Skip to main content
Log in

Preparing for Prospective Clinical Trials: A National Initiative of an Excellence Registry for Consecutive Pancreatic Cancer Resections

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Despite significant improvements in perioperative mortality as well as response rates to multimodality treatment, results after surgical resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with respect to long-term outcomes remain disappointing. Patient recruitment for prospective international trials on adjuvant and neoadjuvant regimens is challenging for various reasons. We set out to assess the preconditions and potential to perform perioperative trials for pancreatic cancer within a well-established Austrian nationwide network of surgical and medical oncologists (Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group).

Methods

From 2005 to 2010 five high-volume centers and one medium-volume center completed standardized data entry forms with 33 parameters (history and patient related data, preoperative clinical staging and work-up, surgical details and intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, reinterventions, reoperations, 30-day mortality, histology, and timing of multimodality treatment). Outside of the study group, in Austria pancreatic resections are performed in three “high-volume” centers (>10 pancreatic resections per year), three “medium-volume” centers (5–10 pancreatic resections per year), and the rest in various low-volume centers (<5 pancreatic resections per year) in Austria. Nationwide data for prevalence of and surgical resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were contributed by the National Cancer Registry of Statistics of Austria and the Austrian Health Institute.

Results

In total, 492 consecutive patients underwent pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. All postoperative complications leading to hospital readmission were treated at the primary surgical department and documented in the database. Overall morbidity and pancreatic fistula rate were 45.5 % and 10.1 %, respectively. Within the entire cohort there were 9.8 % radiological reinterventions and 10.4 % reoperations. Length of stay was 16 days in median (0–209); 12 of 492 patients died within 30 days after operation, resulting in a 30-day mortality rate of 2.4 %. Seven of the total 19 deaths (36.8 %) occurred after 30 days, during hospitalization at the surgical department, resulting in a hospital mortality rate of 3.9 % (19/492). With a standardized histopathological protocol, there were 70 % (21/30) R0 resections, 30 % (9/30) R1 resections, and no R2 resections in Vienna and 62.7 % (32/51) R0 resections, 35.3 % (18/51) R1 resections, and 2 % (1/51) R2 resections in Salzburg. Resection margin status with nonstandardized protocols was classified as R0 in 82 % (339/411), R1 in 16 % (16/411), and R2 in 1.2 % (5/411). Perioperative chemotherapy was administered in 81.1 % of patients (8.3 % neoadjuvant; 68.5 % adjuvant; 4.3 % palliative); chemoradiotherapy (1.6 % neoadjuvant; 3 % adjuvant; 0.2 % palliative), in 4.9 % of patients. The six centers that contributed to this registry initiative provided surgical treatment to 40 % of all Austrian patients, resulting in a median annual recruitment of 85 (51–104) patients for the entire ABCSG-group and a median of 11.8 (0–38) surgeries for each individual department.

Conclusions

Surgical quality data of the ABCSG core pancreatic group are in line with international standards. With continuing centralization the essential potential to perform prospective clinical trials for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is given in Austria. Several protocol proposals aiming at surgical and multimodality research questions are currently being discussed.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA et al (2006) 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1199–1210 discussion 1210–1191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McPhee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF et al (2007) Perioperative mortality for pancreatectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg 246:246–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lemmens VE, Bosscha K, van der Schelling G et al (2011) Improving outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer through centralization. Br J Surg 98:1455–1462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346:1128–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Allareddy V, Ward MM, Konety BR (2010) Effect of meeting Leapfrog volume thresholds on complication rates following complex surgical procedures. Ann Surg 251:377–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de Wilde RF, Besselink MG, van der Tweel I et al (2012) Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality. Br J Surg 99:404–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Friess H et al (2004) A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 350:1200–1210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Neoptolemos JP, Moore MJ, Cox TF et al (2012) Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid or gemcitabine vs observation on survival in patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma: the ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial. JAMA 308:147–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Suc B, Msika S, Piccinini M et al (2004) Octreotide in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications following elective pancreatic resection: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 139:288–294 discussion 295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jakesz R, Greil R, Gnant M et al (2007) Extended adjuvant therapy with anastrozole among postmenopausal breast cancer patients: results from the randomized Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 6a. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1845–1853

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W et al (2009) Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360:679–691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tausch C, Taucher S, Dubsky P et al (2012) Prognostic value of number of removed lymph nodes, number of involved lymph nodes, and lymph node ratio in 7502 breast cancer patients enrolled onto trials of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG). Ann Surg Oncol 19:1808–1817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Heek NT, Kuhlmann KF, Scholten RJ et al (2005) Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 242:781–788 discussion 788–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gangl O, Froschl U, Hofer W et al (2011) Unplanned reoperation and reintervention after pancreatic resections: an analysis of risk factors. World J Surg 35:2306–2314. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1213-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M et al (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–937 discussion 937–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sarr MG (2003) The potent somatostatin analogue vapreotide does not decrease pancreas-specific complications after elective pancreatectomy: a prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Coll Surg 196:556–564 discussion 564–555; author reply 565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV et al (2006) Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 93:1232–1237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F et al (2008) Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1651–1660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fernandez-del Castillo C, Morales-Oyarvide V, McGrath D et al (2012) Evolution of the Whipple procedure at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Surgery 152:S56–S63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Riall TS, Nealon WH, Goodwin JS et al (2008) Outcomes following pancreatic resection: variability among high-volume providers. Surgery 144:133–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gillen S, Schuster T, Meyer Zum Buschenfelde C et al (2010) Preoperative/neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages. PLoS Med 2010(7):e1000267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sahora K, Kuehrer I, Schindl M et al (2011) NeoGemTax: gemcitabine and docetaxel as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced nonmetastasized pancreatic cancer. World J Surg 35:1580–1589. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1113-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown KM, Siripurapu V, Davidson M et al (2008) Chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy before resection for borderline pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg 195:318–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Strobel O, Berens V, Hinz U et al (2012) Resection after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced, “unresectable” pancreatic cancer. Surgery 152:S33–S42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stokes JB, Nolan NJ, Stelow EB et al (2011) Preoperative capecitabine and concurrent radiation for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18:619–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sahora K, Kuehrer I, Eisenhut A et al (2011) NeoGemOx: gemcitabine and oxaliplatin as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced, nonmetastasized pancreatic cancer. Surgery 149:311–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Walters DM, Lapar DJ, de Lange EE et al (2011) Pancreas-protocol imaging at a high-volume center leads to improved preoperative staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2764–2771

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Glant JA, Waters JA, House MG et al (2011) Does the interval from imaging to operation affect the rate of unanticipated metastasis encountered during operation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma? Surgery 150:607–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Gerhard Fülöp (Austrian Health Institute) for contributing absolute numbers of annual pancreatic resections in Austria.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Odo Gangl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gangl, O., Sahora, K., Kornprat, P. et al. Preparing for Prospective Clinical Trials: A National Initiative of an Excellence Registry for Consecutive Pancreatic Cancer Resections. World J Surg 38, 456–462 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2283-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2283-3

Keywords

Navigation