Total Neoadjuvant Treatment for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Is Associated With Limited Lymph Node Yield but Improved Ratio.

INTRODUCTION: The lymph node yield (LNY) and lymph node ratio (LNR) of nodal metastases following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) have been reported as prognostic parameters in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, they have not been compared in the setting of various neoadjuvant therapy modalities. METHODS: A single institutional retrospective study identified 134 patients diagnosed with resectable, BLR- and LA-PDAC who underwent PD at Fox Chase Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Patients were categorized based on first-line treatment as follows: surgery first (SF), total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), and single modality neoadjuvant therapy (SMNT). The histopathological reports of the surgical specimens were examined to obtain LNY and determine the counts of lymph nodes with metastases. Subsequently, LNR was calculated as the number of positive lymph nodes divided by the number of lymph nodes examined. RESULTS: Overall, 49, 38, 27, 12, and 8 patients underwent SF approach, SMNT, incomplete TNT, induction TNT, and consolidation TNT, respectively. There was no difference in R0 resection and vascular resection between the groups (P = 0.096 and 0.794, respectively). The median counts of LNY were 22, 15, 21, 11.5, and 10, respectively (P < 0.001). The average LNR was 0.16, 0.07, 0.03, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively (P < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences in overall survival in the TNT groups (log-rank test P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: PDAC patients who undergo the TNT modality exhibit lower LNY and improved LNR compared with the SF approach and SMNT neoadjuvant therapy groups. This is likely explained by the increased treatment response and lymph node obliteration associated with the TNT approach. Our results question the minimal requirement of 11-18 harvested lymph nodes for PD following TNT.

A Virtual Tumor Board Platform: A Way to Enhance Decision-Making for Complex Malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) are crucial for decision-making and management of patients diagnosed with complex malignancies. The social distancing conditions imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 presented an opportunity to compare virtual versus in-person TBs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of attendance data from an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center's gastrointestinal (GI) TB participant data from September 2019 to October 2020. In addition, an online survey assessing the virtual TB experience was sent to participants of all TBs. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to evaluate preintervention and postintervention GI TB attendance only. RESULTS: The overall mean attendance for GI TB was 30 participants; turnout was higher for virtual format compared to in-person (32 versus 23 attendees, P < 0.001). This increase was seen across all participant categories: attending physicians (15 versus 11 attendees, P < 0.001), trainees (11 versus 8, P < 0.001), and support staff (6 versus 3, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean number of cases discussed between TB formats. The majority of the 141 survey respondents (across all TB) were attending physicians with >20-year experience. Most supported a permanent virtual or hybrid TB format, 72.5% found this format to be more time efficient and with similar productivity, and 85.8% found it easier to attend. The majority (89.9%) felt confident that the decision-making process was not affected by virtual interactions. CONCLUSIONS: A virtual platform for multispecialty TBs allows for greater attendance without sacrificing the decision-making process. This survey supports continuing with a virtual or hybrid format, which may increase attendance and facilitate access to multidisciplinary discussions leading to improved patient care.