Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical and Pathologic Features Influencing Survival in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

  • 2013 SSAT Poster Presentation
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the study was to determine the clinicopathological features that influence survival in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA).

Methods

The study used a single institution retrospective review of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDA from 1993 to 2010.

Results

Two hundred forty-six consecutive cases of resected PDA were identified: 128 males (52 %), median age 68 years. Median hospital length of stay was 8 days and 30-day mortality rate was 2.4 %. There were 101 (41.1 %) postoperative complications, 77 % of which were Dindo–Clavien Grade 3 or less. Overall survival was 85, 63, 25, and 15 % at 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, respectively, with a median survival of 17 months. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling demonstrated lymph node ratio was negatively correlated with survival at all time points. Preoperative hypertension was a poor prognostic factor at 6 months, 3 years, and 5 years. The absence of postoperative complications was protective at 6 months whereas pancreatic leaks were associated with worse survival at 6 months. Abdominal pain on presentation, operative time, and estimated blood loss were also associated with decreased survival at various time points.

Conclusion

The strongest prognostic variable for short- and long-term survival after PD for PDA is lymph node ratio. Short-term survival is influenced by the postoperative course.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cancer Society Facts & Figures 2012. www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf Accessed 24 April 2013.

  2. American Cancer Society: Pancreatic Cancer. www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-key-statistics Accessed 24 April 2013

  3. Wentz SC, Zhao ZG, Shyr Y, Shi CJ, Merchant NB, Washington K, Xia F, Chakravarthy AB. Lymph node ratio and preoperative CA 19–9 levels predict overall survival and recurrence-free survival in patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2012; 4(10):207–215.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. You DD, Lee HG, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW. Prognostic factors and adjuvant chemoradiation therapy after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13(9):1699–1706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhatti I, Peacock O, Awan AK, Semeraro D, Larvin M, Hall RI. Lymph node ratio versus number of affected lymph nodes as predictors of survival for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 2010; 34(4):768–775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sierzega M, Popiela T, Kulig J, Nowak K. The ratio of metastatic/resected lymph nodes is an independent prognostic factor in patients with node-positive pancreatic head cancer. Pancreas 2006; 33(3):240–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berger AC, Watson JC, Ross EA, Hoffman JP. The metastatic/examined lymph node ratio is an important prognostic factor after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Amer Surg 2004; 70(3): 235–240.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Howard TJ, Krug JE, Yu J, Zyromski NJ, Schmidt CM, Jacobson LE, Madura JA, Wiebke EA, Lillemoe KD. A margin-negative R0 resection accomplished with minimal postoperative complications is the surgeon's contribution to long-term survival in pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2006; 10(10):1338–1346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Arnold MA, Chang DC, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Riall TS, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ. 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 2006; 10(9):1199–1210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferrone CR, Pieretti-Vanmarcke R, Bloom JP, Zheng H, Szymonifka J, Wargo JA, Thayer SP, Lauwers GY, Deshpande V, Mino-Kenudson M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Lillemoe KD, Warshaw AL. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: long-term survival does not equal cure. Surgery 2012; 152(3 Suppl 1):S43-49.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pawlik TM, Gleisner AL, Cameron JL, Winter JM, Assumpcao L, Lillemoe KD, Wolfgang C, Hruban RH, Schulick RD, Yeo CJ, Choti MA. Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery 2007; 141(5):610–618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Slidell MB, Chang DC, Cameron JL, Wolfgang C, Herman JM, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Pawlik TM. Impact of total lymph node count and lymph node ratio on staging and survival after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large, population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15(1):165–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kazanjian KK, Hines OJ, Duffy JP, Yoon DY, Cortina G, Reber HA. Improved survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the influence of operative blood loss. Arch Surg 2008; 143(12):1166–1171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ueda M, Endo I, Nakashima M, Minami Y, Kazuhisa T, Matsuo K, Nagano Y, Tanaka K, Ichikawa Y, Togo S, Kunisaki C, Shimada H. Prognostic factors after resection of pancreatic cancer. World J Surg 2009; 33(1):104–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Riediger H, Keck T, Wellner U, zur Hausen A, Adam U, Hopt UT, Makowiec F. The lymph node ratio is the strongest prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13(7):1337–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. House MG, Gonen M, Jarnagin WR, D'Angelica M, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Brennan MF, Allen PJ. Prognostic significance of pathologic nodal status in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11(11):1549–1555.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wenger FA, Peter F, Zieren J, Steiert A, Jacobi CA, Muller JM. Prognosis factors in carcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Dig Surg 200; 17(1):29–35

  18. La Torre, M, Cavallini M, Ramacciato G, Cosenza G, Del Monte SR, Nigri G, Ferri M, Mercantini P, Ziparo V. Role of the lymph node ratio in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Impact on patient stratification and prognosis. J Surg Oncol 2011; 104(6):629–633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Casadei R, Ricci C, Pezzilli R, Calculli L, D'Ambra M, Taffurelli G, Minni F. Assessment of complications according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification after distal pancreatectomy. Journal of Pancreas (Online) 2011; 12(2):126–130.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240:205–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, Clavien PA. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2006; 244:931–939.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Aranha GV, Aaron JM, Shoup M. Critical analysis of a large series of pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 2006; 141(6):574–579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Aranha GV, Hodul PJ, Creech S, Jacobs W. Zero mortality after 152 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies with pancreaticogastrostomy. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 197(2):223–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, Wouters MW, Post PN, van de Velde CJ, Tollenaar RA, and on behalf of the Signalling Committee Cancer of the Dutch Cancer Society. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 2011; 98(4):485–494.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Wong SL, Stukel TA. Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2007; 245(5):777–783.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valsangkar NP, Bush DM, Michaelson JS, Ferrone CR, Wargo JA, Lillemoe KD, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Warshaw AL, Thayer SP. N0/N1, PNL, or LNR? The effect of lymph node number on accurate survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17(2):257–266.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pedrazzoli S, DiCarlo V, Dionigi R, Mosca F, Pederzoli P, Pasquali C, Kloppel G, Dhaene K, Michelassi F. Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: A multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Lymphadenectomy Study Group. Ann Surg 1998; 228:508–517.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Farnell MB, Pearson RK, Sarr MG, DiMagno EP, Burgart LJ, Dahl TR, Foster N, Sargent DJ. A prospective, randomized trial comparing standard pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery 2005; 138:618–628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard V. Aranha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, C.E., Bock, E.A., Hurtuk, M.G. et al. Clinical and Pathologic Features Influencing Survival in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 18, 340–347 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2388-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2388-x

Keywords

Navigation