Racial disparities in surgical outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing pancreas surgery

e16255

Background: Previous studies have suggested disparity in PDAC survival in African American (AA) compared to non-AA patients. Pancreas surgery is associated with significant morbidity, and technical outcomes are known to impact survival; however, there is little reported data on surgical outcomes by race. We sought to evaluate the effect of race on surgical outcomes and survival in an urban tertiary care center for patients with PDAC undergoing pancreas surgery. Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis of PDAC patients undergoing pancreas resection between January 2013 and September 2021 was performed. Patient demographics, Clavien-Dindo (CD) complications, readmission, and mortality in the 30- and 90- day period were collected and stratified by race. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: Among 180 patients, 145 (81%) were non-AA and 35 (19%) were AA. Demographic and pre-operative characteristics were found to be similar between the two groups. 30-day ED visits, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), and intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) were found to be significant on univariate analysis in the AA cohort. On multivariate analysis, 30-day ED visit (OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.3-15.8; p = 0.02), POPF (OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.3-14.8; p = 0.015), and IAA (OR 4.4; 95% CI 1.12-17.3; p = 0.033) were still significantly higher in the AA cohort while DGE lost its significance. Median overall survival and disease-free survival showed no significant difference on Kaplan-Meier curves. There was no statistical difference in local, regional, or metastatic recurrence patterns between the two groups (distant metastasis 36% in non-AA and 37% in AA). Conclusions: AA undergoing pancreas surgery for PDAC were noted to have higher incidence of POPF and IAA as well as ED visits compared to non-AA patients. However, no significant difference was seen in reoperation rates, major CD complications, recurrences, or survival. Exploring tumor biology, and preoperative treatment algorithms may shed additional insight on the differences in surgical outcomes in this patient cohort.[Table: see text]

Non-pharmacological interventions engaging organ transplant caregivers: A systematic review

Lay-caregivers in organ transplantation (to candidates, recipients, and donors) are essential to pre- and post-operative care, but report significant caregiving-related stressors. This review aims to summarize studies testing non-pharmacological interventions aimed at improving organ transplant caregiver-reported outcomes.

METHODS

In accordance with PRISMA, we conducted a systematic review (searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycInfo, and CINAHL, no start-date restriction through 7/1/2021). Quality of comparative studies assessed by ROBS-2 or ROBINS.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion. Study designs, interventions, and outcomes varied. Sample sizes were small across caregivers to adult (nine studies, five with caregiver samples ns≤50) and pediatric patients (three studies, caregiver samples ns≤16). Study designs included seven single-arm interventions, two pre-post with comparison cohorts, and three randomized-controlled trials. Eight studies included transplant-specific education as the intervention, an interventional component, or as the comparison group. Outcomes included transplant specific knowledge, mental health, and intervention acceptability. Of the nine pre-post caregiver assessments and/or comparison groups, four studies demonstrated no statistically significant intervention effects.

CONCLUSION

Few interventions addressing the needs of organ transplant caregivers have been empirically evaluated. Existing interventions were well-received by caregivers. Given complexities of care in transplantation, research is needed evaluating interventions using rigorous trial methodology with adequate samples. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A single-center analysis of 30- and 90-day post-pancreatectomy complications in patients undergoing neoadjuvant radiation with EBRT versus MRI-guided SBRT

572

Background: Stereotactic MRI -guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) is being investigated for enhanced efficacy in locally advanced, borderline resectable and medically inoperable pancreatic cancer. Traditionally, conventionally fractioned chemoradiation (EBRT) has been used for operable patients. We sought to evaluate whether there would be differences in surgical complications and outcomes in the 30- and 90- day postoperative period in patients who received either neoadjuvant EBRT or SMART followed by definitive surgery. Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis of patients with either resectable, borderline resectable or locally advanced tumors of the pancreas or duodenum, treated with neoadjuvant radiation and surgical management between 2014 and 2021 was performed. Patient demographics and post-surgical complications were collected and stratified according to both treatment arms. The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) classifications were used to define and grade postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH). A univariate analysis was done followed by a multivariate analysis. Results: Among the 65 patients (mean age 62.6 years, 46% female) who underwent definitive surgical intervention, 44 (67.7%) received EBRT, and 21 (32.3%) received SMART. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, race, ASA, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) scores were found to be similar. On univariate analysis, PPH was significantly higher in SMART (OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 37.3; p = 0.034). After adjusting for confounders on multivariate analysis, it appears there is a trend towards higher PPH in the SMART cohort ( p = 0.052). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant SMART followed by definitive surgery is not associated with worse outcomes in the 30- and 90- day postoperative period vs. neoadjuvant EBRT. Although there was a trend towards PPH on multivariate analysis, further discussion is warranted involving vascular resection, vascular stents and anticoagulation.[Table: see text]

Prerenal Transplant Education and Evaluation Positively Impacts Outcomes

Introduction: An outstanding question in kidney transplantation is how to prepare candidates and their social supports for optimal posttransplant outcomes. Project Aims: This program evaluation assessed whether a pretransplant quality improvement clinic improved clinical outcomes in the year posttransplant compared to recipients receiving standard of care. Design: The Countdown to Transplant Clinic was implemented with kidney transplant candidates expected to receive a transplant within the next few months. The clinic included an enhanced education session on posttransplant lifestyle management, confirmation of support (≥2 adults), and evaluations by transplant social work, psychology, and nephrology. Results: Seventy-five patients participated in the clinic and underwent a transplant. A retrospective chart review of posttransplant laboratory values, rehospitalizations (within 3-months posttransplant), biopsy-confirmed graft failure, and mortality (within 1-year posttransplant) were collected from both groups. Univariate and multivariate propensity score-weighted linear or logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between clinic participation and outcomes. In models adjusting for relevant covariates, participation in The Countdown to Transplant Clinic (vs standard care) was associated with a lower coefficient of variation of serum tacrolimus (all values collected 3-12 months posttransplant), 30-day posttransplant white blood cell counts (but not 90-day), 90-day posttransplant potassium, and 30 and 31 to 90 days rehospitalizations. Clinic participation did not predict serum glucose levels at 30- or 90-days posttransplant. Due to low rates of rejection and mortality, meaningful comparisons were not possible. Conclusion: Participation in a pretransplant, multicomponent clinic may improve certain outcomes of interest posttransplantation. Pilot testing for feasibility for randomized controlled trials is a necessary next step.