Dataset Information

Can Elderly Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Gain Survival Advantages Through More Radical Surgeries? A SEER-Based Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background and Aims:In recent years, the best treatment method for pancreatic cancer in elderly patients has remained controversial. Surgery is the main treatment modality for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to determine whether elderly patients with pancreatic cancer can gain survival advantages through more active and radical surgical treatment and evaluate the best treatment method and potential prognostic factors. Methods:From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (SEER) database, 10,557 elderly patients (aged ?65 years) with pancreatic cancer were included as Cohort 1, and Propensity Score Matching (PSM) evaluation was performed to generate Cohort 2 (424 pairs). Overall Survival (OS) and Cause-Specific Survival (CSS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and differences were assessed using the Log-rank test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and the forest plot of hazard ratio (HR) was made to assess the association between potential prognostic factors, including surgery and different surgical methods, and survival in elderly patients. Results:We identified 10,557 eligible patients with pancreatic cancer, who formed Cohort 1. The total OS and CSS in the surgery group were significantly higher than those in the non-surgery group (P < 0.001). Age, stage (AJCC 8th), grade, lymph node metastasis, radiation, chemotherapy, and surgical methods were independent factors affecting the prognosis of elderly patients. In Cohort 2, Total pancreatectomy (Total PT) had the lowest risk ratio (HR = 0.31, P < 0.001) and longest median CSS (18.000 months), while Extension Total pancreatectomy (Ex-Total PT, HR = 0.34, P < 0.001) showed the lower median CSS (17.000 months) and median OS (14.000 months). Partial pancreatectomy (Partial PT, HR = 0.46, P < 0.001) showed the lowest median CSS (13.000 months) and median OS (12.000 months), although they were still higher than the median CSS (6.000 months) and median OS (5.000 months) in the non-surgery group. Conclusions:Based on the SEER database, surgical treatment is an independent prognostic factor in elderly patients with pancreatic cancer. Compared with other surgical methods, Total PT can offer elderly patients the best survival advantages. However, Ex-Total PT, a more radical method, does not seem to be the best treatment option for the survival and benefit of elderly patients.

SUBMITTER: Xie D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7660699 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can Elderly Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Gain Survival Advantages Through More Radical Surgeries? A SEER-Based Analysis.

Xie Danna D Qian Baolin B Yang Jing J Peng Xinya X Li Yinghua Y Hu Teng T Lu Simin S Chen Xiaojing X Han Yunwei Y

Frontiers in oncology 20201029

<h4>Background and aims</h4>In recent years, the best treatment method for pancreatic cancer in elderly patients has remained controversial. Surgery is the main treatment modality for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to determine whether elderly patients with pancreatic cancer can gain survival advantages through more active and radical surgical treatment and evaluate the best treatment method and potential prognostic factors.<h4>Methods</h4>From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result ...[more]

PMID: 33194764

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of pancreatic cancer continues to rise globally, with pancreatic head cancer accounting for nearly 60-70%. Pancreatic head cancer occurs mainly in people over the age of 60, and its morbidity and mortality increase with age. We investigated whether these elderly patients with nondistant metastases would benefit more from expanded pancreaticoduodenectomy (EPD) compared with standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (SPD).Methods3317 elderly patients with pancreatic head cancer from the SEER database were included in the study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These patients were divided into a nonsurgical group and surgical group (including EPD and SPD). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were applied to identify the independent risk factors for cancer-specific survival (CSS). The survival differences between the nonsurgical group and surgical group were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) methods were applied to balance covariates and reduce the interference of confounding variables. The two groups of patients were matched in a 1 : 1 ratio, and the covariates between the two groups were compared to verify the matching validity. The survival difference in different groups was compared after the matching analysis.Results3317 enrolled patients were divided into the surgical group (n = 984) and nonsurgical group (n = 2333). Before PSM, there were significant differences in overall survival (OS) and CSS between the nonsurgical group and surgical group (median OS: 8 months vs. 20 months, P < 0.001; median CSS: 8 months vs. 22 months, P < 0.001). The multivariate CSS Cox regression analysis demonstrated surgery is an independent risk factor. However, no significant differences were founded between the SPD and EPD groups (median OS: 20 months vs. 22 months, P=0.636; median CSS: 22 months vs. 22 months, P=0.270). After PSM, there were also no significant differences in OS and CSS between the SPD and EPD groups (median OS: 23 months vs. 18 months, P=0.415; median CSS: 26 months vs. 18 months, P=0.329).ConclusionThis study uses PSM to evaluate the effects of EPD and SPD for elderly patients with nondistant metastatic pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. It found that surgery is an independent prognostic factor, but expanded surgery has no survival advantage for these patients, whereas SPD provides a better survival advantage than EPD. SPD is a reasonable treatment option for these patients.

Project description:Background: Different proportions of Gleason pattern 3 and Gleason pattern 4 lead to various prognosis of prostate cancer with Gleason score 7. The objective of this study was to compare the survival outcomes of Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 based on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry database, and to investigate independent prognosis-associated factors and develop nomograms for predicting survival in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 69,116 cases diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma with Gleason score 7 between 2004 and 2009. Prognosis-associated factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis, and a 1:1 ratio paired cohort by propensity score matching with the statistical software IBM SPSS, to evaluate prognostic differences between Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3. The primary cohort was randomly divided into training set (n = 48,384) and validation set (n = 20,732). Based on the independent factors of prognosis, nomograms for prognosis were established by the training group and validated by the validation group using R version 3.5.0. Results: After propensity score matching, Cox regression analysis showed that Gleason 4+3 had an increased mortality risk both for overall survival (HR: 1.235, 95% CI: 1.179-1.294, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (HR: 1.606, 95% CI: 1.468-1.762, P < 0.001). Nomograms for overall survival and cancer-specific survival were established with C-index 0.786 and 0.842, respectively. The calibration plot indicated an optimal agreement between the actual observation and nomogram prediction for overall survival and cancer-specific survival probability at 5 or 10 year. Conclusions: Prostate cancer with Gleason score 4+3 had worse overall survival and cancer-specific survival than Gleason score 3+4. Nomograms were formulated to predict 5-year and 10-year OS and CSS in patients with prostate cancer of Gleason score 7.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Neoadjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to improve marginal negative resection and local control of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, whether it improves overall survival (OS) in patients with non-metastatic PDAC remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the benefits of only surgery, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and surgery plus chemotherapy for OS in patients with non-metastatic PDAC. METHODS:PDAC diagnosed by surgical histopathology in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2016 was selected. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the prognosis of patients with different treatments. Cox proportional risk model was used to analyze independent predictors of OS. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to analyze the tumor prognosis of different treatment methods. RESULTS:Before PSM analysis, the OS of surgery plus chemotherapy (HRs?=?0.896, 95%CIs, 0.827-0.970; P?=?0.007) were significantly better than the other three treatments for stage T1-3N0M0 PDAC patients. For stage T1-3N?+?M0 patients, adjuvant radiotherapy (HRs?=?0.613, 95% CIs, 0.579-0.649; P?<?0.001) had significantly better OS than surgery plus chemotherapy and neoadjuvant radiotherapy. For stage T4N0M0 patients, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HRs?=?0.482, 95% CIs, 0.347-0.670; P?<?0.001) had significantly better OS than surgery plus chemotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy. For stage T4N?+?M0 patients, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HRs?=?0.338, 95% CIs, 0.215-0.532; P?<?0.001) had significantly longer OS than adjuvant radiotherapy and surgery plus chemotherapy. Even after PSM, Chemotherapy plus surgery was still the best treatment for T1-3N0M0 patients. Postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy had the best prognosis among T1-3N?+?M0 patients, and neoadjuvant radiotherapy was the best treatment for T4 patients. CONCLUSIONS:For patients with non-metastatic PDAC, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy and surgery plus chemotherapy were superior to only surgery in OS. For patients with stage T4 non-metastatic PDAC, neoadjuvant radiotherapy had the potential to be strongly recommended over adjuvant radiotherapy and surgery plus chemotherapy. However, neoadjuvant radiotherapy failed to benefit the survival of T1-3N0M0 stage patients, and surgery plus chemotherapy was preferred. For T1-3N?+?M0, neoadjuvant radiotherapy had no obvious advantage over adjuvant radiotherapy or surgery plus chemotherapy in OS, and adjuvant radiotherapy was more recommended.

Dataset Information

Can Elderly Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Gain Survival Advantages Through More Radical Surgeries? A SEER-Based Analysis.

Publications

Can Elderly Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Gain Survival Advantages Through More Radical Surgeries? A SEER-Based Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets