Clinical benefit of surveillance after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surveillance after surgery for pancreatic cancer: a global scoping review of guidelines and a nordic Survey of contemporary practice

OBJECTIVES

Most patients with pancreatic cancer who have undergone surgical resection eventually develop disease recurrence. ‍This study aimed to investigate whether there is evidence to support routine surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery, with a secondary aim of analyzing the implementation of surveillance strategies in the Nordic countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify clinical practice guidelines globally and research studies relating to surveillance after pancreatic cancer resection. This was followed by a survey among 20 pancreatic units from four Nordic countries to assess their current practice of follow-up for operated patients.

RESULTS

Altogether 16 clinical practice guidelines and 17 research studies were included. The guidelines provided inconsistent recommendations regarding postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer. The clinical research data were mainly based on retrospective cohort studies with low level of evidence and lead-time bias was not addressed. Active surveillance was recommended in Sweden and Denmark, but not in Norway beyond the post-operative/adjuvant period. Finland had no national recommendations for surveillance. The Nordic survey revealed a wide variation in reported practice among the different units. About 75% (15 of 20 units) performed routine postoperative surveillance. Routine CA 19-9 testing was used by 80% and routine CT by 67% as part of surveillance. About 73% of centers continued follow-up until 5 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for routine long-term (i.e. 5 years) surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery remains limited. Most pancreatic units in the Nordic countries conduct regular follow-up, but protocols vary.

Recurrent disease detection after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using a recurrence-focused surveillance strategy (RADAR-PANC): protocol of an international randomized controlled trial according to the Trials within Cohorts design

BACKGROUND

Disease recurrence remains one of the biggest concerns in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, most patients experience local and/or distant PDAC recurrence within 2 years. High-level evidence regarding the benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is missing, and the impact of early detection and treatment of recurrence on survival and quality of life is unknown. In most European countries, recurrence-focused follow-up after surgery for PDAC is currently lacking. Consequently, guidelines regarding postoperative surveillance are based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. The recent emergence of more potent local and systemic treatment options for PDAC recurrence has increased interest in early diagnosis. To determine whether early detection and treatment of recurrence can lead to improved survival and quality of life, we designed an international randomized trial.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial is nested within an existing prospective cohort in pancreatic cancer centers in the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) and the United Kingdom (UK) (Pancreas Cancer: Observations of Practice and survival; PACOPS) according to the "Trials within Cohorts" (TwiCs) design. All PACAP/PACOPS participants with a macroscopically radical resection (R0-R1) of histologically confirmed PDAC, who provided informed consent for TwiCs and participation in quality of life questionnaires, are included. Participants randomized to the intervention arm are offered recurrence-focused surveillance, existing of clinical evaluation, serum cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 testing, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of chest and abdomen every three months during the first 2 years after surgery. Participants in the control arm of the study will undergo non-standardized clinical follow-up, generally consisting of clinical follow-up with imaging and serum tumor marker testing only in case of onset of symptoms, according to local practice in the participating hospital. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include quality of life, patterns of recurrence, compliance to and costs of recurrence-focused follow-up, and the impact on recurrence-focused treatment.

DISCUSSION

The RADAR-PANC trial will be the first randomized controlled trial to generate high level evidence for the current clinical equipoise regarding the value of recurrence-focused postoperative surveillance with serial tumor marker testing and routine imaging in patients after PDAC resection. The Trials within Cohort design allows us to study the acceptability of recurrence-focused surveillance among cohort participants and increases the generalizability of findings to the general population. While it is strongly encouraged to offer all trial participants treatment at time of recurrence diagnosis, type and timing of treatment will be determined through shared decision-making. This might reduce the potential survival benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance, although insights into the impact on patients' quality of life will be obtained.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04875325 . Registered on May 6, 2021.

Surveillance after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: How to do it and what are the benefits?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Surveillance following resection with curative intent of pancreatic cancer varies widely, and supporting evidence is limited. Recurrence is although frequent, not at least during the first 2 years. Surveillance may be costly, but evidence on how this influences overall survival is not fully elucidated.

METHODS, RESULTS

There are reports implying that signs of biological recurrence (increasing CA 19-9) precede radiologically demonstrated recurrence by months.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of initiating salvage therapy earlier is discussed, potentially based on improved future biomarker panels.

Imaging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - An update for all stages of patient management

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a common and lethal cancer. From diagnosis to disease staging, response to neoadjuvant therapy assessment and patient surveillance after resection, imaging plays a central role, guiding the multidisciplinary team in decision-planning.

Review aims and findings

This review discusses the most up-to-date imaging recommendations, typical and atypical findings, and issues related to each step of patient management. Example cases for each relevant condition are presented, and a structured report for disease staging is suggested.

Conclusion

Despite current issues in PDAC imaging at different stages of patient management, the radiologist is essential in the multidisciplinary team, as the conveyor of relevant imaging findings crucial for patient care.

Evaluation of post-operative surveillance strategies and surgeon perceptions and beliefs of surveillance for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the UK

BACKGROUND

Despite high rates of recurrence after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) there is lack of standardised surveillance practices. We aimed to identify UK surveillance practice and interrogate surgeon beliefs around surveillance.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all UK pancreatic units to assess surveillance practice for resected PDAC, factors influencing surveillance protocols, and perceptions and beliefs surrounding on current postoperative surveillance.

RESULTS

There was wide variation in reported practice between 40 consultant surgeons from 28 pancreatic units (100% unit response rate). 26% had standardised surveillance compared to 18% with no standardised practice. 16% individualised surveillance to the patient, and 40% reported differing practices between surgeons within units despite local surveillance protocols. 66% felt surveillance should be tailored to patient factors, and 58% to patient preference. There was a broad belief regarding a lack of robust evidence supporting surveillance making a trial necessary. Thematic analysis identified surveillance barriers, considerations for trial design, necessity for patient engagement and potential benefits of surveillance.

DISCUSSION

Wide variation in surveillance practice exists within and between units. A surveillance trial was deemed beneficial, however identified barriers potentially preclude a trial. Future work should assess acceptability for patients including impact on anxiety and quality-of-life.

Detection of asymptomatic recurrence following curative surgery improves survival in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To date, there is no evidence that intensive follow-up provides survival benefit in gastric cancer patients undergoing curative gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of detection of asymptomatic recurrence using intensive surveillance strategy in long-term survival after curative gastric cancer surgery.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Clinical Trials Registry and Google Scholar was performed up to April 2022. The primary outcomes were survival outcomes: overall survival, recurrence-free survival and post-recurrence survival. The secondary endpoints were clinicopathological features, recurrence patterns and treatment after recurrence. The registration number of this protocol is PROSPERO CRD42022327370.

Results

A total of 11 studies including 1898 participants were included. In the pooled analysis, the detection of asymptomatic recurrence was significantly associated with an improved overall survival compared to patients showing symptoms of recurrence (HR=0.67; 95%CI: 0.57-0.79; P<0.001), which was primarily driven by the prolongation of post-recurrence survival (HR=0.51; 95%CI: 0.42-0.61; P<0.001), since there was no significant difference observed in recurrence-free survival (HR=1.12; 95%CI: 0.81-1.55; P=0.48) between the two groups. Meanwhile, male sex and advanced T stage were more frequently observed in the symptomatic recurrence group. Furthermore, patients in the symptomatic recurrence group had a higher proportion of peritoneal relapse but lower proportion of distant lymph node metastasis. Additionally, patients in the symptomatic recurrence group were less likely to receive surgery treatment and post-recurrence chemotherapy.

Conclusion

The detection of asymptomatic recurrence using intensive follow-up was associated with an appreciable improvement in overall survival. However, more robust data from high-quality studies are still required to verify this issue.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=327370, identifier CRD42022327370.