Background
Nodal disease is prognostic in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, optimal number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) required to accurately stage nodal disease in the current era of neoadjuvant therapy remains unknown. The aim of the study was to evaluate the optimal number of ELNs in patients with neoadjuvantly treated PDAC.
Methods
A retrospective study was performed on patients with PDAC undergoing resection following neoadjuvant treatment between 2011 and 2018. Clinicopathological data were extracted and analyzed.
Results
Of 546 patients included, 232 (42.5%) had lymph node metastases. The median recurrence free survival (RFS) was 10.6 months (95% confidence interval: 9.7–11.7) and nodal disease was independently associated with shorter RFS (9.1 vs 11.9 months; p < 0.001). A cutoff of 22 ELNs was identified that stratified patients by RFS. Patients with N1 and N2 disease had similar median RFS (9.1 vs 8.9 months; p = 0.410). On multivariable analysis, ELN of ≥ 22 was found to be significantly associated with longer RFS among patients with N0 disease (14.2 vs. 10.9 months, p = 0.046). However, ELN has no impact on RFS for patients with N1/N2 disease (9.5 vs. 8.4 months, p = 0.190). Adjuvant therapy was associated with RFS only in patients with residual nodal disease.
Conclusions
Lymph node metastases remain prognostic in PDAC patients after neoadjuvant treatment. Among N0 patients, a cutoff of 22 ELN was associated with improved RFS and resulted in optimal nodal staging.
BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 , declared a pandemic in March 2020, has affected the entire healthcare system, including the surgical practice. Guidelines for the management of surgical patients during this COVID-19 era need to be established to provide timely yet safe surgical care. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the COVID-19 testing algorithm established for surgery patients presenting to a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan, and to compare the outcomes among patients who underwent elective versus emergency surgery.
MethodologyThis is a cross-sectional study conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan to apply and assess the outcomes of the COVID-19 testing algorithm established for patients presenting for surgery. We included all patients who underwent any surgery from May to October 2020. The total sample size was 6,846. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The categorical variables were assessed using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.
ResultsA total of 6,846 surgeries were performed from May 1 to October 31, 2020. In total, 74% of the surgeries were elective procedures. We observed that a significantly higher proportion of emergency surgery patients tested positive for COVID-19 (4.2%) compared to elective surgery patients (25/5,063, 0.5%). A higher proportion of surgeries were performed in September (1,437, 21%) and October (1,445, 21%) while the lowest number of surgeries were performed in May (625, 9.1%). From week one to week five, a higher proportion of emergency surgeries were performed (32%) compared to elective surgeries (25%). Only 1.9% of the patients who were undergoing surgery were COVID-19 positive, with the highest number of COVID-19 cases presenting in June. Overall, 74.7% of the COVID-19-positive patients underwent emergency surgeries.
ConclusionsThe timely establishment of well-defined guidelines for surgical management during the pandemic allowed us to provide timely and effective surgical care to patients with the priority of minimizing the spread of COVID-19 and preventing unnecessary deferral of surgeries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.