ABSTRACT
AIMS: National studies have demonstrated disparities in the treatment and survival of pancreatic cancer patients based on socioeconomic status (SES). This study aimed to identify specific differences in perioperative management and outcomes based on patient SES and to study the role of a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) in mitigating any variations. METHODS: The study analyzed patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in a large hospital system. The patients were categorized into groups of high and low SES and whether they were managed by the authors' pancreatic cancer MDC or not. The study compared differences in disease characteristics, receipt of multimodality therapy, perioperative outcomes, and recurrence-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 162 low-SES patients and 119 high-SES patients, 54% were managed in the MDC. Outside the MDC, low-SES patients were less likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had less minimally invasive surgery, a longer OR time, less enhanced recovery participation, and more major complications (p < 0.05). No SES disparities were observed among the MDC patients. Despite similar tumor characteristics, the low-SES patients had inferior median overall survival (21 vs 32 months; p = 0.005), but the MDC appeared to eliminate this disparity. Low SES correlated with inferior survival for the non-MDC patients (17 vs 32 months; p < 0.001), but not for the MDC patients (24 vs 25 months; p = 0.33). These findings persisted in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: A pancreatic cancer MDC standardizes treatment decisions, eliminates disparities in surgical outcomes, and improves survival for low-SES patients.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/surgery , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Pancreatectomy , Pancreatic Neoplasms/surgery , Social ClassABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Serum biomarkers for early diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are not currently available. We recently observed elevated expression of CEACAM1 in pancreatic adenocarcinomas and sought to determine whether serum CEACAM1 levels were elevated in pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: CEACAM1 messenger RNA levels were measured in pancreatic tissue samples using quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. CEACAM1 was localized by immunohistochemistry in adenocarcinomas and in pancreatic intraductal neoplasia lesions. CEACAM1 serum levels were assessed by a double determinant enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and compared with serum levels of CA19-9. RESULTS: CEACAM1 had higher expression levels in pancreatic adenocarcinomas compared with noncancerous pancreas (P < 0.0001) and was localized to neoplastic cells (95% (45/47) of adenocarcinomas and 85% (17/20) of pancreatic intraductal neoplasia 3 lesions. CEACAM1 was expressed in the sera of 91% (74/81) of pancreatic cancer patients, 24% (15/61) of normal patients, and 66% (35/53) of patients with chronic pancreatitis, with a sensitivity and specificity superior to CA19-9. The combination of CEACAM1 and CA19-9 had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than CA19-9. CONCLUSIONS: CEACAM1 is expressed in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and serum levels of CEACAM1 serve as a useful indicator for the presence of pancreatic cancer. Additional validation studies on the use of serum CEACAM1 as a diagnostic marker in pancreatic cancer are warranted.
