Armstrong, Valerie L

ABSTRACT Background and Objectives There is increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The role of additional adjuvant chemotherapy (AT) is not well‐defined. This study aims to determine the impact of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and lymph node (LN) involvement on overall survival (OS) in patients with resected PDAC and determine the impact of AT after NAT. Methods This is an observational cohort study of patients with PDAC who underwent NAT and surgical resection. A multivariable model was used to assess for differences in OS. An interaction term between LVI or LN involvement and AT use was utilized to test the benefit of additional AT. Results Seven thousand four hundred and fourteen patients were included; group A (LVI‐, LN‐) had 2787 patients, B (LVI + , LN‐) 652, C (LVI‐, LN + ) 1,712, and D (LVI + , LN + ) 2263. Median OS differed significantly between groups, A had the most favorable survival (34.1 months), followed by B (27.8 months), C (26.3 months), and D (21.2 months, p < 0.001). In patients with persistent LVI or LN involvement after NAT, additional AT was not associated with OS (group A, HR: 0.94, p = 0.4; B and C, HR: 1.0, p = 0.99; D, HR: 0.94, p = 0.32). Conclusions LVI and LN involvement were independently associated with worse OS. After NAT, the use of AT in patients with persistent LVI and LN involvement was not associated with improved OS.

SUMMARY Advancements in neoadjuvant regimens for esophageal adenocarcinoma have enabled some patients to achieve complete pathologic response at time of esophagectomy. There are currently limited data detailing this trend or the implications of complete pathologic response on survival. The National Cancer Database was used to identify 16,169 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma that received trimodal therapy including esophagectomy between 2006 and 2020. Of these, 11.4% had complete pathologic response at esophagectomy. Patient factors, staging characteristics, and survival trends were evaluated. In patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2020, the rate of complete pathologic response was 17.5%. Female sex (OR 1.295, 95% CI 1.134–1.481, p = 0.0001), Black race (OR 1.729, 95% CI 1.362–2.196, p = 0.0002), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.418, 95% CI 1.073–1.875, p = 0.0141), and later era of diagnosis (2016–2020 OR 2.898, 95% CI 2.508–3.349, p &lt; 0.0001) were independent predictors of complete pathologic response. Clinical stage II disease was associated with an increased probability of complete pathologic response (OR 1.492, 95% CI 1.19–1.871) while clinical stage III disease had a decreased probability of complete pathologic response (OR 0.762, 95% CI 0.621–0.936, p &lt; 0.0001). Complete pathologic response conveyed a strong survival benefit, with a median survival of 86.4 months (95% CI 73.9–102.1) versus 30.7 months (95% CI 29.8–31.7, p &lt; 0.0001) in those without complete pathologic response. Four-year median survival was also higher in those with complete pathologic response (63.3%, 95% CI 60.8–66.0% vs. 39.2%, 95% CI 38.4–40.1%, p &lt; 0.0001). In summary, complete pathologic response is associated with a profound survival advantage in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Such knowledge carries implications for patient counseling, prognostication, and surveillance and demonstrates a need for improved identification of complete clinical response prior to esophagectomy.

The incidence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is on the rise primarily due to the increasing use of cross-sectional imaging. Most of these incidentally detected lesions are non-functional PNETs with a small proportion of lesions being hormone-secreting, functional neoplasms. With recent advances in surgical approaches and systemic therapies, the management of PNETs have undergone a paradigm shift towards a more individualized approach. In this manuscript, we review the histologic classification and diagnostic approaches to both functional and non-functional PNETs. Additionally, we detail multidisciplinary approaches and surgical considerations tailored to the tumor’s biology, location, and functionality based on recent evidence. We also discuss the complexities of metastatic disease, exploring liver-directed therapies and the evolving landscape of minimally invasive surgical techniques.

Abstract Background Recent data show that aesthetic surgery research is lagging compared with reconstructive surgery: research funding and institutional disparities within aesthetic surgery are potential factors in this trend. Objectives The authors sought to determine if disparities exist in aesthetic surgery research based on funding sources or practice settings. Methods The authors reviewed Aesthetic Surgery Journal articles from 2009 to 2019. Chi-square, t test, bivariate, and multivariate regression analyses were employed to evaluate research trends. Results A total of 2262 publications were identified, with 318 funded articles meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of studies (294, 92%) received external funding, with 281 (88%) being supported solely by external funds. Externally funded studies were financed by private industry (194, 66%), foundations/societies (53, 18%), government grants (23, 8%), or a combination of agencies (24, 8%). The majority of funded studies were at academic institutions (266, 84%), followed by private practice (46, 14%) and private industry (6, 2%). Analysis of annual publications revealed a rising percentage of academic-based research, which correlated with decreasing research from private practice (r = −0.95, r2 = 0.89, P &lt; 0.001). Compared with academic institutions, private practice relied more heavily on industry funding (55% vs 87%, respectively, P = 0.001), exhibiting lower rates of foundational/societal (20% vs 2%), governmental (9% vs 0%), combined (8% vs 7%), and internal department funding (8% vs 4%). Article citations and level of evidence were unaffected by funding source, agency, or practice setting. Conclusions Lack of diversity in research funding among private practice surgeons may explain the reported discrepancies that currently exist between aesthetic and reconstructive surgery research.