Tice, Mary

ABSTRACT Background and Objectives Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains highly lethal, but the contribution of nonbiological factors to long‐term survival is unclear. We evaluated demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, treatment, and care‐delivery factors associated with 3‐year survival and whether these associations persisted at 5 years. Methods National Cancer Database patients with stage I–III PDAC diagnosed from 2012 to 2022 were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for treatment pathway. Results Among 57,053 patients, 51,071 were eligible for a 3‐year analysis, and 12,205 (23.9%) survived. Compared with chemotherapy alone, surgery with chemotherapy (OR, 7.12; 95% CI, 6.64–7.63) and surgery alone (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 3.49–4.23) had the strongest associations with survival. Younger age, lower comorbidity, Asian race, Spanish/Hispanic ethnicity, private insurance, lower grade, body or tail location, and lower nodal burden were independently associated with survival. Black race and treatment timing were not significant after adjustment. Findings were directionally consistent at 5 years. Conclusion Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors independently influence 3‐year survival in PDAC. These findings underscore the need to complement biologic and therapeutic advances with structural interventions, such as insurance expansion and improved access to high‐quality centers, to mitigate disparities and improve outcomes in this highly lethal cancer.

Introduction Due to rising incidence of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) malignancies and more effective therapies, there are increased survivors after curative surgery but little emphasis is placed on survivorship. This study aims to evaluate the value and yield of postoperative surveillance of surgically treated HPB cancer patients within a single surgeon’s practice. Methods A retrospective 1-year (2024) review identified 128 unique patients with prior surgical resection of a HPB malignancy undergoing active cancer surveillance by the surgical team. We excluded patients with benign indications for surgery or active cancer surveillance outside of the surgical team. Results Of these, 112 (87.5%) and 16 (12.5%) underwent pancreatic and hepatobiliary resection, respectively. Median follow up was 1.5 years from the index operation (IQR: 0.7-2.8 years). Pancreatic pathology was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), neuroendocrine, or miscellaneous in 70, 25, and 9 patients, respectively. Hepatobiliary pathology was cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), metastatic colorectal cancer, or hepatocellular carcinoma in 16, 6, and 2 patients, respectively. We identified 12 (9.3%) patients who had findings during the study time period resulting in a repeat HPB surgery. In addition, we identified 12 (9.3%) patients who required referral to another department for additional medical, surgical, or interventional treatments. The remaining 104 (81.2%) patients had findings of either no disease recurrence or stable disease with continued surveillance as a recommendation. Conclusion This study underscores the value of cancer surveillance for HPB cancer patients, demonstrating a yield of nearly 20% of patients with findings requiring repeat surgical intervention or referral to other departments.

Objectives Optimal use of surgery first (SF) vs neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still unclear. There is concern that NAT may result in worsened post-operative outcomes. Our study objectives were to show the impact of NAT on post-operative morbidity and mortality. Methods All patients undergoing resection for PDAC between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2020 were reviewed and those who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were included. Demographics, perioperative details, and pathology details were gathered. Data pertaining to 90-day complications were obtained and graded according to international consensus guidelines. Those undergoing SF were compared to those who had NAT. Categorical variables were compared by Fisher’s exact test and continuous variables by Student’s t-test. Results Two hundred and forty-one subjects who underwent PD for PDAC were included in this review. There was no significant difference in the rate of major morbidity between subjects who received NAT vs SF (19.4 vs 20.3%, P = 1.0). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of mortality (3.1 vs 4.2%, P = .742), post-operative pancreatic fistula (8.2 vs 10.5%, P = .658), or post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (7.1 vs 7.7%, P = 1.0), respectively. Conclusion Post-operative outcomes are not worsened by the use of the NAT approach prior to PD for PDAC. Further investigation is needed to reveal which patient subgroups may benefit from the use of NAT, especially regarding survival.