Search

Purpose: Postoperative length of stay (PLOS) and readmission rate are pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) outcome measures, which are reported individually but may be interrelated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how well a composite length of stay measure (CLOS) that included PLOS and readmission length of stay describes outcomes. To do so, we evaluated how well CLOS correlated to postoperative complications absolutely and compared to PLOS.Methods: A total of 668 PDs performed between 2011 and 2018 were evaluated. CLOS was calculated from PLOS and readmission length of stay. Complication severity was judged by the Modified Accordion Grading System (MAGS). Multinomial logistical regression models (MLRM) were used to investigate the relationship between either PLOS or CLOS and complications. Multilevel and pairwise area under curves (AUC) using SAS macro %MultAUC were provided for both models.Results: A total of 432 of 668 patients (65%) developed complications. One hundred seventy-seven patients (27%) were readmitted. Mean PLOS was 10.2 days (7.1 SD) and mean CLOS was 12.3 days (10.1 SD). PLOS and CLOS both were correlated linearly to MAGS grade. Spearman correlation coefficient for CLOS vs. MAGS of 0.68 was higher than that of 0.49 for PLOS vs. MAGS. Multilevel AUC from MLRM using PLOS was 0.66, but multilevel AUC from MLRM using CLOS was 0.71.Discussion: CLOS provides an accurate estimate of hospital day utilization per patient for PD, reflecting not only the basal hospital recovery time for PD but the added time needed because of readmissions due to complications. It is tightly correlated to number and severity of postoperative complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ablative radiation therapy for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA-PDAC) may limit concurrent chemotherapy dosing and usually is only safely deliverable to tumors distant from gastrointestinal organs. Magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy may safely permit radiation and chemotherapy dose escalation. We conducted a single-arm phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose of ablative hypofractionated radiation with full-dose gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with BR/LA-PDAC. Patients were treated with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/125 mg/m2) x 1c then concurrent gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and radiation. Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and radiation doses were escalated per time-to-event continual reassessment method from 40 to 45 Gy 25 fxs with chemotherapy (600-800/75 mg/m2) to 60 to 67.5 Gy/15 fractions and concurrent gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/100 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose of radiation as defined by 60-day dose limiting toxicity (DLT). DLT was treatment-related G5, G4 hematologic, or G3 gastrointestinal requiring hospitalization >3 days. Secondary endpoints included resection rates, local progression free survival (LPFS), distant metastasis free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). Thirty patients enrolled (March 2015-February 2019), with 26 evaluable patients (2 progressed before radiation, 1 was determined ineligible for radiation during planning, 1 withdrew consent). One DLT was observed. The DLT rate was 14.1% (3.3%-24.9%) with a maximum tolerated dose of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/100 mg/m2) and 67.5 Gy/15 fractions. At a median follow-up of 40.6 months for living patients the median OS was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.9-28.2 months). The median OS for patients with Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group 0 and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 <90 were 34.1 (95% CI, 13.6-54.1) and 43.0 (95% CI, 8.0-not reached) months, respectively. Two-year LPFS and DMFS were 85% (95% CI, 63%-94%) and 57% (95% CI, 34%-73%), respectively. Full-dose gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel with ablative magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy dosing is safe in patients with BR/LA-PDAC, with promising LPFS and DMFS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) offers an effective alternative treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite its growing acceptance and longer life expectancy rates, survival data in older patients are conflicting and consensus guidelines are lacking in terms of a cut-off age range for operations.Study Design: We explored our prospectively maintained institutional database to identify patients diagnosed with HCC between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2019. Long-term oncologic outcomes were analyzed in patients undergoing LT or hepatic resection, with patient age considered as the primary variable.Results: In total, 1,629 patients with HCC were identified, of whom 700 were considered for curative operations (LT, n = 538; resection, n = 162). Patients older than 65 years were less likely to be considered for LT (p < 0.01), although there were no age-related differences in the de-listing rate among age groups (p = 0.90). Older patients had overall survival (OS) outcomes comparable with younger patients after LT (3-year OS: 85.5% vs 84%; 5-year OS: 73.9% vs 77%; p = 0.26). Long-term survival was lower in the group who underwent resection, however, older patients still demonstrated equivalent OS outcomes (3-year OS: 59% vs 64.8%; 5-year OS: 44.8% vs 49%; p = 0.13). There were no differences in the development of local or distant metastatic disease between groups.Conclusions: Although older candidates were less likely to be considered for LT in the management of HCC, judicious matching can lead to OS data comparable with their younger counterparts. Previous age misconceptions need to be challenged without the concern of worse long-term oncologic outcomes after surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pancreas is a rare site of metastases, although metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is the most commonly reported secondary tumor. Pancreatectomy has been described in selected patients with localized metastases, but long-term benefit remains poorly defined. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing pancreatectomy for mRCC at a tertiary care center from 1995–2017. Postoperative complications were evaluated using the Modified Accordion Grading System (MAGS) and Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank tests were utilized for survival analysis. 29 patients underwent pancreatectomy for mRCC including 15 distal pancreatectomies (DP), 10 pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) and 4 total-pancreatectomies (TP). The mean age was 67 ± 8 years, and 15 were male. The median time from index nephrectomy to pancreatectomy was 8 (IQR: 3.72–12.2) years. There was no 90 Day post-pancreatectomy mortalities and the morbidity incidence included 13 Minor MAGS and 8 Severe MAGS complications respectively. Post-pancreatectomy disease specific survival at 2- and 4-years were 89% and 80% with 12 patients being alive at last follow up. Pancreatic resection can be safely performed in select patients with localized mRCC with favorable long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & objectives Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are frequently employed in cancer centers but their value has been debated. We reviewed the decision-making process and resource utilization of our MDTB to assess its utility in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal tract conditions. Methods A prospectively-collected database was reviewed over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was change in management plan as a result of case discussion. Secondary outcomes included resources required to hold MDTB, survival, and adherence to treatment guidelines. Results Four hundred seventy cases were reviewed. MDTB resulted in a change in the proposed plan of management in 101 of 402 evaluable cases (25.1%). New plans favored obtaining additional diagnostic workup. No recorded variables were associated with a change in plan. For newly-diagnosed cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 33), survival time was not impacted by MDTB (p = .154) and adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was 100%. The estimated cost of physician time per case reviewed was $190. Conclusions Our MDTB influences treatment decisions in a sizeable number of cases with excellent adherence to national guidelines. However, this requires significant time expenditure and may not impact outcomes. Regular assessments of the effectiveness of MDTBs should be undertaken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]