Abstract
Introduction The optimal examined lymph node (ELN) count after resection for pancreatic body/tail ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is debated. We combined SEER-based survival modelling with a hypothesis-generating theoretical framework to identify ELN thresholds and how surgical approach influences attainability.
Method SEER (2000-2022) resected pancreatic body/tail PDAC cases were analysed (n=5 107). Thresholds were identified by log-rank grid search and segmented Cox changepoint analysis; multivariable Cox and overlap- and inverse-probability-weighted restricted mean survival time (RMST) analyses were performed.
Results Among 5 107 patients, ELN=12 was the optimal cut-point and ELN=21 the changepoint (95% CI 6.0-35.0). Each 5-node increase in ELN was associated with HR 0.964 (95% CI 0.949-0.980); overlap-weighted 60-month RMST gain for ELN>=21 was 2.60 months (95% CI 1.30-3.90). ELN>=21 attainment was 16.5% (DP), 40.0% (RAMPS), and 82.7% (n=9, retroperitoneal/posterior). Theoretical modeling estimated model ELN of 16, 21, and 27 for DP, RAMPS, and Mattox, with Monte Carlo P(ELN>=21) of 5.5%, 34.8%, and 92.9%. Quality-weighted risk reduction was 22.9% for Mattox versus 8.4% for RAMPS.
Conclusion ELN>=12 is a minimum quality benchmark, and approximately 21 a potential higher-yield target. Standard DP carries an accessibility gap for the higher target. Theoretical modeling suggests the Mattox maneuver [39] could bridge this gap, but this remains hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study used de-identified public SEER data and was exempt from institutional review board approval and individual informed consent according to the SEER data-use agreement.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This version revises the manuscript to reflect an independent end-to-end reproduction using officially re-extracted SEER 17 Registries data (Nov 2024 Sub, 2000-2022). The original dataset (SAR0120506) contained 43,012 records; after applying inclusion criteria (age ≥18, surgery codes 25-90, ELN 1-90/96, Surv>0, POS valid), the final cohort was 5,107 patients - matching our prior analysis. All key results were reproduced: median ELN 14 (IQR 8-21), death events 3,630 (71.1%), log-rank optimal cutoff at ELN=12 (P=5.30*10⁻11), piecewise-Cox change point at 21 (bootstrap 95% CI 6-35), multivariate HR per 5 ELN = 0.964 (0.949-0.980), and OW-RMST difference ≈2.60 months at 60 months (ELN≥12 vs <12). Row-level comparison showed zero substantive discrepancies; two minor mismatches were due to multi-primary cancer patient ID linkage errors, not data corruption. Four textual errors in the previous version were corrected without altering data, methods, or conclusions: (1) diagnosis year range updated from 2000-2020 to 2000-2022; (2) ELN IQR corrected from 8-19 to 8-21; (3) ICD-O-3 site code revised from C25.1-C25.3 to C25.1-C25.2 (no C25.3 cases); (4) SEER registry count corrected from 18 to 17 (reflecting Nov 2024 consolidation). A minor RMST point estimate difference (2.60 vs 2.56 mo) arose from slight variation in weighting covariates due to missing RX Summ fields in the streamlined official extract - this is within expected robustness bounds and does not affect clinical interpretation or primary findings. No new analyses, figures, or supplemental files were added. Only corrections to factual reporting and minor clarifications to align with independently verified outputs. The study's core claims - including ELN as an independent prognostic factor, optimal cutoff at 12, and survival benefit for high ELN groups - remain fully supported. This revision enhances transparency and reproducibility, directly addressing potential concerns about data integrity and methodological fidelity.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. The SEER database is publicly accessible via https://seer.cancer.gov/, and the analysis code is available at [GitHub link, if applicable].
Funder Information Declared
