Dataset Information

Impact of molecular surgical margin analysis on the prediction of pancreatic cancer recurrences after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the lethal cancers among solid malignancies. Pathological diagnosis of surgical margins is sometimes unreliable due to tissue shrinkage, invisible field cancerization and skipped lesions like tumor budding. As a result, tumor recurrences sometimes occur even from the pathologically negative surgical margins.

Methods

We applied molecular surgical margin (MSM) analysis by tissue imprinting procedure to improve the detection sensitivity of tiny cancerous cells on the surgical specimen surface after pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgical specimens were collected from 45 pancreatic cancer cases who received subtotal stomach preserving pancreatoduodenectomy at Nagoya University Hospital during 2017-2019. Quantitative methylation-specific PCR (QMSP) of the original methylation marker panel (CD1D, KCNK12, PAX5) were performed and analyzed with postoperative survival outcomes.

Results

Among 45 tumors, 26 cases (58%) were QMSP-positive for CD1D, 25 (56%) for KCNK12 and 27 (60%) for PAX5. Among the 38 tumors in which at least one of the three markers was positive, CD1D-positive cancer cells, KCNK12-positive cancer cells, and PAX5-positive cancer cells were detected at the surgical margin in 8 cases, 7 cases and 10 cases, respectively. Consequently, a total of 17 patients had at least one marker detected at the surgical margin by QMSP, and these patients were defined as MSM-positive. They were associated with significantly poor recurrence-free survival (p = 0.002) and overall survival (p = 0.005) than MSM-negative patients. Multivariable analysis showed that MSM-positive was the only significant independent factor for worse recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio: 3.522, 95% confidence interval: 1.352-9.179, p = 0.010). On the other hand, a significant proportion of MSM-negative cases were found to have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.019).

Conclusion

Pancreatic cancer-specific methylation marker panel was established to perform MSM analysis. MSM-positive status might represent microscopically undetectable cancer cells on the surgical margin and might influence the postoperative long-term outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Sunagawa Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444591 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is inconclusive whether R1 margin determined by postoperative pathological examination indicates worse long-term survival in gastric cancer (GC) patients after curative intent resection (CIR). Hence, we aimed to systematically pool the conflicting evidence to fill this gap.MethodsThe present study was performed according to the published protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Published studies examining the impact of microscopic margin status on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS rate in GC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct statistical analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.ResultsTwenty-three retrospective cohort studies including 19 992 patients were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratio for OS of 14 studies was 2.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61-2.65, low certainty), indicating that R1 margin predicted inferior OS. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld the statistical stability of this finding. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of 14 studies was .21 (95% CI: .17-.26, moderate certainty), demonstrating that the presence of R1 margins was associated with a poorer 5-year OS rate. Sensitivity analyses and most of the subgroup analyses confirmed this finding, except the "esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancers" subgroup, which included two studies with a pooled OR of .41 (95% CI: .10-1.61).ConclusionR1 margin detected by pathological examination might exhibit a high correlation with poorer OS and 5-year OS rate in GC (except EGJ cancers) patients who underwent CIR. To figure out the effect of R1 margin on survival of different stages and histological types need prospective studies with large sample sizes and standardized methods. What is the best treatment for R1 margin patients also need more in-depth and special research.

Project description:BackgroundThe association between a positive surgical margin and local recurrence after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been reported. Assessment of the location of the a positive margin and the specific site of local recurrence has not been well described.MethodsA prospectively maintained database was queried for patients who underwent R0/R1 pancreaticoduodenectomy for PDAC between 2000 and 2015. The pancreatic, posterior, gastric/duodenal, anterior peritoneal, and bile duct margins were routinely assessed. Postoperative imaging was reviewed for the site of first recurrence, and local recurrence was defined as recurrence located in the remnant pancreas, surgical bed, or retroperitoneal site outside the surgical bed.ResultsDuring the study period, 891 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, and 390 patients had an initial local recurrence with or without distant metastases. The 5-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence by site included the remnant pancreas (4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3-5%), the surgical bed (35%; 95% CI, 32-39%), and other regional retroperitoneal site (4%; 95% CI, 3-6%). In the univariate analysis, positive posterior margin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91; p = 0.001) and positive lymph nodes (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.75; p = 0.017) were associated with surgical bed recurrence, and in the multivariate analysis, positive posterior margin remained significant (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.09-1.81; p = 0.009). An isolated local recurrence was found in 197 patients, and a positive posterior margin was associated with surgical bed recurrence in this subgroup (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.08-2.10; p = 0.016).ConclusionIn this study, the primary association between site of margin positivity and site of local recurrence was between the posterior margin and surgical bed recurrence. Given this association and the limited ability to modify this margin intraoperatively, preoperative assessment should be emphasized.

Project description:IntroductionGenerally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.Methods and analysisThe protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I2 statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile 'summary of findings' tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.Prospero registration numberCRD42020165110.