Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 626–637 | Cite as

Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Upfront Resection for Pancreatic Cancer: The Actual Spectrum and Clinical Burden of Postoperative Complications

  • Giovanni Marchegiani
  • Stefano Andrianello
  • Chiara Nessi
  • Marta Sandini
  • Laura Maggino
  • Giuseppe Malleo
  • Salvatore Paiella
  • Enrico Polati
  • Claudio Bassi
  • Roberto Salvia
Pancreatic Tumors

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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).

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Pancreatic cancer Neoadjuvant therapy FOLFIRINOX Pancreaticoduodenectomy Pancreatic fistula Outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgment

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.

Supplementary material

10434_2017_6281_MOESM1_ESM.docx (96 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 96 kb)
10434_2017_6281_MOESM2_ESM.docx (76 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 75 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pedrazzoli S, Beger HG, Obertop H et al. A surgical and pathological based classification of resective treatment of pancreatic cancer. Summary of an International Workshop on surgical procedures in pancreatic cancer. Dig Surg. 1999;16(4):337–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C et al. Defining the practice of pancreatoduodenectomy around the world. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17(12):1145–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McMillan MT, Allegrini V, Asbun HJ et al. Incorporation of procedure-specific risk into the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator improves the prediction of morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016:265(5):978–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, et al. Risk-adjusted outcomes of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: a model for performance evaluation. Ann Surg. 2015;264(2):344–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMillan MT, Vollmer CM, Asbun HJ, et al. The characterization and prediction of ISGPF grade C fistulas following pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;20(2):262–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Valero V, Grimm JC, Kilic A, et al. A novel risk scoring system reliably predicts readmission after pancreatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(4):701–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Vollmer CM. The economics of pancreas surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(3):711–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lewis R, Drebin JA, Callery MP, et al. A contemporary analysis of survival for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15(1):49–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tol JA, Gouma DJ, Bassi C, et al. Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156(3):591–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bockhorn M, Uzunoglu FG, Adham M, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;155(6): 977–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161(3):584–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142(5):761–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142(1):20–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferrone CR, Marchegiani G, Hong TS, et al. Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):12–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger AC, Garcia M, Hoffman JP, et al. Postresection CA 19-9 predicts overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with adjuvant chemoradiation: a prospective validation by RTOG 9704. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(36):5918–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Besselink MG, van Rijssen LB, Bassi C, et al. Definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery. 2016;161(2):365–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vollmer CM, Lewis RS, Hall BL, et al. Establishing a quantitative benchmark for morbidity in pancreatoduodenectomy using ACS-NSQIP, the Accordion Severity Grading System, and the Postoperative Morbidity Index. Ann Surg. 2015;261(3):527–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Strasberg SM, Hall BL. Postoperative morbidity index: a quantitative measure of severity of postoperative complications. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213(5):616–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McMillan MT, Christein JD, Callery MP, et al. Comparing the burden of pancreatic fistulas after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2016;159(4):1013–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(1):1–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shin HW, Kim JK, Park JS, et al. Can we predict postoperative pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy using preoperative fecal elastase-1 level? J Clin Lab Anal. 2013;27(5):379–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Eisenberg JD, Rosato EL, Lavu H, et al. Delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an analysis of risk factors and cost. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(9):1572–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malleo G, Crippa S, Butturini G, et al. Delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: validation of International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery classification and analysis of risk factors. HPB. 2010;12(9):610–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park SB, Krishnan AV, Lin CS-Y, et al. Mechanisms underlying chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity and the potential for neuroprotective strategies. Curr Med Chem. 2008;15(29):3081–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ewertz M, Qvortrup C, Eckhoff L. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients treated with taxanes and platinum derivatives. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(5):587–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Iuliis F, Taglieri L, Salerno G, et al. Taxane induced neuropathy in patients affected by breast cancer: literature review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;96(1):34–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. 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
  33. 33.
    Wilke TJ, Bhirud AR, Lin C. A review of the impact of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on outcome and postoperative complications in esophageal cancer patients. Am J Clin Oncol. 2015;38(4):415–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nussbaum DP, Speicher PJ, Gulack BC, et al. The effect of neoadjuvant radiation therapy on perioperative outcomes among patients undergoing resection of retroperitoneal sarcomas. Surg Oncol. 2014;23(3):155–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Marchegiani
    • 1
  • Stefano Andrianello
    • 1
  • Chiara Nessi
    • 1
  • Marta Sandini
    • 2
  • Laura Maggino
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Malleo
    • 1
  • Salvatore Paiella
    • 1
  • Enrico Polati
    • 3
  • Claudio Bassi
    • 1
  • Roberto Salvia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery – The Pancreas InstituteUniversity of Verona Hospital TrustVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMilano-Bicocca University, San Gerardo HospitalMonzaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care UnitUniversity of Verona Hospital TrustVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations