Geographic variation in attitudes regarding management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background: Recent literature suggests wide variations exist in the international management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. This study sought to evaluate how geography contributes to variations in management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: An electronic survey investigating preferences for the evaluation and management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer was distributed to an international cohort of pancreatic surgeons. Surgeons were classified according to geographic location of practice, and survey responses were compared across locations. Results: A total of 153 eligible responses were received from 4 continents: North and South America (n = 94, 61.4%), Europe (n = 25, 16.3%), and Asia (n = 34, 22.2%). Preferences for the use and duration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy varied widely. For example, participants in Asia commonly preferred 2 months of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (61.8%), whereas North and South American participants preferred 4 months (52.1%), and responses in Europe were mixed (P = .006). Participants in Asia were less likely to consider isolated liver or lung metastases contraindications to exploration and consequently had a greater propensity to consider exploration in a vignette of oligometastatic disease (56.7% vs North and South America: 25.6%, Europe: 43.5%; P = .007). Conclusion: In an international survey of pancreatic surgeons, attitudes regarding locally advanced pancreatic cancer and metastatic disease management varied widely across geographic locations. Better evidence is needed to define optimal management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Postoperative Complications Using ACS-NSQIP.

BACKGROUND: The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasing. While there is an association between NAT and improved post-pancreatectomy complication rates in limited patient populations, the strength of the relationship and its applicability to a broader and modern pancreatectomy cohort remains unclear. METHODS: We used the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project to evaluate NAT use for PDAC patients undergoing pancreatectomy. We also used propensity score matching techniques to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE), between patients selected for NAT versus upfront surgery. RESULTS: Patients receiving NAT were more likely to undergo vascular resections (33% vs. 16%, p < 0.001), have perioperative transfusions (18% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and undergo longer procedures. Rates of CR-POPF (6%, vs. 10%, p < 0.001), DGE (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.016), postoperative percutaneous drainage (9% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and SSI (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) were lower for patients selected for NAT. The association of NAT with CR-POPF remained statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.66) after adjustment for operative technique, gland texture, and need for vascular resection for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Among PDAC patients undergoing resection, selection for NAT is associated with fewer CR-POPFs, postoperative procedural interventions, and infectious complications, particularly for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. These associations should be considered in discussions of multidisciplinary treatment sequencing for patients with PDAC.