Nationwide compliance with a multidisciplinary guideline on pancreatic cancer during 6-year follow-up

Implementation of Best Practices in Pancreatic Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal.

Objective

To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients).

Intervention

The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score).

Results

Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

The impact of NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference on the uptake of active surveillance among eligible patients with localized prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

We sought to investigate the impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-compliant multidisciplinary conference on the uptake of active surveillance (AS) among eligible patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective review of our AS database was performed. Patients who are eligible for AS who sought a second opinion at a comprehensive cancer center (2010-2021) were presented to the multidisciplinary Localized Prostate Cancer Conference (LPCC) that includes urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and patient advocates. Cochrane Armitage test was used to examine trends over time. Multivariable regression models were fit to evaluate variables associated with the receipt of AS.

RESULTS

Seven hundred twelve patients were identified (19% NCCN very low risk, 32% low risk, and 49% intermediate favorable risk). 43% were recommended AS as the preferred option by the community compared to 68% by LPCC, and 65% elected AS. Recommending AS significantly increased between 2010 and 2021 by the community (from 26% to 57%) and by LPCC (from 52% to 82%), while the proportion of men who received AS increased from 47% to 80% during the same period (P < 0.0001 for all). More recent LPCC era 2017 to 2021 (OR 12.31, 95% CI, 5.60-27.03, P < 0.0001), African American race (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.18-0.96, P = 0.04), positive cores at biopsy (OR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.94-0.97, P < 0.0001), age (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.10-1.18, P < 0.0001), NCCN low risk (OR 0.25, 95% CI, 0.08-0.81, P = 0.02) and NCCN intermediate favorable risk (OR 0.03, 95% CI, 0.01-0.09, P < 0.0001) were associated with receipt of AS.

CONCLUSION

AS recommendation increased significantly over time by community urologists and to a higher extent by NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference. The Uptake of AS significantly increased within the same period. More recent LPCC era 2017 to 2021, African American race, the proportion of positive cores at biopsy, age, and NCCN risk were the main determinants of receipt of AS.

Guideline Application in Real world: multi-Institutional Based survey of Adjuvant and first-Line pancreatic Ductal adenocarcinoma treatment in Italy. Primary analysis of the GARIBALDI survey

BACKGROUND

Information about the adherence to scientific societies guidelines in the 'real-world' therapeutic management of oncological patients are lacking. This multicenter, prospective survey was aimed to improve the knowledge relative to 2017-2018 recommendations of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment-naive adult patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Group A received adjuvant therapy, group B received primary chemotherapy, and group C had metastatic disease. The results on patients accrued until 31 October 2019 with a mature follow-up were presented.

RESULTS

Since July 2017, 833 eligible patients of 923 (90%) were enrolled in 44 Italian centers. The median age was 69 years (range 36-89 years; 24% >75 years); 48% were female; 93% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 0 or 1; group A: 16%, group B: 30%; group C: 54%; 72% Nord, 13% Center, 15% South. In group A, guidelines adherence was 68% [95% confidence interval (CI) 59% to 76%]; 53% of patients received gemcitabine and 15% gemcitabine + capecitabine; median CA19.9 was 29 (range 0-7300; not reported 15%); median survival was 36.4 months (95% CI 27.5-47.3 months). In group B, guidelines adherence was 96% (95% CI 92% to 98%); 55% of patients received nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, 27% FOLFIRINOX, 12% gemcitabine, and 3% clinical trial; median CA19.9 was 337 (range 0-20220; not reported 9%); median survival was 18.1 months (95% CI 15.6-19.9 months). In group C, guidelines adherence was 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%); 71% of patients received nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, 16% gemcitabine, 8% FOLFIRINOX, and 4% clinical trial; liver and lung metastases were reported in 76% and 23% of patients, respectively; median CA19.9 value was 760 (range 0-1374500; not reported 9%); median survival was 10.0 months (95% CI 9.1-11.1 months).

CONCLUSIONS

The GARIBALDI survey shows a very high rate of adherence to guidelines and survival outcome in line with the literature. CA19.9 testing should be enhanced; nutritional and psychological counseling represent an unmet need. Enrollment to assess adherence to updated AIOM guidelines is ongoing.

Impact of multicentre diagnostic workup in patients with pancreatic cancer on repeated diagnostic investigations, time-to-diagnosis and time-to-treatment: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with suspected pancreatic cancer may undergo diagnostic workup in both a non-pancreatic centre and a pancreatic centre, i.e. multicentre workup. This retrospective study assessed whether multicentre diagnostic workup is associated with repeated diagnostics, delayed time-to-diagnosis, delayed time-to-treatment, survival and whether variation existed among pancreatic cancer networks.

METHODS

This nationwide study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in 2015, registered by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A delayed time-to-diagnosis was defined as ≥3 weeks from initial hospital visit to final diagnosis. A delayed time-to-treatment was defined as ≥6 weeks from the first hospital visit to start of first tumour treatment. Multilevel logistic regression analyses and survival analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 931 patients with non-metastatic PDAC were included. Overall, 175 patients (19%) underwent a multicentre diagnostic workup, which was significantly associated with repeated diagnostic investigations (OR = 6.31, 95% CI 4.13-9.64, P < 0.0001), a delayed time-to-diagnosis (OR = 2.66 95% CI 1.74-4.06, P < 0.001), and a delayed time-to-treatment (OR = 1.93 95% CI 1.12-3.31, P = 0.02), but not with decreased survival (HR = 1.09 95% CI 0.83-1.44; P = 0.532). Variation in outcomes per network was observed, especially for time-to-treatment, though the ICC was not statistically significant (P = 0.065).

CONCLUSION

Multicentre diagnostic workup for patients with PDAC is associated with repeated diagnostic investigations, a delayed time-to-diagnosis and delayed time-to-treatment compared to patients with monocentre workup. To reduce costs and improve treatment times, efforts should be made to improve network coordination, for example via network care pathways.

Down-regulation of metabolic pathways could offset the poor prognosis conferred by co-existent diabetes mellitus in pancreatic (head) adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have poor overall survival. Underlying mechanisms have not been fully clarified. This presents an opportunity for precision-oncology for which we systematically analysed publicly-available PDAC transcriptome data.

METHODS

PDAC TCGA RNASeq data were used. Analyses were restricted to only 'high purity' and 'head' as anatomical site. Patients were characterised by: (1) Gene expression classification, and (2) Weighted gene correlation network analysis (WGCNA) to identify co-expression patterns of genes. Newly identified gene signature subclasses of pancreatic head PDAC were associated with clinical and functional characteristics of patients.

RESULTS

Consensus clustering identified two patient subclasses within PDAC involving pancreatic head. WGCNA identified 11 distinct networks of gene expression patterns across two sub-classes. Class 1 patients demonstrated a significant upregulation of Module 5 and Module 6 gene expression compared to Class 2. Class 1 predominantly expressed the acinar, ductal and islet cell gene signatures. There were significantly less patients with DM in Class 1 subclass compared to Class 2 (p < 0.037). Patients with DM had significant downregulation of pathways involved in cellular metabolism, hormone secretion and paucity of islet cell markers with no reduced survival compared with non-diabetics.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of patients with PDAC of pancreatic head and DM exhibit downregulation of pathways involved in cellular metabolism, hormone secretion and signalling accompanied by a paucity of islet expression. Investigating the relationship between DM and gene expression profiles in patients with PDAC presents opportunities to improve overall survival in diabetics with PDAC.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Pancreatic Cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.