黑料网

Pancreatic cancer; Necroptosis; Two-dimensional phenotype; Bioinformatics analysis; Immune infiltration; Chemotherapy

Introduction

A highly malignant solid tumour, pancreatic cancer has a decreasing cure rate and an increasing incidence rate. At the time of diagnosis, more than 80% of patients with pancreatic cancer have primary tumors that extend beyond the pancreas. Patients with pancreatic cancer often cannot receive a surgical cure because the disease is frequently discovered at an advanced stage and its symptoms are easy to ignore [3]. The pancreatic cancer tumor microenvironment is highly variable on a pathological level. Blood vessels, endothelial cells, immune cells, and cancer-associated fibroblasts make up the stromal microenvironment of pancreatic cancer. Patients with pancreatic cancer also have different prognoses and treatment responses because the proportions of these components vary from patient to patient [4]. To overcome the heterogeneity of pancreatic cancer patients and advance individualized therapy, innovative and robust phenotyping and risk stratification systems would be beneficial.

Necroptosis is a new type of programmed cell death that is similar to apoptosis and necrosis. The common biomarkers of necroptosis, which are thought by many scientists to be involved in the fundamental mechanisms of carcinogenesis, have been the basis for numerous tumor prognostic score models [5]. Xie et al., for example discovered that the TSC1/mTOR pathway was blocked in intestinal cancer progression by RIPK3-regulated necroptosis. Zhang and Chen et al. use lncRNAs related to necroptosis. developed cancer prediction models for gastric and breast cancer, respectively. High-throughput analysis from the perspective of necroptosis, discovering novel biomarkers, and investigating antitumor mechanisms all represent intriguing and instructive research avenues [6].

Materials and Methods

Ethical consideration

Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) were used in this study. This kind of research does not need to be approved by an ethics committee, as stated in the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act of the Netherlands. Both the scientific committee of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group and the privacy board of the NCR approved the study protocol.

Concentrate on plan

This across the country, populace based, review concentrate on utilized information enrolled by the NCR. All newly diagnosed cancer patients in the Netherlands are tracked by the NCR. The characteristics of the patient, the cancer, and the treatment are all included in these data. NCR data managers with training extract data from medical records and anonymize them [7]. Through an annual connection to the Municipal Personal Records database, vital status data were made accessible, and follow-up continued until February 1, 2021. The STROBE-guidelines (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) are followed in this study.

Study population

Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (pancreatic cancer) on imaging between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015 were included in the study population for this analysis. Because data on diagnostic investigations were only collected in 2015, the data were limited to a single year. Patients more youthful than 18 years, patients analyzed abroad, patients analyzed during post-mortem or patients for whom information on symptomatic examinations was missing, were barred [8].

Characteristics of the patient, the disease, and the treatment

Patient characteristics (age at diagnosis, sex, WHO performance status, and comorbidities), the characteristics of the tumor (morphology, differentiation grade, and stage according to the cTNMclassification 7th edition), and the characteristics of the diagnostic procedures (number of thoracic X-rays, abdominal ultrasonography, CT-scans, MRI-scans, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreat [9]. Additionally, the diagnostic procedure's hospital, whether it was a pancreatic or non-pancreatic center, and the investigation's timing were recorded. Treatment-related qualities like sort of treatment ((neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, pancreatoduodenectomy, negligibly obtrusive methodology), treatment plan, preoperative biliary seepage and careful edge status were additionally recovered. 2.5 Data, context, and definitions Multicentre diagnostic workup was defined as any diagnostic procedure performed in a pancreatic or non-pancreatic center, regardless of the type of investigation [10].

Results

Characteristics at baseline

There were a total of 1188 patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer found. After rejection of 257 patients, the last partner comprised of 931 patients. The majority—50.8%—were men, with a median age of 72 (IQR 64–78). 756, 81 percent of patients underwent a single-center diagnostic workup, with 65 percent and 35 percent receiving care in a non-pancreatic center, respectively. A multicenter diagnostic workup was performed on 19% (n = 175) of patients. Multicenter diagnostic workup patients were significantly younger and had better performance status than monocenter workup patients. Tumor characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Patients who underwent a multicentre diagnostic workup were more likely than those who underwent a monocentre workup to undergo multiple diagnostic tests (47 percent vs. 12 percent, P 0.001). When the monocentre symptomatic workup occurred in a non-pancreatic focus, demonstrative examinations were rehashed in 11.2%, when contrasted with 12.7% in a specialist community (P = 0.544). For both groups, the abdominal CT scan was the most frequently repeated, with significantly more repeats for multicenter diagnostic workup patients (33.1% vs. 14.6%, P 0.001). There was no difference between repeats of EUS (12% vs. 6%, P = 0.099), ERCP (21.3 percent vs. 15.5%, P = 0.220), abdominal ultrasound (5.6 percent vs. 4.8 percent, P = 0.740), MRI (4% vs. 0%, P = 0.122), and thoracic X-ray (6.7 percent vs. 3.3 percent, P = 0.880). Multicentre diagnostic workup was significantly associated with repeated diagnostic investigations in multilevel analysis (OR 6.31, 95 percent confidence interval (CI) 4.13–9.64, P 0.0001).

Survival

Median overall survival was 8.6 months (IQR 3.3–16.3) and 12.2 months (IQR 5.4–23.6) for patients who underwent monocentre and multicentre diagnostic workup, respectively (P = 0.001). This was 19.6 months (IQR 10.9–36.6) and 20.6 months (IQR 11.3–43) for monoand multicenter diagnostic workup, respectively (P = 0.368) for patients who had pancreatic surgery (n = 339). Multicentre diagnostics had no effect on survival in multivariable Cox regression analysis for resected patients (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83–1.44; P = 0.532).

Discussion

In a pancreatic cancer network with centralized surgery, this is the first population-based study to evaluate the diagnostic phase of patients with pancreatic cancer. We showed that one-fifth of patients go through a multicentre symptomatic workup and that this was related with rehashed demonstrative examinations, a postponed opportunity to-determination, and a deferred chance to-treatment, when contrasted with monocentre indicative workup. The delay in diagnosis was primarily to blame for the delay in treatment [11]. The pancreatic cancer network could be responsible for anywhere from 2 to 7 percent of the variation in outcomes. There was no relationship between multicentre analytic workup and in general endurance.

In centralized pancreatic cancer networks, the relationship between multicentre diagnostic workup on repeated diagnostic investigations, delayed diagnosis, and delayed treatment has not been the subject of any other research. In a small pilot study, repeated diagnostic investigations in a pancreatic center were previously described. Up to 42% of repeated abdominal CTs were described in this study [12]. We found that 33% of patients in our larger study had repeated abdominal CTs. There is a significant amount of diagnostic recurrence, according to both studies. In the ongoing review, a rehashed symptomatic examination was characterized as a reiteration in something like 10 weeks (70 days), to reject rehashed checks that were performed to assess the growth through time, which is by and large performed following 3 months. It was not clear why the investigations were repeated in the first place [13]. However, we observed significantly higher odds of repeated diagnostic investigations in multicentre diagnostic workup than in monocentre diagnostic workup, suggesting that network care is connected to this. It could be that hospitals use different scan protocols or that non-pancreatic centers didn't give the pancreatic center the information it needed to make a good treatment plan in time, so the pancreatic center had to do it again. The latter is an illustration of poor network care and should be avoided because it adds additional stress to patients with pancreatic cancer [14]. Besides, if for sure 33% of all CTchecks are rehashed due to sub-standard organization care, the related additional medical services costs are extensive. As a result, maximizing network care may result in cost and resource savings.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. de Wilde RF, Besselink MG, van der Tweel I, de Hingh IHJT, van Eijck CHJ, et al. (2012) . Br J Surg 99: 404-410.

, Google Scholar,

2. Lemmens VE, Bosscha K, van der Schelling G, Brenninkmeijer S, Coebergh JW, et al. (2011) . Br J Surg 98: 1455-1462.

, ,

3. Kostalas M, Nageswaran H, Froghi S, Riga A, Kumar R, et al. (2018) Centralisation for resection of the pancreatic head: a comparison of operative factors and early outcomes during the evolving unit and tertiary unit phases at a UK institution. Am J Surg 216: 310-313.

, ,

4. Polonski A, Izbicki JR, Uzunoglu FG (2019) . J Gastrointest Surg 23: 2081-2092.

, ,

5. Gooiker GA, Lemmens VE, Besselink MG, Busch OR, Bonsing BA, et al. (2014) . Br J Surg 101: 1000-1005.

, ,

6. Søreide JA, Sandvik OM, Søreide K (2016) . Int J Surg 32: 116-122.

, ,

7. Latenstein AEJ, Mackay TM, van der Geest LGM, van Eijck CHJ, de Meijer VE, et al. (2021) . Br J Surg 108:  826-833.

, ,

8. Vonlanthen R, Lodge P, Barkun JS, Farges O, Rogiers X, et al. (2018. Ann Surg 268: 712-724.

, ,

9. Cooper M, Newman NA, Ibrahim AM, Lam E, Herman JM, et al. (2013) . J Gastrointest Surg 17: 1218-1223.

, ,

10. Strijker M, Mackay TM, Bonsing BA, Bruno MJ, van Eijck CHJ, et al. (2020) . Ann Surg 271: 102-104.

, Google Scholar,

11. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. (2007) . Lancet 370: 1453-1457.

, , Crossref

12. Mackay TM, Latenstein AEJ, Bonsing BA, Bruno MJ, van Eijck CHJ, et al. (2020) . Pancreatology 20: 1723-1731.

Indexed at, ,

13. Latenstein AEJ, van der Geest LGM, Bonsing BA, Groot Koerkamp B, Haj Mohammad N, et al. (2020) . Eur J Cancer 125: 83-93.

, ,

14. van der Geest LGM, Lemmens V, de Hingh I, van Laarhoven CJHM, Bollen TL, et al. (2017) . Br J Surg 104: 1568-1577.

, ,