Purpose: In pancreatic cancer, therapeutic investigations targeting liver metastases could improve survival. However, the use of local treatment for oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncological role of local therapy in patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy and subsequently developed liver metastases. Materials and Methods: Data concerning patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We included patients with one or two liver metastases, as confirmed on imaging. We excluded those with metastases in other organs. The patients were divided into two groups: the NT group, receiving conventional therapy without local treatment; and the LT group, receiving local treatments for liver metastases alongside standard therapy. Results: Of the 43 included patients (NT group, n=33; LT group, n=10), no significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.846; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.397–1.804; p=0.665] or post-recurrence survival (HR 0.932; 95% CI 0.437–1.985, p=0.855) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, early recurrence within 6 months (p<0.001) and the use of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) (p=0.011), as well as 5-FU-based CTx after liver metastasis (p=0.008) when compared with gemcitabine-based regimens, were significant predictors of poor OS. Conclusion The oncologic role of local treatment for hepatic metastasis remains controversial in patients with hepatic metastasis after radical pancreatectomy. In the era of potent chemotherapeutic regimens, further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such regimens.

Purpose: In pancreatic cancer, therapeutic investigations targeting liver metastases could improve survival. However, the use of local treatment for oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncological role of local therapy in patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy and subsequently developed liver metastases. Materials and Methods: Data concerning patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We included patients with one or two liver metastases, as confirmed on imaging. We excluded those with metastases in other organs. The patients were divided into two groups: the NT group, receiving conventional therapy without local treatment; and the LT group, receiving local treatments for liver metastases alongside standard therapy. Results: Of the 43 included patients (NT group, n=33; LT group, n=10), no significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.846; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.397–1.804; p=0.665] or post-recurrence survival (HR 0.932; 95% CI 0.437–1.985, p=0.855) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, early recurrence within 6 months (p<0.001) and the use of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) (p=0.011), as well as 5-FU-based CTx after liver metastasis (p=0.008) when compared with gemcitabine-based regimens, were significant predictors of poor OS. Conclusion The oncologic role of local treatment for hepatic metastasis remains controversial in patients with hepatic metastasis after radical pancreatectomy. In the era of potent chemotherapeutic regimens, further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such regimens.

Purpose: In pancreatic cancer, therapeutic investigations targeting liver metastases could improve survival. However, the use of local treatment for oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncological role of local therapy in patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy and subsequently developed liver metastases. Materials and Methods: Data concerning patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We included patients with one or two liver metastases, as confirmed on imaging. We excluded those with metastases in other organs. The patients were divided into two groups: the NT group, receiving conventional therapy without local treatment; and the LT group, receiving local treatments for liver metastases alongside standard therapy. Results: Of the 43 included patients (NT group, n=33; LT group, n=10), no significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.846; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.397–1.804; p=0.665] or post-recurrence survival (HR 0.932; 95% CI 0.437–1.985, p=0.855) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, early recurrence within 6 months (p<0.001) and the use of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) (p=0.011), as well as 5-FU-based CTx after liver metastasis (p=0.008) when compared with gemcitabine-based regimens, were significant predictors of poor OS. Conclusion The oncologic role of local treatment for hepatic metastasis remains controversial in patients with hepatic metastasis after radical pancreatectomy. In the era of potent chemotherapeutic regimens, further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such regimens.

Purpose: In pancreatic cancer, therapeutic investigations targeting liver metastases could improve survival. However, the use of local treatment for oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncological role of local therapy in patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy and subsequently developed liver metastases. Materials and Methods: Data concerning patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We included patients with one or two liver metastases, as confirmed on imaging. We excluded those with metastases in other organs. The patients were divided into two groups: the NT group, receiving conventional therapy without local treatment; and the LT group, receiving local treatments for liver metastases alongside standard therapy. Results: Of the 43 included patients (NT group, n=33; LT group, n=10), no significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.846; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.397–1.804; p=0.665] or post-recurrence survival (HR 0.932; 95% CI 0.437–1.985, p=0.855) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, early recurrence within 6 months (p<0.001) and the use of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) (p=0.011), as well as 5-FU-based CTx after liver metastasis (p=0.008) when compared with gemcitabine-based regimens, were significant predictors of poor OS. Conclusion The oncologic role of local treatment for hepatic metastasis remains controversial in patients with hepatic metastasis after radical pancreatectomy. In the era of potent chemotherapeutic regimens, further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such regimens.

Purpose: In pancreatic cancer, therapeutic investigations targeting liver metastases could improve survival. However, the use of local treatment for oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncological role of local therapy in patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy and subsequently developed liver metastases. Materials and Methods: Data concerning patients who underwent curative pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We included patients with one or two liver metastases, as confirmed on imaging. We excluded those with metastases in other organs. The patients were divided into two groups: the NT group, receiving conventional therapy without local treatment; and the LT group, receiving local treatments for liver metastases alongside standard therapy. Results: Of the 43 included patients (NT group, n=33; LT group, n=10), no significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.846; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.397–1.804; p=0.665] or post-recurrence survival (HR 0.932; 95% CI 0.437–1.985, p=0.855) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, early recurrence within 6 months (p<0.001) and the use of 5-fluorouracil (FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) (p=0.011), as well as 5-FU-based CTx after liver metastasis (p=0.008) when compared with gemcitabine-based regimens, were significant predictors of poor OS. Conclusion The oncologic role of local treatment for hepatic metastasis remains controversial in patients with hepatic metastasis after radical pancreatectomy. In the era of potent chemotherapeutic regimens, further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such regimens.

Background: Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated. Methods: From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y 12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3–5. Results: A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39–2.78).The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group,P <0.01, 95% CI 2.51–3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group. Conclusion LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028