BackgroundMost data on the treatment and outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) derives from expert centers. This study aimed to investigate the treatment and outcomes of all patients... Show moreBackgroundMost data on the treatment and outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) derives from expert centers. This study aimed to investigate the treatment and outcomes of all patients diagnosed with iCCA in a nationwide cohort.MethodsData on all patients diagnosed with iCCA between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.ResultsIn total, 1747 patients diagnosed with iCCA were included. Resection was performed in 292 patients (17%), 548 patients (31%) underwent palliative systemic treatment, and 867 patients (50%) best supportive care (BSC). The OS median and 1-, and 3-year OS were after resection: 37.5 months (31.0–44.0), 79.2%, and 51.6%,; with systemic therapy, 10.0 months (9.2–10.8), 38.4%, and 5.1%, and with BSC 2.2 months (2.0–2.5), 10.4%, and 1.3% respectively. The resection rate for patients who first presented in academic centers was 33% (96/292) compared to 13% (195/1454) in non-academic centers (P < 0.001).DiscussionHalf of almost 1750 patients with iCCA over an 8 year period did not receive any treatment with a 1-year OS of 10.4%. Three-year survival was about 50% after resection, while long-term survival was rare after palliative treatment. The resection rate was higher in academic centers compared to non-academic centers. Show less
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent pancreatic cancer surveil-lance programs of high-risk individuals have reported improved outcomes. This study assessed to what extent outcomes of pancreatic ductal... Show moreBACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent pancreatic cancer surveil-lance programs of high-risk individuals have reported improved outcomes. This study assessed to what extent outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant diagnosed under surveillance are better as compared with patients with PDAC diagnosed outside surveillance.METHODS: In a pro-pensity score matched cohort using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we compared resectability, stage, and survival between patients diagnosed under sur-veillance with non-surveillance patients with PDAC. Survival analyses were adjusted for potential effects of lead time.RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2020, 43,762 patients with PDAC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Thirty-one patients with PDAC under surveillance were matched in a 1:5 ratio with 155 non surveillance patients based on age at diagnosis, sex, year diagnosis, and tumor location. Outside surveillance, 5.8% of the patients had stage I cancer, as compared with 38.7% of surveillance patients with PDAC (odds ratio [OR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.19). In total, 18.7% of non surveillance patients vs 71.0% of surveillance patients un- derwent a surgical resection (OR, 10.62; 95% CI, 4.56-26.63). Patients in surveillance had a better prognosis, reflected by 5-year survival of 32.4% and a median overall survival of 26.8 months vs 4.3% 5-year survival and 5.2 months median overall survival in non-surveillance patients (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI 0.19-0.50). For all adjusted lead times, survival remained significantly longer in surveillance patients than non-surveillance patients.CONCLUSION: Surveillance for PDAC in carriers of a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant results in earlier detection, increased resectability, and improved survival as compared with non-surveillance patients with PDAC. Show less
Background: The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear.Methods: This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry... Show moreBackground: The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear.Methods: This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with EORTC QLQ-C30 and-PAN26 questionnaires at baseline and three-months follow-up of pancreatic and periampullary cancer patients (2015-2018). Propensity score matching (1:3) of group without to group with treatment was performed. Linear mixed model regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between cancer treatment and HRQoL at follow-up.Results: After matching, 247 of 629 available patients remained (68 (27.5%) no treatment, 179 (72.5%) treatment). Treatment consisted of resection (n = 68 (27.5%)), chemotherapy only (n = 111 (44.9%)), or both (n = 40 (16.2%)). At follow-up, cancer treatment was associated with better global health status (Beta-coefficient 4.8, 95% confidence-interval 0.0-9.5) and less constipation (Beta-coefficient -7.6, 95% confidence-interval -13.8-1.4) compared to no cancer treatment. Median overall survival was longer for the cancer treatment group compared to the no treatment group (15.4 vs. 6.2 months, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer reported slight improvement in global HRQoL and less constipation at three months-follow up compared to patients without cancer treatment, while overall survival was also improved. Show less
The added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of... Show moreThe added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP), in patients ineligible for mFOLFIRINOX, are lacking. Our study assessed whether adjuvant GEMCAP is superior to GEM in a nationwide cohort. Patients treated with adjuvant GEMCAP or GEM after resection of PDAC without preoperative treatment were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2019). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), measured from start of chemotherapy. The treatment effect of GEMCAP vs GEM was adjusted for sex, age, performance status, tumor size, lymph node involvement, resection margin and tumor differentiation in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the planned six adjuvant treatment cycles. Overall, 778 patients were included, of whom 21.1% received GEMCAP and 78.9% received GEM. The median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI 26.8-40.7) for GEMCAP and 22.1 months (95% CI 20.6-25.0) for GEM (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; logrank P = .004). After adjustment for prognostic factors, survival remained superior for patients treated with GEMCAP (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, logrank P = .009). Survival with GEMCAP was superior to GEM in most subgroups of prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was completed in 69.5% of the patients treated with GEMCAP and 62.7% with GEM (P = .11). In this nationwide cohort of patients with PDAC, adjuvant GEMCAP was associated with superior survival as compared to GEM monotherapy and number of cycles was similar. Show less
Background Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is a rare tumour that requires complex multidisciplinary management. All known data are almost exclusively derived from expert centres. This study... Show moreBackground Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is a rare tumour that requires complex multidisciplinary management. All known data are almost exclusively derived from expert centres. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes of patients with pCCA in a nationwide cohort.Methods Data on all patients diagnosed with pCCA in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data included type of hospital of diagnosis and the received treatment. Outcomes included the type of treatment and overall survival.Results A total of 2031 patients were included and the median overall survival for the overall cohort was 5.2 (95% CI 4.7-5.7) months. Three-hundred-ten (15%) patients underwent surgical resection, 271 (13%) underwent palliative systemic treatment, 21 (1%) palliative local anti-cancer treatment and 1429 (70%) underwent best supportive care. These treatments resulted in a median overall survival of 29.6 (95% CI 25.2-34.0), 12.2 (95% CI 11.0-13.3), 14.5 (95%CI 8.2-20.8) and 2.9 (95% CI 2.6-3.2) months respectively. Resection rate was 13% in patients who were diagnosed in non-academic and 32% in academic centres (P ), which resulted in a survival difference in favour of academic centres. Median overall survival was 9.7 (95% CI 7.7-11.7) months in academic centres compared to 4.9 (95% CI 4.3-5.4) months in non-academic centres (P ).Conclusions In patients with pCCA, resection rate and overall survival were higher for patients who were diagnosed in academic centres. These results show population-based outcomes of pCCA and highlight the importance of regional collaboration in the treatment of these patients. Show less
Strijker, M.; Veldhuisen, E. van; Geest, L.G. van der; Busch, O.R.; Bijlsma, M.F.; Mohammad, N.H.; ... ; Dutch Pancreatic Canc Grp 2021
BackgroundIdentification of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) patients with the worst prognosis could help to tailor therapy. We evaluated readily available biomarkers for the prediction of 90-day... Show moreBackgroundIdentification of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) patients with the worst prognosis could help to tailor therapy. We evaluated readily available biomarkers for the prediction of 90-day mortality in a nationwide cohort of mPC patients.MethodsPatients with synchronous mPC were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2017). Baseline CA19-9, albumin, CRP, LDH, CRP/albumin ratio, and (modified) Glasgow Prognostic Score ((m)GPS composed of albumin and CRP) were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 90-day mortality. Prognostic value per predictor was quantified by Nagelkerke's partial R-2.ResultsOverall, 4248 patients were included. Median overall survival was 2.2 months and 90-day mortality was 59.4% (n = 1629). All biomarkers predicted 90-day mortality in univariable analysis, and remained statistically significant after adjustment for clinically relevant factors and all other biomarkers (all p < 0.001). The prognostic value of the biomarkers combined was similar to WHO performance status. Patients who received chemotherapy had better outcomes than those who did not, regardless of biomarker levels.ConclusionsIn mPC patients, albumin, CA19-9, CRP, LDH, CRP/albumin ratio, and (m)GPS are prognostic for poor survival. Biomarkers did not predict response to chemotherapy. These readily available biomarkers can be used to better inform patients and to stratify in clinical trials. Show less
Background: Compliance with national guidelines on pancreatic cancer management could improve patient outcomes. Early compliance with the Dutch guideline was poor. The aim was to assess compliance... Show moreBackground: Compliance with national guidelines on pancreatic cancer management could improve patient outcomes. Early compliance with the Dutch guideline was poor. The aim was to assess compliance with this guideline during six years after publication.Materials and methods: Nationwide guideline compliance was investigated for three subsequent time periods (2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015 vs. 2016-2017) in patients with pancreatic cancer using five quality indicators in the Netherlands Cancer Registry: 1) discussion in multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT), 2) maximum 3-week interval from final MDT to start of treatment, 3) preoperative biliary drainage when bilirubin >250 mu mol/L, 4) use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and 5) chemotherapy for inoperable disease (non-metastatic and metastatic).Results: In total, 14 491 patients were included of whom 2290 (15.8%) underwent resection and 4561 (31.5%) received chemotherapy. Most quality indicators did not change over time: overall, 88.8% of patients treated with curative intent were discussed in a MDT, 42.7% were treated with curative intent within the 3-week interval, 62.7% with a resectable head tumor and bilirubin >250 mu mol/L underwent preoperative biliary drainage, 57.2% received chemotherapy after resection, and 36.6% with metastatic disease received chemotherapy. Only use of chemotherapy for non-metastatic, non-resected disease improved over time (23.4% vs. 25.6% vs. 29.7%).Conclusion: Nationwide compliance to five quality indicators for the guideline on pancreatic cancer management showed little to no improvement during six years after publication. Besides critical review of the current quality indicators, these outcomes may suggest that a nationwide implementation program is required to increase compliance to guideline recommendations. (C) 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
BackgroundPancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in... Show moreBackgroundPancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life.Methods/designPACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide.DiscussionThe PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018. Show less
Dikken, J.L.; Henneman, D.; Putter, H.; Lemmens, V.E.P.P.; Geest, L.G. van der; Hillegersberg, R. van; ... ; Wouters, M.W.J.M. 2013
