluation of a Harmonized Composite Outcome Measure

Objective: The aim of this study is to define and assess Ideal Outcome in the national or multicenter registries of North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Background: Assessing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy among centers and countries requires a broad evaluation that cannot be captured by a single parameter. Previously, 2 composite outcome measures (textbook outcome and optimal pancreatic surgery) for pancreatoduodenectomy have been described from Europe and the United States. These composites were harmonized into ideal outcome (IO). Methods: This analysis is a transatlantic retrospective study (2018-2020) of patients after pancreatoduodenectomy within the registries from North America, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden. After 3 consensus meetings, IO for pancreatoduodenectomy was defined as the absence of all 6 parameters: (1) in-hospital mortality, (2) severe complications - Clavien-Dindo ≥3, (3) postoperative pancreatic fistula - International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) grade B/C, (4) reoperation, (5) hospital stay >75th percentile, and (6) readmission. Outcomes were evaluated using relative largest difference (RLD) and absolute largest difference (ALD), and multivariate regression models. Results: Overall, 21,036 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included, of whom 11,194 (54%) reached IO. The rate of IO varied between 55% in North America, 53% in Germany, 52% in The Netherlands, and 54% in Sweden (RLD: 1.1, ALD: 3%, P<0.001). Individual components varied with an ALD of 2% length of stay, 4% for in-hospital mortality, 12% severe complications, 10% postoperative pancreatic fistula, 11% reoperation, and 9% readmission. Age, sex, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, biliary drainage, absence of vascular resection, and histologic diagnosis were associated with IO. In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, country, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy also was associated with improved IO. Conclusions: The newly developed composite outcome measure "Ideal Outcome"can be used for auditing and comparing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy. The observed differences can be used to guide collaborative initiatives to further improve the outcomes of pancreatic surgery

Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed