Material and Method: A total of 56 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cases diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 were included in the study. Survival data were obtained and histopathological parameters were re-evaluated in each patient.
Results: Tumor size (p=0.029), mitotic count (p=0.030), lymph node metastasis (p=0.003), metastatic lymph node ratio (p<0.001) and ampullary invasion (p=0.044) had a statistically significant relationship with survival. However, there was no relationship between survival and tumor grade, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, and peripancreatic soft tissue invasion.
Conclusion: Our results showed that existent 2010 WHO pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma grading parameters excluding mitotic count are subjective and not applicable. Considering that almost all of the tumors in our series were larger than 2 cm, we think that the 2 cm cut-off in tumor size is insufficient to make the tumor stage pT2. Peripancreatic soft tissue invasion, which is a common finding in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, should also not be assessed like adjacent tissue invasion and make the tumor reach pT3 stage independent of tumor size. It is clear that the existent WHO tumor grading and pT staging parameters need to be revised and the mitotic count, which correlates with survival, should be presented in pathology reports.
It has been shown that tumors smaller than 3 cm and limited to the pancreas have a better prognosis than larger or extensive tumors [6-8]. Tumor size and extension beyond the pancreas already constitute the basic parameters of the existing pT stage [1]. Another basic factor for PDAC prognosis is lymph node metastasis which constitutes pN staging. Most of the studies about lymph node metastasis in PDACs have reported that the metastatic lymph node ratio is more important than the presence of lymph node metastasis regarding the prognosis [9-15].
Although not taking part in pT or pN staging, it has been indicated that tumor grade, histologic subtype, mitotic count, vascular invasion, and perineural invasion also affect survival in PDACs [5,16-21].
In our study, we investigated the effects of histologic and staging parameters on survival in PDACs. We aimed to show how these parameters reflect survival in these aggressive tumors.
Clinical data including age, gender, additional therapy and overall survival were obtained from the hospitals database system. In each case, Formalin-fixed, paraffinembedded (FFPE) tissues representing the whole tumor were sectioned into 4μm thick slices and H&E stained in order to re-evaluate the pathological data as tumor grade, mitotic activity, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis and resection margin status.
Grading the Tumors
All the tumors were re-evaluated according to the WHO
2010 PDAC grading criteria shown in the Table I [1].
Table I: Grading criterias in PDACs
Statistics
SPSS for Windows 11.5 was used for data collection and
statistical analysis. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve was
estimated and the log-rank test was used to compare the
survival. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically
significant.
Table II: The features of the patients
The mean tumor size was 4.4 cm (range 2-8.5 cm) and the distribution was as follows: 78.6% had a diameter >3 cm, 16.1% 2-3 cm and 5.3% ≤2 cm (Figure 1). The majority of the tumors (69.6%) were Grade II, 28.6% were Grade III and only 1.8% were Grade I (Figure 2- 4). The mitotic rate was ≤5/HPF (x400 magnification) in 51.8% of the tumors, 6-10/HPF in 32.1% and >10/HPF in 16.1% (Figure 5).
Figure 1: The distribution of the tumors according to the tumor size.
Figure 2: The distribution of tumors according to the tumor grade.
Figure 3: A,B) Grade II tumor (H&E; x200 & x400).
Figure 4: A,B) Grade III tumor (H&E; x50 & x400).
Figure 5: The distribution of tumors according to the mitotic count.
The number of mitoses showed a more balanced distribution than the tumor grade. Among the cases, 91.1% of the tumors had perineural and 39.3% had lymphovascular invasions. The average number of dissected lymph nodes was 10.53 and 10% were metastatic.
Among the operation materials, 32% (n=18) had pancreatic resection margin, 86% (n=48) had pancreatic soft tissue and, 25% (n=14) had retroperitoneal margin positivity. Furthermore, 2% (n=1) of the Whipple operation materials had choleduct margin positivity. The frequencies of adjacent tissue invasions were as follows: choleduct invasion 21% (n=12), ampullary invasion 7% (n=4) and duodenum invasion 23% (n=13). The average survival of the 48 patients was 15.7 months (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Overall survival-time graphics in PDAC patients.
Relation Between Clinicopathological Parameters and
Survival
As shown in the Table III, tumor size (p=0.029), mitotic
count (p=0.030), lymph node metastasis (p=0.003) and
ampullary invasion (p=0.044) had a significant positive
correlation with survival. The increase in metastatic
lymph node ratio and survival had a significant negative
correlation (p<0.001). Tumor grade was correlated neither
with mitotic count (p=0.846) nor with survival (p=0.309).
Therapy status, lymphovascular invasion, perineural
invasion, margin positivities and adjacent tissue invasions
excluding ampullary invasion had no relation with overall
survival.
Table III: Relation of clinicopathological parameters and survival
Tumor grade is one of the commonly accepted prognostic factors in PDAC. However, we could not find any statistically significant relationship between the tumor grade and survival in our series. Moreover, there was no homogeneous distribution among tumor grade groups in our series. On the other hand, a statistically significant correlation between the mitotic count and the survival was found (p=0.030). Except for mitotic count, WHO tumor grading parameters of PDACs such as mucin production, glandular differentiation, and nuclear features are subjective. Therefore, grading these tumors with these parameters is not applicable and causes interobserver variability. Conflicting results have been reported about the relation between tumor grade and survival in various studies. Some studies reported that tumor grade was significantly related to survival [9,22,23] whereas some studies declared that existent grading parameters cause interobserver variability [24,25]. Therefore, tumor grading parameters in PDACs must be revised and mitotic count which has significant correlation with survival should be specified in the pathology reports (as <5, 6-10, >10).
After grouping the tumors according to the tumor size (≤3 cm and >3 cm), shorter survival was found in tumors >3 cm (p=0.029). Tumor size is already one of the parameters in existent pT staging. Tumors greater than 2 cm are assessed in pT2 stage for tumors limited to the pancreas [1]. However, tumors tend to have larger sizes and 2 cm cut-off is not sufficient in pT staging in these tumors. Even in our series, there was no tumor smaller than 2 cm. This problem would be solved by the recently published AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 8th edition which recommends discriminating pT2 (2-4 cm) and pT3 (>4 cm) with the tumor size [26]. The effects of new cut-offs on survival would be investigated in new studies with large series.
In our series, peripancreatic soft tissue invasion had no relationship with survival. However, in the 2010 WHO TNM classification, all tumors showing peripancreatic soft tissue invasion are evaluated in the pT3 stage, independent of tumor size. The fact that the pancreas is located in fatty tissue without a capsule makes it difficult to distinguish the peripancreatic soft tissue border. Moreover, similar to our findings, peripancreatic soft tissue invasions have been usually observed in PDACs even in the early stages [27]. Also, the superiority of tumor size to peripancreatic soft tissue invasion as a prognostic factor has been shown in various studies [28,29]. Recently, extrapancreatic extension is no longer a part of pT3 definition in AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 8th. edition [26].
Existence of lymph node metastasis (p=0.003) and metastatic lymph node ratio (p<0,001) had a statistically significant relationship with survival in our study. Existence of lymph node metastasis, independent from metastatic lymph node number is sufficient to indicate pN stage pN1 [1]. In some studies, it has been reported that metastatic lymph node ratio is more important than only the presence of lymph node metastasis on survival [9,11,12,30,31]. There are also important changes regarding the pN stage in the recently published AJCC Cancer Staging Manuel 8th edition. In this edition, the N stage is subdivided into N1 (≤ 3) and N2 (> 3) groups according to the number of metastatic lymph nodes [26].
In conclusion, our study showed that well known prognostic parameters like tumor grade and peripancreatic soft tissue invasion did not have any significant relationship with survival. As mitotic count showed a statistically significant correlation with survival, it should be presented in pathology reports. Most of the problematic issues (tumor size, peripancreatic soft tissue invasion and pN stage) we discussed in this study already underwent fundamental changes with the recently published AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 8th edition. We look forward to hearing changes about tumor grading parameters that can make the grading of PDACs more relevant.
CONFLICT of INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1) Bosman FT. World Health Organization Classification of
Tumours of the Digestive System 4th ed. Lyon: IARC;2010: 280-91.
2) Sperti C, Pasquali C, Piccoli A, Pedrazzoli S. Recurrence after
resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. World J
Surg. 1997;21:195-200.
3) Conlon KC, Klimstra DS, Brennan MF. Long-term survival
after curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Clinicopathologic analysis of 5-year survivors. Ann Surg.
1996;223:273-9.
4) Sperti C, Pasquali C, Pedrazzoli S. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the
body and tail of the pancreas. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185:255-9.
5) Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Koniaris L, Kaushal S, Abrams
RA, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Hruban RH, Lillemoe KD. Resected
adenocarcinoma of the pancreas-616 patients: Results, outcomes,
and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg. 2000;4:567-79.
6) Lim JE, Chien MW, Earle CC. Prognostic factors following
curative resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A populationbased,
linked database analysis of 396 patients. Ann Surg.
2003;237:74-85.
7) Fortner JG, Klimstra DS, Senie RT, Maclean BJ. Tumor size is
the primary prognosticator for pancreatic cancer after regional
pancreatectomy. Ann Surg. 1996;223:147-53.
8) Shimada K, Sakamoto Y, Sano T, Kosuge T, Hiraoka N.
Reappraisal of the clinical significance of tumor size in patients
with pancreatic ductal carcinoma. Pancreas. 2006;33:233-9.
9) La Torre M, Cavallini M, Ramacciato G, Cosenza G, Rossi Del
Monte S, Nigri G, Ferri M, Mercantini P, Ziparo V. Role of the
lymph node ratio in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Impact
on patient stratification and prognosis. J Surg Oncol. 2011;
104:629-33.
10) Pawlik TM, Gleisner AL, Cameron JL, Winter JM, Assumpcao
L, Lillemoe KD, Wolfgang C, Hruban RH, Schulick RD, Yeo CJ,
Choti MA. Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following
pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery.
2007;141: 610-8.
11) R iediger H, Keck T, Wellner U, zur Hausen A, Adam U, Hopt UT,
Makowiec F. The lymph node ratio is the strongest prognostic
factor after resection of pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg.
2009;13:1337-44.
12) R obinson SM, Rahman A, Haugk B, French JJ, Manas DM, Jaques
BC, Charnley RM, White SA. Metastatic lymph node ratio as an
important prognostic factor in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:333-9.
13) House MG, Gönen M, Jarnagin WR, DAngelica M, DeMatteo
RP, Fong Y, Brennan MF, Allen PJ. Prognostic significance of
pathologic nodal status in patients with resected pancreatic
cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1549-55.
14) K ang MJ, Jang JY, Chang YR, Kwon W, Jung W, Kim SW.
Revisiting the concept of lymph node metastases of pancreatic
head cancer: Number of metastatic lymph nodes and lymph node
ratio according to N stage. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1545-51.
15) Ashfaq A, Pockaj BA, Gray RJ, Halfdanarson TR, Wasif N.
Nodal counts and lymph node ratio impact survival after distal
pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest
Surg. 2014;18:1929-35.
16) Sperti C, Pasquali C, Piccoli A, Pedrazzoli S. Survival after
resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Br J Surg.
1996;83:625-31.
17) Cleary SP, Gryfe R, Guindi M, Greig P, Smith L, Mackenzie R,
Strasberg S, Hanna S, Taylor B, Langer B, Gallinger S. Prognostic
factors in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Analysis of actual
5-year survivors. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:722-31.
18) Takai S, Satoi S, Toyokawa H, Yanagimoto H, Sugimoto N,
Tsuji K, Araki H, Matsui Y, Imamura A, Kwon AH, Kamiyama
Y. Clinicopathologic evaluation after resection for ductal
adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: A retrospective, singleinstitution
experience. Pancreas. 2003;26:243-9.
19) N akagohri T, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, Takahashi S, Gotohda
N. Nodal involvement is strongest predictor of poor survival
in patients with invasive adenocarcinoma of the head of the
pancreas. Hepatogastroenterology. 2006;53:447-51.
20) Brower ST, Newman RM, Pertsemlidis D, Kreel I, Aufses AH Jr.
Histopathological determinants of survival in resected cases of
pancreas cancer. HPB Surg. 1993;7:1-12.
21) Geer RJ, Brennan MF. Prognostic indicators for survival after
resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg. 1993;165:68-72.
22) Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Arnold MA, Chang
DC, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Riall
TS, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ. 1423
pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A singleinstitution
experience. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1199-210.
23) R ochefort MM, Ankeny JS, Kadera BE, Donald GW, Isacoff W,
Wainberg ZA, Hines OJ, Donahue TR, Reber HA, Tomlinson JS.
Impact of tumor grade on pancreatic cancer prognosis: Validation
of a novel TNMG staging system. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4322-9.
24) Lüttges J, Schemm S, Vogel I, Hedderich J, Kremer B, Klöppel
G. The grade of pancreatic ductal carcinoma is an independent
prognostic factor and is superior to the immunohistochemical
assessment of proliferation. J Pathol. 2000;191:154-61.
25) Adsay NV, Basturk O, Bonnett M, Kilinc N, Andea AA, Feng
J, Che M, Aulicino MR, Levi E, Cheng JD. A proposal for a
new and more practical grading scheme for pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:724-33.
26) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, Byrd
DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, Gershenwald JE, Compton
CC, Hess KR, Sullivan DC, Jessup JM, Brierley JD, Gaspar LE,
Schilsky RL, Balch CM, Winchester DP, Asare EA, Madera M,
Gress DM, Meyer LR, editors. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017.
27) Ohta T, Nagakawa T, Ueno K, Kayahara M, Mori K, Kobayashi H,
Takeda T, Miyazaki I. The mode of lymphatic and local spread of
pancreatic carcinomas less than 4.0 cm in size. Int Surg. 1993;78:
208-12.
28) Park H, An S, Eo SH, Song KB, Park JH, Kim KP, Lee SS, Cho H,
Seo DW, Kim SC, Yu E, Hong SM. Survival effect of tumor size
and extrapancreatic extension in surgically resected pancreatic
cancer: Proposal for improved T classification. Hum Pathol. 2014;
45:2341-6.
29) Saka B, Balci S, Basturk O, Bagci P, Postlewait LM, Maithel S,
Knight J, El-Rayes B, Kooby D, Sarmiento J, Muraki T, Oliva I,
Bandyopadhyay S, Akkas G, Goodman M, Reid MD, Krasinskas
A, Everett R, Adsay V. Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
is Spread to the Peripancreatic Soft Tissue in the Majority of
Resected Cases, Rendering the AJCC T-Stage Protocol (7th
Edition) Inapplicable and Insignificant: A Size-Based Staging
System (pT1: =2, pT2: >2-=4, pT3: >4 cm) is More Valid and
Clinically Relevant. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2010-8.