Pancreatic cancer in Australia: is not it time we address the inequitable resource problem?

Cancer survival differentials for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Queensland: the impact of remoteness

PURPOSE

In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (First Nations population) often have low overall cancer survival, as do all residents of geographically remote areas. This study aimed to quantify the survival disparity between First Nations and other Queenslanders for 12 common cancer types by remoteness areas.

METHODS

For all Queensland residents aged 20-89 years diagnosed with a primary invasive cancer during 1997-2016, we ran flexible parametric survival models incorporating age, First Nations status, sex, diagnosis time period, area-level socioeconomic status, remoteness categories and where appropriate, broad cancer type. Three survival measures were predicted: cause-specific survival, survival differences and the comparative survival ratio, each standardised to First Nations peoples' covariate distributions.

RESULTS

The standardised five-year cause-specific cancer survival was 60% for urban First Nations and 65% for other Queenslanders, while remote residents were 54% (First Nations) and 58% (other). The absolute survival differential between First Nations and other Queenslanders was often similar, regardless of remoteness of residence. The greatest absolute difference in five-year standardised cancer survival was for head and neck cancers, followed by cervical cancer. The five-year comparative survival ratio (First Nations: other Queenslanders) for urban cancer patients was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.93), similar to outer regional, inner regional and remote areas. The greatest comparative survival differential was for oesophageal cancer.

CONCLUSION

First Nations' survival inequalities are largely independent of geographical remoteness. It remains a priority to determine the contribution of other potential factors such as the availability of culturally acceptable diagnostic, management and/or support services.

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

Structural and Socio-Spatial Determinants Influencing Care and Survival of Patients with a Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Results of the PANDAURA Cohort

Background and aims: Pancreatic cancer is highly lethal and often diagnosed at an advanced stage. This cohort study analyzes the impact of care pathways, delays, and socio-spatial determinants on pancreatic cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Method: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma newly diagnosed at all stages between January and June 2016 in the AuRA French region were included. The influence on survival of delays of care, healthcare centers’ expertise, and socio-spatial determinants was evaluated. Results: Here, 538 patients were included in 76 centers including 116 patients (21.8%) with resectable, 64 (12.0%) borderline-resectable, 147 (27.6%) locally-advanced tumors, and 205 (38.5%) with metastatic disease. A delay between first symptoms and CT scans did not statistically influence overall survival (OS). In resected patients, OS was significantly higher in centers with more than 20 surgeries (HR<5 surgeries/year = 2.236 and HR5-20 surgeries/year = 1.215 versus centers with > 20 surgeries/year p = 0.0081). Regarding socio-spatial determinants, patients living in municipalities with greater access to a general practitioner (HR = 1.673, p = 0.0153) or with a population density below 795.1 people/km2 (HR = 1.881, p = 0.0057) were significantly more often resectable. Conclusion: This cohort study supports the pivotal role of general practitioner in cancer care and the importance of the centralization of pancreatic surgery to optimize pancreatic cancer patients’ care and outcomes. However, delays of care did not impact patient survival.

Association of facility type with overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic cancer

Aim: To investigate the association between receiving treatment at academic centers and overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients who do not receive definitive surgery of the pancreatic tumor. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2004 to 2016 were identified. Results: Of 262,209 patients, 101,003 (38.5%) received treatment at academic centers. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients who received treatment at a nonacademic facility had significantly worse overall survival compared with patients who were treated at an academic center (hazard ratio: 1.279; 95% CI: 1.268-1.290; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Compared with treatment at academic centers, treatment at nonacademic centers was associated with significantly worse overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Management of Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the Real-Life Setting: Lessons from the French National Hospital Database

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a major public health challenge, and faces disparities and delays in the diagnosis and access to care. Our purposes were to describe the medical path of PDAC patients in the real-life setting and evaluate the overall survival at 1 year. We used the national hospital discharge summaries database system to analyze the management of patients with newly diagnosed PDAC over the year 2016 in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region (AuRA) (France). A total of 1872 patients met inclusion criteria corresponding to an incidence of 22.6 per 100,000 person-year. Within the follow-up period, 353 (18.9%) were operated with a curative intent, 743 (39.7%) underwent chemo- and/or radiotherapy, and 776 (41.4%) did not receive any of these treatments. Less than half of patients were operated in a high-volume center, defined by more than 20 PDAC resections performed annually, mainly university hospitals. The 1-year survival rate was 47% in the overall population. This study highlights that a significant number of patients with PDAC are still operated in low-volume centers or do not receive any specific oncological treatment. A detailed analysis of the medical pathways is necessary in order to identify the medical and territorial determinants and their impact on the patient's outcome.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma survival in South Australia: time trends and impact of tumour location

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how global developments in management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have affected survival of Australian patients. This study aimed to determine trends in survival of PDAC over the last three decades in South Australia and to compare survival based on cancer location (head and uncinate process versus body and tail).

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study to include all cases of PDAC reported to the South Australian (state) Cancer Registry from 1990 to 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 1051 patients diagnosed with PDAC between 1990 and 2017 were included. An overall increase in number of reported PDAC cases over time with more than a doubling in the crude rate from 1.73 to 3.50 per 100 000 persons between the decades 1990-1999 and 2010-2017 (P < 0.001) was noted. Overall median survival for PDAC was 7.4 months (95% confidence interval 6.8-8.0 months) and this has improved in recent decades. Overall median survival for PDAC affecting head and uncinate process of pancreas was significantly higher compared to body and tail (7.6 months versus 4.1 months; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study from South Australia demonstrates an increased reporting of PDAC over the last three decades. Although overall survival for patients with PDAC remains low, there has been a modest improvement in recent decades. The overall survival is significantly lower for patients with PDAC involving the body and tail compared to the head and uncinate process of pancreas. Risk factors for poor survival include the male gender and advancing age (>70 years).

Current epidemiology of pancreatic cancer: Challenges and opportunities

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is an increasingly common disease worldwide. Having a better understanding of worldwide and regional epidemiologic features and risk factors of PC is essential to identify new approaches for prevention, early diagnosis, surveillance, and treatment. In this article, we review the epidemiologic features and risk factors for PC and discuss opportunities and challenges of PC future treatment.