Substaging of Lymph Node Status in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Has Strong Prognostic Correlations: Proposal for a Revised N Classification for TNM Staging

Basturk, Olca; Saka, Burcu; Balcı, Serdar; Postlewait, Lauren M.; Knight, Jessica; Goodman, Michael; Kooby, David A.; Sarmiento, Juan M.; El‐Rayes, Bassel F.; Choi, Hye-Jeong; Bağcı, Pelin; Krasinskas, Alyssa M.; Quigley, Brian; Reid, Michelle D.; Akkaş, Gizem; Maithel, Shishir K.; Adsay, Volkan

doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4861-0

Cited by 79 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The application of a better lymph node harvesting approach also may account for the higher lymph node metastasis rate in our institutional cohort (79 %) than the rates recorded in SEER (60 %, Table 1), CONKO (70 %), 26,27 and ESPAC (54 %), 28,29 as well as for the higher percentage of pN2 cases 60 (pN1: 26 %; pN2: 51 %) than in the SEER database (pN1: 33 %; pN2: 27 %). Notably, a careful review of the literature shows that the data from high-volume institutions also have a lymph node metastasis rate of nearly 80 %.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is Spread to the Peripancreatic Soft Tissue in the Majority of Resected Cases, Rendering the AJCC T-Stage Protocol (7th Edition) Inapplicable and Insignificant: A Size-Based Staging System (pT1: ≤2, pT2: >2–≤4, pT3: >4 cm) is More Valid and Clinically Relevant

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Most studies have failed to identify any prognostic value of the current T-stage protocol for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union for International Cancer Control unless some grouping was performed. Methods To document the parameters included in this T-stage protocol, 223 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomy specimens with PDAC were processed by a uniform grossing protocol. Results Peripancreatic soft tissue (PST) involvement, the main pT3 parameter, was found to be inapplicable and irreproducible due to lack of a true capsule in the pancreas and variability in the amount and distribution of adipose tissue. Furthermore, 91 % of the cases showed carcinoma in the adipose tissue, presumably representing the PST, and thus were classified as pT3. An additional 4.5 % were qualified as pT3 due to extension into adjacent sites. The T-stage defined as such was not found to have any correlation with survival (p = 0.4). A revised T-stage protocol was devised that defined pT1 as 2 cm or smaller, pT2 as >2–4 cm, and pT3 as larger than 4 cm. This revised protocol was tested in 757 consecutive PDACs. The median and 3-year survival rates of this size-based protocol were 26, 18, 13 months, and 40 %, 26 %, 20 %, respectively (p < 0.0001). The association between higher T-stage and shorter survival persisted in N0 cases and in multivariate modeling. Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database also confirmed the survival differences (p < 0.0001). Conclusions This study showed that resected PDACs are already spread to various surfaces of the pancreas, leaving only about 4 % of PDACs to truly qualify as pT1/T2, and that the current T-stage protocol does not have any prognostic correlation. In contrast, as shown previously in many studies, size is an important prognosticator, and a size-based T-stage protocol is more applicable and has prognostic value in PDAC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is Spread to the Peripancreatic Soft Tissue in the Majority of Resected Cases, Rendering the AJCC T-Stage Protocol (7th Edition) Inapplicable and Insignificant: A Size-Based Staging System (pT1: ≤2, pT2: >2–≤4, pT3: >4 cm) is More Valid and Clinically Relevant

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasing tumor size and invasion correlate with poor patient survival [74]. Lymph node involvement is a major prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer, and prognosis has been proposed to be affected by the number of positive lymph nodes [75,76]. The histological grade is based on glandular differentiation, mucin production intensity, number of mitoses per high power field (HPF) and nuclear pleomorphism grade.…”

Section: Pathological Evaluation: How Do We Improve Prognostic Accuracy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pancreatic Cancer: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pancreatic cancer is one of our most lethal malignancies. Despite substantial improvements in the survival rates for other major cancer forms, pancreatic cancer survival rates have remained relatively unchanged since the 1960s. Pancreatic cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and most treatment regimens are ineffective, contributing to the poor overall prognosis. Herein, we review the current understanding of pancreatic cancer, focusing on central aspects of disease management from radiology, surgery and pathology to oncology. Historical remarks & present stateThe first known description of pancreatic cancer is attributed to Giovanni Battista Morgagni in his 1761 publication 'de Sedibus Et Causis Morborum Per Anatomen Indagatis Libri Quinque' [1]. However, the lack of a microscopic evaluation makes the true diagnosis of ductal adenocarcinoma uncertain. The next important advancement in our understanding of pancreatic cancer did not come until 1858, when Jacob Mendez Da Costa revisited Morgagni's original work and also described the first microscopic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, manifesting pancreatic cancer as a true disease entity [2].The history of pancreatic surgery is fairly recent and involves a combination of brave surgical pioneers, the development of surgical anesthesia and modern aseptic techniques. Some landmarks in the history of pancreatic surgery deserve to be mentioned. The first reported attempt at a pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 1898 by the Italian surgeon Alessandro Codivilla for a tumor involving the head of the pancreas [3]; however, the patient did not survive the postoperative period. In the same year, William Stewart Halsted from Johns Hopkins Hospital performed the first successful resection for ampullary cancer by excising portions of the duodenum and the pancreas [4]. The first successful pancreaticoduodenectomy is credited to the German surgeon Walther Carl Eduard Kausch, as part of a two-stage procedure [5]. In 1914, Georg Hirschel performed the first successful pancreaticoduodenectomy in one stage [6] and then in 1935, Allen Oldfather Whipple presented the results of a two-stage procedure involving the resection of the head of the pancreas and duodenum for ampullary carcinoma at the annual meeting of the American Surgical Association, which renewed interest in pancreatic surgery [7]. During his career, Whipple performed 37 pancreaticoduodenectomies, with the procedure evolving into a one-stage technique [8,9], and 1964-1968 1969-1973 1974-1978 1979-1983 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 2004-2008 2009-2013 Period of diagnosis Whipple is generally credited with popularizing the operation that still bears his name. In 1937, Alexander Brunschwig performed the first successful pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma [10]. Today, with the concentration of experience in high-volume hospitals, pancreatic surgery has become a safe procedure associated with an operative mortality below 3% [11][12][13]. While major advances have been made ...

show abstract

“…Recent studies have shown that not only does the presence of nodal involvement predict survival outcome, but also the given number of positive lymph nodes has been reported to be a predictor of decreased survival. 3–5 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-institutional Validation Study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th Edition) Changes for T and N Staging in Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate and validate the proposed 8th edition AJCC system for T and N staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Summary Background Data Investigators have questioned the clinical relevance and reproducibility of previous AJCC staging for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods Prospective databases at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK), Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), and Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) were queried for patients who had undergone resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients who underwent a margin-negative (R0) resection, and who had previously undergone pathologic review, were included. Patients were staged according to 7th edition AJCC criteria, as well as the proposed 8th edition system that includes different definitions of tumor size (T) and nodal status (N). The dataset was randomly split into training and test sets. Results 2,318 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria. Recursive partitioning on the training set (n=1,551) identified statistically appropriate cutoffs for tumor size (<2.2cm, ≥4.8cm,) and nodal status (no positive nodes, 1–3 positive nodes, ≥4 positive nodes) that supported the proposed 8th edition changes. Median survival in patients staged as T3, N0 by the 7th edition definitions was different between institutions (median Center 1, 24mo; Center 2, 37mo; Center 3, 29mo; p=0.054). This difference was not observed when patients were staged as T3, N0 by 8th edition criteria. Stage, and stage-specific outcome (7th edition), on the test set revealed a predominance of patients (68%) within the IIB subgroup, and a concordance probability estimate (CPE) of 0.57 for stage-specific survival. When assessed with 8th edition criteria, no stage subgroup had a majority of patients, and the CPE was 0.58. Conclusions The proposed 8th edition changes for T and N classification were statistically valid and may allow a more reproducible system of T staging. This system also stratifies patients more evenly across stages without sacrificing prognostic accuracy.

show abstract

Substaging of Lymph Node Status in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Has Strong Prognostic Correlations: Proposal for a Revised N Classification for TNM Staging

Cited by 79 publications

References 50 publications

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is Spread to the Peripancreatic Soft Tissue in the Majority of Resected Cases, Rendering the AJCC T-Stage Protocol (7th Edition) Inapplicable and Insignificant: A Size-Based Staging System (pT1: ≤2, pT2: >2–≤4, pT3: >4 cm) is More Valid and Clinically Relevant

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is Spread to the Peripancreatic Soft Tissue in the Majority of Resected Cases, Rendering the AJCC T-Stage Protocol (7th Edition) Inapplicable and Insignificant: A Size-Based Staging System (pT1: ≤2, pT2: >2–≤4, pT3: >4 cm) is More Valid and Clinically Relevant

Pancreatic Cancer: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Multi-institutional Validation Study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th Edition) Changes for T and N Staging in Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About