Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Upfront Resection for Pancreatic Cancer: The Actual Spectrum and Clinical Burden of Postoperative Complications
Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is used for borderline-resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PDAC) and exhibits promising results in terms of pathological outcomes. However, little is known about its effect on surgical complications.
We analyzed 445 pancreatic resections for PDAC from 2014 to 2016 at The Pancreas Institute, Verona University Hospital. The Modified Accordion Severity Grading System and average complication burden (ACB) were used to compare patients treated with NAT with patients who underwent upfront surgery (UFS).
Of 305 pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), patients treated with NAT (n = 99) had less pancreatic fistula (POPF, 9.1% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.05) without grade C cases, but grade B ACB was increased (0.28 for NAT vs. 0.24 for UFS, p = 0.05). The postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) rate was lower in the NAT group (9.1% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.02), but ACB grades B (0.37 for NAT vs. 0.26 for UFS, p = 0.03) and C (0.43 for NAT vs. 0.29 for UFS, p = 0.05) were increased. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) was increased in NAT cases (15.2% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.04), with higher grade C ACB (0.43 for NAT vs. 0.29 for UFS, p = 0.03). Of 94 distal pancreatectomies (DP), NAT patients (n = 26) developed more grade C POPF (11.5% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.04) and DGE (11.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.01) without differences in ACB.
Patients undergoing PD for PDAC after NAT exhibited reduced incidence of POPF and PPH but increased incidence of DGE compared with patients treated with UFS. Among patients developing postoperative complications after PD, those receiving NAT were associated with increased clinical burden.
KeywordsPancreatic cancer Neoadjuvant therapy FOLFIRINOX Pancreaticoduodenectomy Pancreatic fistula Outcome
This work was supported by Associazione Italiana Ricerca Cancro (AIRC n.12182 and n.17132), Italian Ministry of Health (FIMP-CUP_J33G13000210001), and FP7 European Community Grant Cam-Pac (n. 602783). The funding agencies had no role in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declares that they have no competing interest.
- 7.Vollmer CM, Sanchez N, Gondek S, et al. A root-cause analysis of mortality following major pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(1):89–102; (discussion102–3).Google Scholar
- 12.Shubert CR, Bergquist JR, Groeschl RT, et al. Overall survival is increased among stage III pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to surgery first and adjuvant chemotherapy: an intention to treat analysis of the National Cancer Database. Surgery. 2016;160(4):1080–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Porembka MR, Hall BL, Hirbe M, et al. Quantitative weighting of postoperative complications based on the accordion severity grading system: demonstration of potential impact using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(3):286–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Noorani A, Rangelova E, Del Chiaro M, et al. Delayed gastric emptying after pancreatic surgery: analysis of factors determinant for the short-term outcome. Front Surg. 2016;3(8):945–6.Google Scholar
- 31.DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schäfer M, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244(6):931–7, (discussion 937–9). Google Scholar
- 32.Kumagai K, Rouvelas I, Tsai JA, et al. Meta-analysis of postoperative morbidity and perioperative mortality in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancers. Br J Surg. 2014;101(4):321–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar