Prognosis Prediction Model After Upfront Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study (OS-HBP-2)
by
, , ,
Kosei Takagi
1,*,
Ryuichi Yoshida
1,
Kazuya Yasui
1,
Masayoshi Hioki
2,
Takehiro Okabayashi
3,
Toru Kojima
4,
Yoshikatsu Endo
5,
Daisuke Nobuoka
2,
Kenta Sui
6,
Masaru Inagaki
7,
Susumu Shinoura
8,
Masashi Kimura
9,
Tatsuo Matsuda
10,
Hideki Aoki
11 and
Toshiyoshi Fujiwara
1 1
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama 700-8558, Japan
2
Department of Surgery, Fukuyama City Hospital, Hiroshima 721-0971, Japan
3
Department of Surgery, Kochi Health Sciences Center, Kochi 781-0111, Japan
4
Department of Surgery, Okayama Saiseikai General Hospital, Okayama 700-8511, Japan
5
Department of Surgery, Himeji Red Cross Hospital, Hyogo 670-8540, Japan
6
Department of Surgery, Kagawa Prefectural Hospital, Kagawa 760-8557, Japan
7
Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Fukuyama Medical Center, Hiroshima 720-0825, Japan
8
Department of Surgery, Tsuyama Chuo Hospital, Okayama 708-0841, Japan
9
Department of Surgery, Matsuyama Shimin Hospital, Ehime 790-0067, Japan
10
Department of Surgery, Tenwakai Matsuda Hospital, Okayama 710-0056, Japan
11
Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Iwakuni Clinical Center, Yamaguchi 740-8510, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2025, 17(22), 3694; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223694
Submission received: 19 October 2025
/
Revised: 13 November 2025
/
Accepted: 17 November 2025
/
Published: 18 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Research of Cancer)
Simple Summary
Although several prognostic nomograms have been developed to estimate the prognosis of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), further investigation is re-quired to optimize the prognostic assessment tools for patients with resectable PDAC. This multicenter study (n = 603) aimed to investigate the prognostic factors for survival and develop a prognosis prediction model after upfront surgery in patients with resectable PDAC. Using the results of the multivariate analyses, a prognosis prediction model for overall survival was constructed. This study suggests that our model may be useful and can be internally validated for predicting overall survival following upfront surgery in patients with resectable PDAC.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Upfront surgery (UFS) remains the standard treatment for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We aimed to investigate the prognostic factors for survival after UFS in patients with resectable PDAC and to develop a prognostic prediction model. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included 603 patients who underwent UFS for resectable PDAC between January 2013 and December 2017. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). We constructed a prognostic prediction model for OS after UFS. An internal validation was performed to evaluate the discriminative performance of the model. Results: The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 83.7%, 48.2%, and 37.5%, respectively. The Cox proportional hazards model showed that tumor size > 2 cm (hazard ratio [HR] 1.50, p = 0.001); tumor contact with the portal and superior mesenteric veins of ≤180° (HR 1.47, p = 0.003); carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels of 40 to 500 U/mL (HR 1.59, p = 0.002) and ≥500 U/mL (HR 2.16, p < 0.001); and a modified Glasgow Prognostic Score of two (HR 1.56, p = 0.038) were predictors associated with OS. The prognostic prediction model for 5-year OS demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.68. The calibration plots indicate a concordance index of 0.63. Conclusions: We identified the preoperative prognostic factors for OS and developed a prognostic prediction model to estimate OS in patients undergoing UFS for resectable PDAC. Our model may be useful and internally validated for predicting OS.
1. Introduction
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the most lethal malignancies with a poor survival rate [1,2]. Currently, the importance of resectability is emphasized when determining the treatment strategies for PDAC [3]. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines categorize resectability status as resectable, borderline resectable, or unresectable, and propose appropriate workups and treatment options based on patient presentation, cancer type, and disease stage [4]. Upfront surgery (UFS) is recommended for patients with resectable PDAC without high-risk features such as large primary tumors, enlarged regional lymph nodes, and markedly elevated carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) levels [4]. However, despite recent developments in multidisciplinary treatments for PDAC, prognosis after resection remains poor [5].
Numerous efforts have been made to identify prognostic factors and estimate the prognosis of patients with PDAC [6]. Several prognostic nomograms have been developed and incorporate patient characteristics, tumor factors, and tumor markers [7,8,9]. Moreover, the impact of various nutritional and inflammatory assessment tools, including the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) and prognostic nutritional index, on PDAC has been investigated [10]. However, because the resectability status is evaluated based on radiologic anatomical findings [4], varying degrees of malignancy can be categorized within the same resectability group. Therefore, resectability-specific risk factors should be investigated to optimize prognostic assessment tools for PDAC. Models for predicting early recurrence and preoperative lymph node metastasis have been developed for resectable PDAC [11,12,13]. However, few studies have developed prognostic prediction models for the survival of patients with resectable PDAC.
This multicenter study investigated long-term outcomes and prognostic factors for survival after UFS in patients with resectable PDAC. In addition, a prognostic prediction model was developed. This study was conducted as part of the Okayama Study Group for Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery (OS-HBP-2).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Cohort
This was a multicenter retrospective study, including 647 patients who underwent UFS for resectable PDAC between January 2013 and December 2017. Clinical data were collected from the OS-HBP [14]. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our institution (approval no. 2211-039) and conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Due to the retrospective nature of this study, the requirement for informed consent was waived.
2.2. Clinical Data
Using the anonymous database, we extracted the following data: age, sex, body mass index, biliary drainage, laboratory values including tumor markers, mGPS [15], preoperative radiological findings (tumor location, tumor size, venous involvement, and lymph node metastasis), preoperative clinical findings were classified according to the Unio Internationalis Contra Cancrum (UICC)/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) seventh edition [16,17], type of procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, or total pancreatectomy), operative factors, pathological factors, including R0 and R1 classification [18]) evaluated by the UICC/AJCC seventh edition [16,17], major complications (Clavien–Dindo classification; ≥grade 3 [19]), postoperative pancreatic fistula (≥grade B [20]), adjuvant chemotherapy, and long-term outcomes (recurrence and status at last follow-up [survival or death]).
Preoperative radiological findings and the initial resectability status were evaluated using computed tomography scans at a multidisciplinary conference. The following criteria for resectable PDAC, based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria, were used: no tumor contact with major arterial structures (celiac artery, superior mesenteric artery, and/or common hepatic artery) and no tumor contact with the portal vein (PV) or superior mesenteric vein (SMV), with ≤180° contact without vein contour irregularity [4]. Venous involvement was categorized as no tumor contact with the PV or SMV or tumor contact with the PV or SMV of ≤180° in this study [21]. Using C-reactive protein and serum albumin levels, patients were classified as having an mGPS of zero, one, or two [15]. The following cutoff values of CA 19-9 were used: 40 U/mL, normal range; and 500 U/mL, biologically borderline resectable [22]. As CA19-9 levels can be significantly influenced by biliary obstruction, we selected preoperative CA19-9 levels recorded after biliary drainage for this study. Pathological stages were defined using the criteria of the AJCC seventh edition criteria [17]. The definition of R0 resection in this study included the margin edge being free based on the closest margin among all resection margins. Adjuvant chemotherapy included either S-1 or gemcitabine administered 6 months after surgery [23].
2.3. Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using EZR software (version 1.65; Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan) and the JMP (version 11; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Categorical variables were presented as proportions, and continuous variables were presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs). Differences between groups were assessed using either Fisher’s exact test or the chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables. All reported p-values were two-tailed, with an alpha level of 0.05 considered statistically significant.
The overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time interval between surgery and death from any cause, whereas RFS was defined as the time from surgery to recurrence or death from any cause. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model to identify the prognostic factors for OS. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
A simple scoring model was developed based on multivariate analyses, with one point assigned to each prognostic factor, demonstrating a similar HR. Thereafter, patients were divided into several groups according to the identified prognostic factors. Another prognostic prediction model was developed to predict the OS using multivariate analysis. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the performance of the model was evaluated. Subsequently, the bootstrap method was used for internal validation to assess the discriminative performance of the model [24]. The predictive validity of the model was evaluated by analyzing the calibration curve and concordance index (C-index).
3. Results
3.1. Cohort
Among the 647 patients, 603 were included after excluding 44 patients who were Lewis-negative (n = 41) and those with postoperative in-hospital mortality (n = 3). The characteristics of 603 patients are shown in Table 1. Of 603 patients, 210 (34.8%) underwent biliary drainage. Median CA19-9 level was 111 U/mL (IQR 30–392 U/mL), and preoperative total bilirubin was within the normal range of 0.8 mg/dL (IQR 0.6–1.3 mg/dL).
Tumor locations were the pancreatic head (n = 393, 65.2%) and pancreatic body and tail (n = 210, 34.8%), with a median tumor size of 2.3 cm (IQR 1.8–3.0 cm). Tumor contact with a PV or SMV of ≤180° was confirmed in 174 (28.9%) patients. The procedures included pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 387, 64.2%), distal pancreatectomy (n = 198, 32.8%), and total pancreatectomy (n = 18, 3.0%). Regarding pathological findings, 331 (54.9%) patients had lymph node metastases. R0 resection was achieved in 532 (88.2%) patients.
During the follow-up period of 25 months (IQR, 15–38 months), 381 (63.2%) patients experienced recurrence. The median OS and RFS after UFS were 34 months and 15 months, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 83.7%, 48.2%, and 37.5%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 55.1%, 30.7%, and 27.1%, respectively. The Kaplan–Meier curves for OS and RFS stratified by pathological stage are shown in Figure 1. The 5-year OS rates were 69.7%, 47.1%, and 25.4% for pStages IA and IB and pStage IIA and pStage IIB, respectively (Figure 1a). The 5-year RFS rates were 64.9%, 34.5%, and 15.1% for pStages IA and IB and pStage IIA and pStage IIB, respectively (Figure 1b).
3.2. Prognostic Factors Associated with OS
The results of the univariate and multivariate analyses are presented in Table 2. Multivariate analyses identified four independent predictors associated with OS: tumor size > 2 cm (hazard ratio [HR] 1.50, p = 0.001), tumor contact with the PV and SMV of ≤180° (HR 1.47, p = 0.003), CA 19-9 40–500 U/mL (HR 1.59, p = 0.002) and ≥500 U/mL (HR 2.16, p < 0.001), and mGPS of two (HR 1.56, p = 0.038).
3.3. Simple Scoring Model for OS Following UFS
A simple scoring model was developed for all patients, with one or two points assigned to each independent predictor: tumor size > 2 cm (one point), tumor contact with the PV and SMV (one point), CA 19-9 40–500 U/mL (one point) and >500 U/mL (two points), and mGPS of two (one point). The patients were categorized into three groups based on these scores: low risk (0–1 point; n = 240), moderate risk (2–3 points; n = 313), and high risk (4–5 points; n = 50). The clinicopathological characteristics stratified by risk group are shown in Table 3. The high-risk group exhibited the most advanced tumor characteristics. However, no significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of R status, incidence of major complications, or use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The incidence of postoperative recurrence in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups was 47.9%, 71.6%, and 84.0%, respectively (p < 0.001).
The OS curves for these groups showed overall 3- and 5-year survival rates of 63.8% and 52.4% in the low-risk group, 41.4% and 30.1% in the moderate-risk group, and 16.1% and 12.1% in the high-risk group (log-rank p < 0.001) (Figure 2). The OS curves for these groups showed overall 3- and 5-year survival rates of 63.8% and 52.4% in the low-risk group, 41.4% and 30.1% in the moderate-risk group, and 16.1% and 12.1% in the high-risk group, respectively (log-rank p < 0.001) (Figure 2).
3.4. Prognosis Prediction Model for OS Following UFS
Using the results of multivariate analyses, the predictive probability of the model for OS was constructed (Equation (1); available in Supplementary Digital Content S1):
S(t∣x) = [S0(t)]^exp(linear predictor)
= [exp(−0.008296 * t)]^exp(0.40314 * [tumor size > 2 cm] + 0.39622 * [tumor contact with PV&SMV]
+ 0.3962 * [CA 19-9 40–500 or ≥500] + 0.49915 * [mGPS 2])
=exp(−0.008296 * t * exp{0.40314 * [tumor size > 2 cm] + 0.39622 * [tumor contact with PV&SMV]
+ 0.3962 * [CA 19-9 40–500 or ≥500] + 0.49915 * [mGPS 2])
p (predictive probability; %) = S(t∣x) * 100
S(t∣x) survival function at time t for an individual with covariates x
S0(t) baseline survival function
= [exp(−0.008296 * t)]^exp(0.40314 * [tumor size > 2 cm] + 0.39622 * [tumor contact with PV&SMV]
+ 0.3962 * [CA 19-9 40–500 or ≥500] + 0.49915 * [mGPS 2])
=exp(−0.008296 * t * exp{0.40314 * [tumor size > 2 cm] + 0.39622 * [tumor contact with PV&SMV]
+ 0.3962 * [CA 19-9 40–500 or ≥500] + 0.49915 * [mGPS 2])
p (predictive probability; %) = S(t∣x) * 100
S(t∣x) survival function at time t for an individual with covariates x
S0(t) baseline survival function
3.5. Model Performance and Calibration
Calibration plots of the predictive model for 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS are shown in Figure 3. The AUCs for 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61–0.74), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62–0.72), and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.59–0.76), respectively.
The predicted probability of OS was moderately correlated with the actual likelihood, with a C-index of 0.63 (Figure 4).
3.6. A Literature Review
A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify articles that developed nomograms to predict postoperative survival after surgery in patients with PDAC. Table 4 summarizes the 10 relevant articles, including our study [7,8,9,25,26,27,28,29,30]. The study designs included single-center (n = 5), multicenter (n = 2), and database (n = 3) studies. Previously published nomograms targeted PDAC resection. The C-index ranged from 0.63 0.79.
4. Discussion
Although UFS has been recognized as the standard of care for patients with resectable PDAC [4], the prognosis remains poor, even in resectable PDAC, probably because of incomplete resection and early postoperative recurrence [31]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we investigated long-term outcomes and preoperative prognostic factors associated with OS after UFS in 603 patients with resectable PDAC. Multivariate analyses identified tumor size, tumor contact with the PV and SMV of ≤180°, CA 19-9 level, and mGPS as independent predictors of OS. Moreover, a prognostic prediction model was developed to estimate OS following UFS for patients with resectable PDAC, and its performance was evaluated using internal validation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multicenter study to demonstrate a prognostic prediction model for OS after UFS in patients with resectable PDAC.
Long-term outcomes after UFS in this study, including median OS and RFS of 34 months and 15 months, were relatively better compared with those of previous reports, which reported median OS and RFS of 18.8 (95% CI 12.4–20.6) months and 9 (95% CI 1.6–12.5) months [32]. This improvement might be due to the higher R0 resection and induction rates of adjuvant chemotherapy in this study [32]. However, approximately 60% of patients experienced recurrences. Therefore, further efforts are required to improve the long-term outcomes based on potential risk factors.
Several preoperative factors, including tumor size, tumor contact with the PV and SMV of ≤180°, CA 19-9 level, and mGPS, were identified as prognostic factors associated with OS in this study. Previous studies reporting prognostic nomograms found that tumor size is a predictive parameter for prognosis [7,33]. Our novel finding is that preoperative radiological venous involvement, tumor contact with the PV&SMV of ≤180°, is a prognostic factor for OS. Since venous involvement can be divided into no tumor contact and tumor contact with the PV or SMV [21], we found that no tumor contact and tumor contact with the PV or SMV represented distinctly different risk factors for survival in patients with resectable PDAC. Portomesenteric venous tumor contact is reportedly associated with poor OS, high rates of R1 resection, and lymph node metastasis in patients with resectable PDAC following UFS [34]. CA 19-9 is regarded as an effective predictor of OS, nodal involvement, and margin status after surgery in patients with resectable PDAC [35,36]. A meta-analysis demonstrated that mGPS, a promising inflammatory prognostic indicator, is closely associated with PDAC [37].
Prognostic prediction models for OS were constructed using the results of multivariate analyses. In the simple scoring model, survival curves were stratified according to the risk scores (Figure 2). The postoperative survival probability (%) was calculated using a prognosis prediction model (Equation (1)). Regarding model performance and internal validity, the model’s performance, with an AUC of 0.67 to 0.68, was satisfactory. The calibration plots demonstrated relatively good agreement, with a C-index of 0.63. Because preoperative factors were selected to establish these prognostic prediction systems, we could estimate patient survival preoperatively. Therefore, the potential clinical implications of this model include the survival risk stratification of patients with resectable PDAC.
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, the OS and recurrence rates in the moderate- and high-risk groups were significantly lower than those in the low-risk group. Our results suggest that resectable PDAC should not be categorized solely by resectability status but rather subcategorized using various clinical factors, and appropriate multidisciplinary treatments, including neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, should be provided. Although the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable PDAC remains controversial, our prognostic prediction models may be useful for identifying high-risk groups that may benefit from intensified multidisciplinary care. Considering the growing evidence for neoadjuvant treatments for resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy may improve oncological outcomes and survival, especially in patients with high-risk features of resectable PDAC [38,39,40]. Moreover, evidence for adjuvant therapy for PDAC is well established [23,41,42,43]. The primary rationale behind the use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in pancreatic cancer is to target and destroy occult micrometastatic disease, which is believed to be the leading cause of early and frequent disease recurrence after curative surgery [44]. Accordingly, a perfect clinical course, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant therapy, may be the ultimate protocol for improving outcomes, especially in moderate- and high-risk groups [40].
Several novel findings of our model compared to previous nomograms are summarized in Table 4. As previous models targeted resected PDAC, our model focused only on patients with resectable PDAC. The prognostic factors for survival differ depending on the resectability status. Therefore, the resectability-specific prediction model was reasonable. Moreover, existing nomograms include postoperative parameters such as pathological findings that cannot be assessed preoperatively. In contrast, our model included only preoperative factors. Therefore, we could estimate patient survival preoperatively and construct treatment strategies depending on the risk categories.
The present study had several limitations. Although this was a multicenter study with a relatively large sample size, its retrospective nature may have introduced a potential selection bias in surgical decision-making across centers and limited the causality of the findings. Using multivariate analysis, we identified independent preoperative predictors associated with OS. However, other confounding or residual confounding factors may exist. The discriminative performance of the prognostic prediction model was investigated using internal validation. However, the moderate performance of the prediction model may be a limitation. Moreover, an external validation was not performed to verify the reliability and generalizability of the model. Because external validation is crucial to ensure the model’s applicability in different populations, the lack of external validation of the prediction model is a significant limitation. Future studies should conduct external validations to confirm the applicability of this model.
5. Conclusions
The present study demonstrated long-term outcomes and identified preoperative prognostic factors of survival, including tumor size, tumor contact with the PV and SMV of ≤180°, CA 19-9 level, and mGPS, in patients who underwent UFS for resectable PDAC. Moreover, we developed a prognostic prediction model to estimate the OS after UFS for resectable PDAC. Our model may be useful and internally validated for predicting OS after UFS. Intensive multidisciplinary treatment may be required in high-risk patients.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers17223694/s1, Supplementary Digital Content S1: The prognosis prediction model for overall survival following upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Author Contributions
K.T.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing—Original Draft, Project administration. R.Y.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. K.Y., M.H., T.O., T.K., Y.E., D.N., K.S., M.I., S.S., M.K., T.M., H.A.: Resources, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. T.F.: Supervision, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was approved by the ethics committee of Okayama University Hospital (approval number: 2211-039, date of approval: 21 October 2022) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent Statement
The need for informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to all the centers of the OS-HBP that contributed to this study: Okayama University Hospital, Okayama Saiseikai General Hospital, Okayama Rosai Hospital, Matsuda Hospital, Tsuyama Central Hospital, Okayama Medical Center, Fukuyama City Hospital, Fukuyama Medical Center, Himeji Red Cross Hospital, Kobe Red Cross Hospital, Himeji St. Mary’s Hospital, Kagawa Prefectural Hospital, Kochi Health Sciences Center, Matsuyama City Matsuyama Citizens Hospital, and Iwakuni Clinical Center.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Li, T.; Lin, C.; Wang, W. Global, regional, and national burden of pancreatic cancer from 1990 to 2021, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: A systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021. BMC Cancer 2025, 25, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siegel, R.L.; Kratzer, T.B.; Giaquinto, A.N.; Sung, H.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2025. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2025, 75, 10–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarma, G.; Bora, H.; Medhi, P.P. Optimizing neoadjuvant chemoradiation in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Evidence-based insights. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2025, 16, 106107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (Version 2.2025); National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, S.J.; Shin, S.H.; Yoon, S.K.; Jung, J.H.; You, Y.; Han, I.W.; Choi, D.W.; Heo, J.S. Appraisal of 5-year recurrence-free survival after surgery in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2021, 28, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, P.J.; Kuk, D.; Castillo, C.F.; Basturk, O.; Wolfgang, C.L.; Cameron, J.L.; Lillemoe, K.D.; Ferrone, C.R.; Morales-Oyarvide, V.; He, J.; et al. Multi-institutional Validation Study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th Edition) Changes for T and N Staging in Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. 2017, 265, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, S.J.; Park, B.; Kwon, J.; Lim, C.S.; Shin, Y.C.; Jung, W.; Shin, S.H.; Heo, J.S.; Han, I.W. Development of Nomograms for Predicting Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer after Pancreatectomy: A Multicenter Study. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhuang, H.; Zhou, Z.; Ma, Z.; Huang, S.; Gong, Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, C.; Wang, S.; Chen, B.; Zhang, C.; et al. Prognostic Nomogram for Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma of Pancreatic Head After Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Clin. Med. Insights Oncol. 2021, 15, 11795549211024149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, H.; Wu, C.R.; Aimaiti, S.; Wang, C.F. Development and validation of a novel nomogram for predicting the prognosis of patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncol. Lett. 2020, 19, 4093–4105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aoyama, T.; Maezawa, Y.; Hashimoto, I.; Rino, Y.; Oshima, T. Clinical Impact of Nutrition and Inflammation Assessment Tools in Pancreatic Cancer Treatment. Anticancer Res. 2023, 43, 3849–3860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, N.; Han, I.W.; Ryu, Y.; Hwang, D.W.; Heo, J.S.; Choi, D.W.; Shin, S.H. Predictive Nomogram for Early Recurrence after Pancreatectomy in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Risk Classification Using Preoperative Clinicopathologic Factors. Cancers 2020, 12, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Man, Q.; Pang, H.; Liang, Y.; Chang, S.; Wang, J.; Gao, S. Nomogram model for predicting early recurrence for resectable pancreatic cancer: A multicenter study. Medicine 2024, 103, e37440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H.; Xu, J.H.; Kang, X.H.; Liu, X.M.; Wang, H.F.; Wang, Z.X.; Pan, H.Q.; Zhang, Q.Q.; Xu, X.L. Nomogram for predicting the preoperative lymph node metastasis in resectable pancreatic cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 149, 12469–12477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umeda, Y.; Mitsuhashi, T.; Kojima, T.; Satoh, D.; Sui, K.; Endo, Y.; Inagaki, M.; Oishi, M.; Yagi, T.; Fujiwara, T. Impact of lymph node dissection on clinical outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Inverse probability of treatment weighting with survival analysis. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2022, 29, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakamura, T.; Matsumine, A.; Asanuma, K.; Matsubara, T.; Sudo, A. The value of the high-sensitivity modified Glasgow prognostic score in predicting the survival of patients with a soft-tissue sarcoma. Bone Jt. J. 2015, 97-B, 847–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sobin, L.H.; Gospodarowicz, M.K.; Wittekind, C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 7th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Edge, S.B.; Compton, C.C. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: The 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 17, 1471–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konstantinidis, I.T.; Warshaw, A.L.; Allen, J.N.; Blaszkowsky, L.S.; Castillo, C.F.; Deshpande, V.; Hong, T.S.; Kwak, E.L.; Lauwers, G.Y.; Ryan, D.P.; et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a “true” R0 resection? Ann. Surg. 2013, 257, 731–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clavien, P.A.; Barkun, J.; de Oliveira, M.L.; Vauthey, J.N.; Dindo, D.; Schulick, R.D.; de Santibañes, E.; Pekolj, J.; Slankamenac, K.; Bassi, C.; et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experience. Ann. Surg. 2009, 250, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bassi, C.; Marchegiani, G.; Dervenis, C.; Sarr, M.; Abu Hilal, M.; Adham, M.; Allen, P.; Andersson, R.; Asbun, H.J.; Besselink, M.G.; et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery 2017, 161, 584–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shen, Y.N.; Bai, X.L.; Li, G.G.; Liang, T.B. Review of radiological classifications of pancreatic cancer with peripancreatic vessel invasion: Are new grading criteria required? Cancer Imaging 2017, 17, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isaji, S.; Mizuno, S.; Windsor, J.A.; Bassi, C.; Fernández-Del Castillo, C.; Hackert, T.; Hayasaki, A.; Katz, M.H.G.; Kim, S.W.; Kishiwada, M.; et al. International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017. Pancreatology 2018, 18, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uesaka, K.; Boku, N.; Fukutomi, A.; Okamura, Y.; Konishi, M.; Matsumoto, I.; Kaneoka, Y.; Shimizu, Y.; Nakamori, S.; Sakamoto, H.; et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy of S-1 versus gemcitabine for resected pancreatic cancer: A phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (JASPAC 01). Lancet 2016, 388, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efron, B. Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife. Ann. Stat. 1979, 7, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brennan, M.F.; Kattan, M.W.; Klimstra, D.; Conlon, K. Prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attiyeh, M.A.; Chakraborty, J.; Doussot, A.; Langdon-Embry, L.; Mainarich, S.; Gönen, M.; Balachandran, V.P.; D’Angelica, M.I.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Jarnagin, W.R.; et al. Survival Prediction in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma by Quantitative Computed Tomography Image Analysis. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 25, 1034–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, C.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, Z.; Lin, X.; Li, S. Overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with surgically resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: A competing risk nomogram analysis. J. Cancer 2018, 9, 3156–3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, G.; Chen, J.Z.; Chen, S.; Lin, S.Z.; Pan, W.; Meng, Z.W.; Cai, X.R.; Chen, Y.L. Development and validation of novel nomograms for predicting the survival of patients after surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Med. 2020, 9, 3353–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peng, F.; Qin, T.; Wang, M.; Wang, H.; Dang, C.; Wu, C.H.; Tien, Y.W.; Qin, R. Development and Validation of a Nomogram to Predict Survival in Pancreatic Head Ductal Adenocarcinoma After Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 734673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, W.; Wang, Z.; Wang, F.; Zhang, G.; Liu, R. A nomogram predicting overall survival in patients with non-metastatic pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after surgery: A population-based study. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirashita, T.; Tada, K.; Nagasawa, Y.; Orimoto, H.; Kawamura, M.; Fujinaga, A.; Takayama, H.; Kawano, Y.; Masuda, T.; Endo, Y.; et al. Benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus S-1 for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2025, 22, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pecorelli, N.; Licinio, A.W.; Guarneri, G.; Aleotti, F.; Crippa, S.; Reni, M.; Falconi, M.; Balzano, G. Prognosis of Upfront Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 812102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Wang, J.; Liu, T.; Huang, Z.; Luo, J.; Chen, Y.; Lu, Y. Quantitative definitions of pain, CA19-9, and tumor size as high-risk features of resectable pancreatic cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study. Gland Surg. 2021, 10, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Molnár, A.; Halimi, A.; Svensson, J.; Bayadsi, H.; Innala, M.; Hansén, M.; Hemmingsson, O.; Franklin, O. Portomesenteric venous contact ≤180° and overall survival in resectable head and body pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with upfront surgery. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2023, 49, 107097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coppola, A.; La Vaccara, V.; Farolfi, T.; Fiore, M.; Cammarata, R.; Ramella, S.; Coppola, R.; Caputo, D. Role of CA 19.9 in the Management of Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.M.; Wang, H.; Li, R.; Pan, G. Prognostic Role of Carbohydrate Antigen 19 to 9 in Predicting Survival of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2021, 20, 15330338211043030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Ren, D.; Jin, X.; Wu, H. The prognostic value of modified Glasgow Prognostic Score in pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis. Cancer Cell Int. 2020, 20, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, A.H.Y.; Zhao, Y.; Tan, H.L.; Chua, D.W.; Ng, K.Y.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Lee, J.J.X.; Tai, D.; Goh, B.K.P.; Koh, Y.X. Clinical Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Upfront Surgery in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Latest Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2025, 32, 4094–4107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unno, M.; Motoi, F.; Matsuyama, Y.; Satoi, S.; Toyama, H.; Matsumoto, I.; Aosasa, S.; Shirakawa, H.; Wada, K.; Fujii, T.; et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine and S-1 versus Upfront Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the Randomized Phase II/III Prep-02/JSAP05 Trial. Ann. Surg. 2025; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasui, K.; Takagi, K.; Fuji, T.; Nishiyama, T.; Nagai, Y.; Matsumoto, K.; Horiguchi, S.; Fujii, Y.; Otsuka, M.; Fujiwara, T. Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine Plus S-1 in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Cancers 2025, 17, 3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conroy, T.; Hammel, P.; Hebbar, M.; Ben Abdelghani, M.; Wei, A.C.; Raoul, J.L.; Choné, L.; Francois, E.; Artru, P.; Biagi, J.J.; et al. FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 2395–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neoptolemos, J.P.; Palmer, D.H.; Ghaneh, P.; Psarelli, E.E.; Valle, J.W.; Halloran, C.M.; Faluyi, O.; O’Reilly, D.A.; Cunningham, D.; Wadsley, J.; et al. Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017, 389, 1011–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tempero, M.A.; Pelzer, U.; O’Reilly, E.M.; Winter, J.; Oh, D.Y.; Li, C.P.; Tortora, G.; Chang, H.M.; Lopez, C.D.; Bekaii-Saab, T.; et al. Adjuvant nab-Paclitaxel + Gemcitabine in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results From a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 2007–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayanan, S.; AlMasri, S.; Zenati, M.; Nassour, I.; Chopra, A.; Rieser, C.; Smith, K.; Oyefusi, V.; Daum, T.; Bahary, N.; et al. Predictors of early recurrence following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection for localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 124, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
(a) Overall survival and (b) recurrence-free survival curves after pancreatectomy, stratified by pathological stage. UFS, upfront surgery.
Figure 1.
(a) Overall survival and (b) recurrence-free survival curves after pancreatectomy, stratified by pathological stage. UFS, upfront surgery.
Figure 2.
Overall survival curves after upfront surgery for patients in the low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk groups (log-rank p < 0.001). UFS, upfront surgery.
Figure 2.
Overall survival curves after upfront surgery for patients in the low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk groups (log-rank p < 0.001). UFS, upfront surgery.
Figure 3.
Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve for the model predicting (a) 1-year, (b) 3-year, and (c) 5-year overall survival. AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval. Blue line, observed receiver operating characteristic curve; black line, diagonal.
Figure 3.
Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve for the model predicting (a) 1-year, (b) 3-year, and (c) 5-year overall survival. AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval. Blue line, observed receiver operating characteristic curve; black line, diagonal.
Figure 4.
Calibration plots of the model for (a) 1-year, (b) 3-year, and (c) 5-year overall survival. The concordance index of the model was 0.63. Black line, observed; gray line, ideal; blue line, optimism corrected.
Figure 4.
Calibration plots of the model for (a) 1-year, (b) 3-year, and (c) 5-year overall survival. The concordance index of the model was 0.63. Black line, observed; gray line, ideal; blue line, optimism corrected.
Table 1.
Clinicopathological characteristics of the 603 patients.
| Variables | n = 603 |
|---|---|
| Preoperative factors | |
| Age, years | 72 (65–77) |
| Sex, male/female | 325 (53.9%)/278 (46.1%) |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 21.9 (19.7–24.0) |
| Biliary drainage | 210 (34.8%) |
| CA19-9, U/mL | 111 (30–392) |
| Alb, g/dL | 4.0 (3.6–4.3) |
| Total bilirubin, mg/dL | 0.8 (0.6–1.3) |
| CRP, mg/dL | 0.1 (0.1–0.4) |
| mGPS, 0/1/2 | 418 (69.3%)/137 (22.7%)/48 (8.0%) |
| Radiological findings | |
| Tumor location, head/body-tail | 393 (65.2%)/210 (34.8%) |
| Tumor size, cm | 2.3 (1.8–3.0) |
| Tumor contact with the PV&SMV of ≤180° | 174 (28.9%) |
| Regional lymph node metastasis | 99 (16.4%) |
| Preoperative clinical findings (UICC/AJCC 7th edition) | |
| cT status, T1/T2/T3 | 29 (4.8%)/26 (4.3%)/548 (90.9%) |
| cStage, IA&B/IIA/IIB | 53 (8.6%)/483 (80.1%)/68 (11.3%) |
| Operative factors | |
| Surgical procedure, PD/DP/TP | 387 (64.2%)/198 (32.8%)/18 (3.0%) |
| PV&SMV resection | 132 (21.9%) |
| Operative time, min | 407 (284–521) |
| Estimated blood loss, mL | 420 (220–730) |
| Pathological findings (UICC/AJCC 7th edition) | |
| pT status, T1/T2/T3 | 48 (8.0%)/31 (5.1%)/524 (86.9%) |
| Lymph node metastasis | 331 (54.9%) |
| PV&SMV invasion | 135 (22.4%) |
| R status, R0/R1 resection | 532 (88.2%)/71 (11.8%) |
| pStage, IA&B/IIA/IIB | 66 (10.9%)/204 (33.8%)/333 (55.2%) |
| Postoperative factors | |
| Major complications (≥grade 3) | 135 (22.4%) |
| Pancreatic fistula (≥grade B) | 114 (18.9%) |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | 452 (75.0%) |
| Recurrence | 381 (63.2%) |
Values are reported as n (%) or median (interquartile range). CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; ALB, albumin; CRP, C-reactive protein; mGPS, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score; PV&SMV, portal and superior mesenteric veins; PD, pancreatoduodenectomy; DP, distal pancreatectomy; TP, total pancreatectomy.
Table 2.
Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analysis of preoperative prognostic factors for overall survival after pancreatectomy.
Table 2.
Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analysis of preoperative prognostic factors for overall survival after pancreatectomy.
| Preoperative factors | n (%) | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | p Value | HR (95% CI) | p Value | ||
| Age, year | |||||
| ≥75 | 227 (37.6%) | 1.20 (0.95, 1.52) | 0.119 | ||
| <75 | 376 (62.4%) | Ref | |||
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 278 (46.1%) | 0.88 (0.70, 1.10) | 0.880 | ||
| male | 325 (53.9%) | Ref | |||
| BMI, kg/m2 | |||||
| ≥25 | 114 (18.9%) | 1.12 (0.84, 1.48) | 0.427 | ||
| <25 | 489 (81.1%) | Ref | |||
| Biliary drainage | |||||
| Yes | 210 (34.8%) | 1.44 (1.14, 1.81) | 0.002 | 1.17 (0.89, 1.55) | 0.251 |
| No | 393 (65.2%) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Tumor location | |||||
| Body-tail | 210 (34.8%) | 0.78 (0.61, 1.00) | 0.046 | 1.00 (0.75, 1.35) | 0.986 |
| Head | 393 (65.2%) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Tumor size, cm | |||||
| >2.0 | 364 (60.4%) | 1.74 (1.37, 2.22) | <0.001 | 1.50 (1.17, 1.93) | 0.001 |
| ≤2.0 | 239 (39.6%) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Tumor contact with the PV&SMV of ≤180° | |||||
| Presence | 174 (28.9%) | 1.54 (1.21, 1.95) | <0.001 | 1.47 (1.14, 1.88) | 0.003 |
| Absence | 429 (71.1%) | Ref | Ref | ||
| CA19-9, U/mL | |||||
| ≥500 | 129 (21.4%) | 2.58 (1.86, 3.58) | <0.001 | 2.16 (1.55, 3.04) | <0.001 |
| 40–500 | 299 (49.6%) | 1.64 (1.23, 2.20) | <0.001 | 1.59 (1.19, 2.14) | 0.002 |
| <40 | 175 (29.0%) | Ref | Ref | ||
| mGPS | |||||
| 2 | 48 (8.0%) | 1.73 (1.15, 2.50) | 0.009 | 1.56 (1.03, 2.29) | 0.038 |
| 0, 1 | 555 (92.0%) | Ref | Ref | ||
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; PV&SMV, portal and superior mesenteric veins; CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; mGPS, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score.
Table 3.
Clinicopathological characteristics stratified by the risk groups.
| Variables | Low-Risk n = 240 | Moderate-Risk n = 313 | High-Risk n = 50 | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative factors | ||||
| CA19-9, U/mL | 29 (12–103) | 198 (74–565) | 1032 (699–3029) | <0.001 |
| Alb, g/dL | 4.1 (3.8–4.3) | 4.0 (3.6–4.2) | 3.7 (3.2–4.1) | <0.001 |
| mGPS, 0/1/2 | 180 (75.0%)/57 (23.8%)/3 (1.2%) | 216 (69.0%)/72 (23.0%)/25 (8.0%) | 22 (44.0%)/8 (16.0%)/20 (40.0%) | <0.001 |
| Radiological findings | ||||
| Tumor location, head/body-tail | 136 (56.7%)/104 (43.3%) | 212 (67.7%)/101 (32.3%) | 45 (90.0%)/5 (10.0%) | <0.001 |
| Tumor size, cm | 1.8 (1.4–2.0) | 2.5 (2.2–3.2) | 3.0 (2.6–3.5) | <0.001 |
| Tumor contact with the PV&SMV of ≤180° | 24 (10.0%) | 112 (35.8%) | 38 (76.0%) | <0.001 |
| Regional lymph node metastasis | 22 (9.2%) | 63 (20.1%) | 14 (28.0%) | <0.001 |
| Operative factors | ||||
| Surgical procedure, PD/DP/TP | 133 (55.4%)/100 (41.7%)/7 (2.9%) | 213 (68.1%)/94 (30.0%)/6 (1.9%) | 41 (82.0%)/4 (8.0%)/5 (10.0%) | <0.001 |
| PV&SMV resection | 24 (10.0%) | 83 (26.5%) | 25 (50.0%) | <0.001 |
| Operative time, min | 349 (254–493) | 422 (307–519) | 495 (422–573) | <0.001 |
| Estimated blood loss, mL | 390 (200–676) | 450 (235–797) | 561 (393–826) | 0.004 |
| Pathological findings (UICC 7th edition) | ||||
| pT status, T1/T2/T3 | 39 (16.3%)/18 (7.5%)/183 (76.3%) | 9 (2.9%)/12 (3.8%)/292 (93.3%) | 0 (0%)/1 (2.0%)/49 (98.0%) | <0.001 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 94 (39.2%) | 200 (63.9%) | 37 (74.0%) | <0.001 |
| PV&SMV invasion | 34 (14.2%) | 81 (26.0%) | 20 (40.0%) | <0.001 |
| R status, R0/R1 resection | 216 (90.0%)/24 (10.0%) | 272 (86.9%)/41 (13.1%) | 44 (88.0%)/6 (12.0%) | 0.53 |
| pStage, IA&B/IIA/IIB | 52 (21.7%)/92 (38.3%)/96 (40.0%) | 13 (4.2%)/100 (32.0%)/200 (63.9%) | 1 (2.0%)/12 (24.0%)/37 (74.0%) | <0.001 |
| Postoperative factors | ||||
| Major complications (≥grade 3) | 59 (24.6%) | 64 (20.5%) | 12 (24.0%) | 0.49 |
| Pancreatic fistula (≥grade B) | 55 (22.9%) | 54 (17.3%) | 5 (10.0%) | 0.05 |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | 172 (71.7%) | 244 (78.0%) | 36 (72.0%) | 0.21 |
| Recurrence | 115(47.9%) | 224 (71.6%) | 42 (84.0%) | <0.001 |
Values are reported as n (%) or median (interquartile range). CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; ALB, albumin; mGPS, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score; PV&SMV, portal and superior mesenteric veins; PD, pancreatoduodenectomy; DP, distal pancreatectomy; TP, total pancreatectomy.
Table 4.
A summary of studies reporting nomograms for predicting survival after surgery.
| Authors | Year | Study Design | Sample Size | Outcomes | Parameters | C-Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brennan et al. [25] | 2004 | Single-center, resected PDAC | 555 | CSS | Age Sex Weight loss Back pain pT stage pN stage Tumor size Differentiation Tumor location Margin status Splenectomy Portal vein resection | 0.64 |
| Attiyeh et al. [26] | 2018 | Single-center, resected PDAC | 161: Training (n = 113) Testing (n = 48) | OS | Model A CA 19-9 Image features Model B CA 19-9 Image features Brennan score | Model A 0.68 Model B 0.73 |
| He et al. [27] | 2018 | SEER database, resected pancreatic head cancer | 2374: Training (n = 1780) Validation (n = 594) | OS CSS | Age Tumor size Differentiation Lymph node ratio M factor | 0.64 (OS) 0.65 (CSS) |
| Li et al. [28] | 2020 | SEER database, resected PDAC | 6323: Training (n = 3700) Validation (n = 1312) Prospective test (n = 1311) | OS CSS | Age Sex pT stage pN stage M stage Marital status Differentiation Tumor size Lymph node count Lymph node ratio | 0.64 (OS) 0.64 (CSS) |
| Ren et al. [9] | 2020 | Single-center, resected PDAC | 368: Training (n = 258) Validation (n = 110) | OS | CA19-9 pT stage pN stage Differentiation Capsule invasion Neutrophil percentage Transfusion Adjuvant therapy | 0.77 (5-year OS) |
| Peng et al. [29] | 2021 | Single-center, resected pancreatic head cancer | 307: Training (n = 307) External validation (n = 159) | OS | Age CA 19-9 Tongji classification pT stage pN stage Differentiation Adjuvant chemotherapy | 0.79 |
| Zou et al. [30] | 2021 | SEER database, resected pancreatic head cancer | 6419: Training (n = 4495) Validation (n = 1924) | OS | pT stage pN stage Differentiation Adjuvant radiotherapy Adjuvant chemotherapy | 0.68 |
| Zhuang et al. [8] | 2021 | Single-center, resected pancreatic head cancer | 112 | OS | Age CA19-9 Total bilirubin pAJCC stage 8th Perineural invasion | 0.73 |
| Yoon et al. [7] | 2022 | Multicenter, resected PDAC | 885 | OS | Age Underlying liver disease Chronic kidney disease Preoperative portal vein invasion Portal vein resection Blood loss Tumor size Differentiation Lymph node metastasis Tumor necrosis | NA |
| Our study | 2025 | Multicenter, resectable PDAC | 603 | OS | Tumor size Tumor contact with the PV&SMV of ≤180° CA 19-9 mGPS | 0.63 |
PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; CSS, cancer-specific survival; OS, overall survival; CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; NA, not available; PV&SMV, portal and superior mesenteric veins; mGPS, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Takagi, K.; Yoshida, R.; Yasui, K.; Hioki, M.; Okabayashi, T.; Kojima, T.; Endo, Y.; Nobuoka, D.; Sui, K.; Inagaki, M.; et al. Prognosis Prediction Model After Upfront Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study (OS-HBP-2). Cancers 2025, 17, 3694. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223694
AMA Style
Takagi K, Yoshida R, Yasui K, Hioki M, Okabayashi T, Kojima T, Endo Y, Nobuoka D, Sui K, Inagaki M, et al. Prognosis Prediction Model After Upfront Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study (OS-HBP-2). Cancers. 2025; 17(22):3694. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223694
Chicago/Turabian StyleTakagi, Kosei, Ryuichi Yoshida, Kazuya Yasui, Masayoshi Hioki, Takehiro Okabayashi, Toru Kojima, Yoshikatsu Endo, Daisuke Nobuoka, Kenta Sui, Masaru Inagaki, and et al. 2025. "Prognosis Prediction Model After Upfront Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study (OS-HBP-2)" Cancers 17, no. 22: 3694. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223694
APA StyleTakagi, K., Yoshida, R., Yasui, K., Hioki, M., Okabayashi, T., Kojima, T., Endo, Y., Nobuoka, D., Sui, K., Inagaki, M., Shinoura, S., Kimura, M., Matsuda, T., Aoki, H., & Fujiwara, T. (2025). Prognosis Prediction Model After Upfront Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study (OS-HBP-2). Cancers, 17(22), 3694. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17223694
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
