Factors associated with cancer worries in individuals participating in annual pancreatic cancer surveillance

It is important to adequately and timely identify individuals with cancer worries amongst participants in a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) surveillance program, because they could benefit from psychosocial support to decrease distress. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess both psychosocial and clinical factors associated with cancer worries. High-risk individuals participating in PDAC-surveillance were invited to annually complete a cancer worry scale (CWS) questionnaire which was sent after counseling by the clinical geneticist (T0), after intake for participation in PDAC-surveillance (T1), and then annually after every MRI and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) (T2 and furth

Association between primary origin (head, body and tail) of metastasised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and oncologic outcome : A population-based analysis

Introduction: The relation between the primary origin of metastasised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)—head, body or tail—metastatic patterns and outcomes has not yet been investigated in large population-based studies. Methods: Patients with metastasised PDAC at diagnosis from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included (2005–2015). We compared number of metastatic organ sites (1, 2, ≥3) and specific metastatic organ sites (peritoneum, liver, lung and extra-regional lymph nodes) for the different primary tumour locations. Cox regression analyses were used to determine the association of tumour location and metastatic organ site(s) with overall survival. Results: Overall, we included 9952 patients with metastasised PDAC. The primary origin was head in 5644 (57%), body in 1671 (17%) and tail in 2637 (26%) patients. Differences between primary origins were the number of metastatic organ sites (proportions ≥3 sites for head: 4%, for body: 8% and for tail: 13%, p < 0.0001) and peritoneal metastases (present in 13% for head, 24% for body and 30% for tail; p < 0.0001). Median overall survival was 2.6 months for head PDAC (reference), 2.4 months for body PDAC (HR 1.02 [0.97–1.08]) and 1.9 months for tail PDAC (HR 1.20 [1.15–1.26]). Of patients with one metastatic organ site, the worst survival compared with other sites was seen with liver only metastases (2.5 months vs. 2.7–5.1 months), and the best survival for patients, with extra-regional lymph node only metastases (5.1 months). Conclusion: Metastatic patterns differ among the primary origins for PDAC with metastasised tail tumours having more metastatic sites, more often peritoneal metastases and worse survival

Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer patients

Background: 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

Systematic review of functional outcome and quality of life after total pancreatectomy

Background: Surgeons have traditionally been reluctant to perform total pancreatectomy because of concerns for brittle diabetes and poor quality of life (QoL). Several recent studies have suggested that outcomes following total pancreatectomy have improved, but a systematic review is lacking. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken of studies reporting on outcomes after total pancreatectomy for all indications, except chronic pancreatitis. PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane Library were searched (2005–2018). Endpoints included functional outcome and QoL. Results: A total of 21 studies, including 1536 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. During a median follow-up of 20·8 (range 1·5–96·0) months, 18·6 per cent (45 of 242 patients) were readmitted for endocrine-related morbidity, with associated mortality in 1·6 per cent (6 of 365 patients). No diabetes-related mortality was reported in studies including only patients treated after 2005. Symptoms related to exocrine insufficiency were reported by 43·5 per cent (143 of 329 patients) during a median follow-up of 15·9 (1·5–96·0) months. Overall QoL, reported by 102 patients with a median follow-up of 28·6 (6·0–66·0) months, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, showed a moderately reduced summary score of 76 per cent, compared with a general population score of 86 per cent (P = 0·004). Conclusion: Overall QoL after total pancreatectomy is affected adversely, in particular by the considerable impact of diarrhoea that requires better treatment. There is also room for improvement in the management of diabetes after total pancreatectomy, particularly with regards to prevention of diabetes-related morbidity

Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial)

Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established. Methods: The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year. Results: All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €–427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €–4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75–10) versus 7 (4–8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery

Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial)

Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established. Methods: The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year. Results: All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €–427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €–4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75–10) versus 7 (4–8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.</p

Hospital of diagnosis and likelihood of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer

Background: Surgical resection for pancreatic cancer offers the only chance of cure. Assessment of the resectability of a pancreatic tumour is therefore of great importance. The aim of the study was to investigate whether centre of diagnosis influences the likelihood of surgery and whether this affects long-term survival. Methods: Patients diagnosed with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer (M0) between 2005 and 2013 in the Netherlands were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were classified as a pancreatic centre (at least 20 resections/year) or a non-pancreatic centre (fewer than 20 resections/year). The relationship between centre of diagnosis and likelihood of surgery was analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Influence of centre on overall survival was assessed by means of multivariable Cox regression analysis. Results: Some 8141 patients were diagnosed with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer, of whom 3123 (38·4 per cent) underwent surgery. Of the 2712 patients diagnosed in one of 19 pancreatic centres, 52·4 per cent had exploratory laparotomy compared with 31·4 per cent of 5429 patients diagnosed in one of 74 non-pancreatic centres (P < 0·001). A pancreatectomy was performed in 42·8 and 24·6 per cent of the patients respectively (P < 0·001). Multivariable analysis revealed that patients diagnosed in a pancreatic centre had a higher chance of undergoing surgery (odds ratio 2·21, 95 per cent c.i. 1·98 to 2·47). Centre of diagnosis was not associated with improved long-term survival (hazard ratio 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 1·00). Conclusion: Patients with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer had a greater likelihood of having surgical treatment when the diagnosis was established in a pancreatic centre

Irreversible Electroporation and Nivolumab Combined with Intratumoral Administration of a Toll-Like Receptor Ligand, as a Means of In Vivo Vaccination for Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PANFIRE-III). A Phase-I Study Protocol

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel image-guided tumor ablation technique with the ability to generate a window for the establishment of systemic antitumor immunity. IRE transiently alters the tumor’s immunosuppressive microenvironment while simultaneously generating antigen release, thereby instigating an adaptive immune response. Combining IRE with immunotherapeutic drugs, i.e., electroimmunotherapy, has synergistic potential and might induce a durable antitumor response. The primary objective of this study is to assess the safety of the combination of IRE with IMO-2125 (a toll-like receptor 9 ligand) and/or nivolumab in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). In this randomized controlled phase I clinical trial, 18 patients with mPDAC pretreated with chemotherapy will be enrolled in one of three study arms: A (control): nivolumab monotherapy; B: percutaneous IRE of the primary tumor followed by nivolumab; or C: intratumoral injection of IMO-2125 followed by percutaneous IRE of the primary tumor and nivolumab. Assessments include contrast enhanced computed tomography (ceCT), 18F-FDG and 18F-BMS-986192 (PD-L1) positron emission tomography (PET)-CT, biopsies of the primary tumor and metastases, peripheral blood samples, and quality of life and pain questionnaires. There is no curative treatment option for patients with mPDAC, and palliative chemotherapy regimens only moderately improve survival. Consequently, there is an urgent need for innovative and radically different treatment approaches. Should electroimmunotherapy establish an effective and durable anti-tumor response, it may ultimately improve PDAC’s dismal prognosis

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (LEOPARD-2) : Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Data from observational studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is superior to open pancreatoduodenectomy regarding intraoperative blood loss, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay, without increasing total costs. However, several case-matched studies failed to demonstrate superiority of MIPD, and large registry studies from the USA even suggested increased mortality for MIPDs performed in low-volume (<10 MIPDs annually) centers. Randomized controlled multicenter trials are lacking but clearly required. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIPD compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy, even in an enhanced recovery setting. METHODS/DESIGN: LEOPARD-2 is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, phase 2/3, superiority trial in centers that completed the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group LAELAPS-2 training program for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy or LAELAPS-3 training program for robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and have performed ≥ 20 MIPDs. A total of 136 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant, or malignant disease will be randomly assigned to undergo minimally invasive or open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. After the first 40 patients (phase 2), the data safety monitoring board will assess safety outcomes (not blinded for treatment allocation) and decide on continuation to phase 3. Patients from phase 2 will then be included in phase 3. The primary outcome measure is time (days) to functional recovery. All patients will be blinded for the surgical approach, at least until postoperative day 5, but preferably until functional recovery has been attained. Secondary outcome measures are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life, and costs. DISCUSSION: The LEOPARD-2 trial is designed to assess whether MIPD reduces time to functional recovery, as compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5689 . Registered on 2 March 2016