Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32675550›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2020

Timing But Not Patterns of Recurrence Is Different Between Node-negative and Node-positive Resected Pancreatic Cancer.

Kim C Honselmann, Ilaria Pergolini, Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo, Vikram Deshpande, David Ting, Martin S Taylor, Louisa Bolm, Motaz Qadan, Ulrich Wellner, Marta Sandini and 5 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Kim C HonselmannDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Ilaria PergoliniDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Carlos Fernandez-Del CastilloDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Vikram DeshpandeDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
David TingMGH Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Martin S TaylorDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Louisa BolmDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Motaz QadanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Ulrich WellnerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Marta SandiniDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Dirk BauschDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Andrew L WarshawDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Keith D LillemoeDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Tobias KeckDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Cristina R FerroneDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Funding

MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY AND TUMOR BIOLOGYT32CA009216 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI David Michael Langenau · 1985 to 2026
$10.6M
Elucidating structural, mechanistic, and allosteric determinants of mTOR Complex 2 (mTORC2) signaling.K08DK129824 · NIDDK · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI TAYLOR, MARTIN S · 2021 to 2025
$853k
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009216NIDDK NIH HHS K08 DK129824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOur aim was to evaluate recurrence patterns of surgically resected PDAC patients with negative (pN0) or positive (pN1) lymph nodes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is predicted to become the second leading cause of cancer death by 2030. This is mostly due to early local and distant metastasis, even after surgical resection. Knowledge about patterns of recurrence in different patient populations could offer new therapeutic avenues.

methodsClinicopathologic data were collected for 546 patients who underwent resection of their PDAC between 2005 and 2016 from 2 tertiary university centers. Patients were divided into an upfront resection group (n = 394) and a neoadjuvant group (n = 152).

resultsTumor recurrence was significantly less common in pN0 patients as compared with pN1 patients, (upfront surgery: 55% vs. 77%, P < 0.001 and 64% vs. 78%, P = 0.040 in the neoadjuvant group). In addition, time to recurrence was significantly longer in pN0 versus pN1 patients in the upfront resected patients (median 16 mo pN0 vs. 10 mo pN1 P < 0.001), and the neoadjuvant group (pN0 21 mo vs. 11 mo pN1, P < 0.001). Of the patients who recurred, 62% presented with distant metastases (63% of pN0 and 62% of pN1, P = 0.553), 24% with local disease (27% of pN0 and 23% of pN1, P = 0.672) and 14% with synchronous local and distant disease (10% of pN0 and 15% of pN1, P = 0.292). Similarly, there was no difference in recurrence patterns between pN0 and pN1 in the neoadjuvant group, in which 68% recurred with distant metastases (76% of pN0 and 64% of pN1, P = 0.326) and 18% recurred with local disease (pN0: 22% and pN1: 15%, P = 0.435).

conclusionTime to recurrence was significantly longer for pN0 patients. However, patterns of recurrence for pN0 vs. pN1 patients were identical. Lymph node status was predictive of time to recurrence, but not location of recurrence.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathAgedCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGermanyHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, Local

Identifiers

PMID32675550
PMCPMC6639153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.