Predictive factors for survival in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: are these really two different entities?

BACKGROUND: The treatment of borderline resectable (BR) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has evolved with a wider application of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACHT). The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors for survival in BR and LA PDAC. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data of patients with BR and LA PDAC who underwent surgical exploration between January 2011 and June 2021 were retrospectively collected. Survival from the date of surgery was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Simple and multiple Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to identify factors associated with survival. Surgical resection was analyzed in combination with the involvement of lymph nodes as this last was only known after a formal resection. RESULTS: Ninety patients were surgically explored (BR: 45, LA: 45), of which 51 (57%) were resected (BR: 31, LA: 20). NACHT was administered to 43 patients with FOLFIRINOX being the most frequent regimen applied (33/43, 77%). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III and IV) occurred in 7.8% of patients and 90-day mortality rate was 3.3%. The median overall survival since surgery was 16 months (95% CI 12-20) in the group which underwent surgical resection and 10 months (95% CI 7-13) in the group with an unresectable tumor (p=0.001). Cox proportional hazards models showed significantly lower mortality hazard for surgical resection compared to no surgical resection, even after adjusting for National Comprehensive Cancer Network  (NCCN) classification and administration of NACHT [surgical resection with involved lymph nodes vs no surgical resection (cHR 0.49; 95% CI 0.29-0.82; p=0.007)]. There was no significant difference in survival between patients with BR and LA disease (cHR= 1.01; 95% CI 0.63-1.62; p=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection is the only predictor of survival in patients with BR and LA PDAC, regardless of their initial classification as BR or LA. Our results suggest that surgery should not be denied to patients with LA PDAC a priori. Prospective studies including patients from the moment of diagnosis are required to identify biologic and molecular markers which may allow a better selection of patients who will benefit from surgery.

Left-liver Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Can It Be Improved? A Retrospective Multicenter European Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the European experience after Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using the left liver (LL-aLDLT). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LL-aLDLT decreases donor risk but provides a smaller graft that increases recipient risk as compared with right liver (RL-aLDLT). However, there is little knowledge of results obtained after LL-aLDLT in Europe. METHODS: This is a European multicenter retrospective study which aims to analyze donor and recipient outcomes after 46 LL-aLDLT. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of the grafts were harvested by minimally invasive approach. Mean donor hospital stay was 7.5 ±â€Š3.5 days. Donor liver function was minimally impaired, with 36 donors (78.3%) without any 90-day complication, and 4 (8.7%) presenting major complications. One, 3, and 5-year recipient survival was 90.9%, 82.7%, and 82.7%, respectively. However, graft survival was of 59.4%, 56.9%, and 56.9% at 1, 3, and 5 years respectively, due to a 26.1% urgent liver retransplantation (ReLT) rate, mainly due to SFSS (n = 5) and hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT, n = 5). Risk factor analysis for ReLT and HAT showed an association with a graft to body weight ratio (GBWR) <0.6% (P = 0.01 and P = 0.024, respectively) while SFSS was associated with a recipient MELD ≥14 (P = 0.019). A combination of donor age <45 years, MELD <14 and actual GBWR >0.6% was associated with a lower ReLT rate (0% vs. 33%, P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed low donor morbidity and preserved liver function. Recipient outcomes, however, were hampered by a high ReLT rate. A strict selection of both donor and recipients is the key to minimize graft loss.