Search

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To establish an evidence-based cutoff and predictors for early recurrence in patients with resected locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). BACKGROUND: It is unclear how many and which patients develop early recurrence after LAPC resection. Surgery in these patients is probably of little benefit. METHODS: We analyzed all consecutive patients undergoing resection of LAPC after induction chemotherapy who were included in prospective databases in The Netherlands (2015-2019) and the Johns Hopkins Hospital (2016-2018). The optimal definition for "early recurrence" was determined by the post-recurrence survival (PRS). Patients were compared for overall survival (OS). Predictors for early recurrence were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 168 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 28 months, recurrence was observed in 118 patients (70.2%). The optimal cutoff for recurrence-free survival to differentiate between early (n=52) and late recurrence (n=66) was 6 months ( P

Background The recently identified classical and basal-like molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer impact on overall survival (OS). However, the added value of routine subtyping in both clinical practice and randomized trials is still unclear, as most studies do not consider clinicopathological parameters. This study examined the clinical prognostic value of molecular subtyping in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Methods Subtypes were determined on fresh-frozen resected pancreatic cancer samples from three Dutch centres using the Purity Independent Subtyping of Tumours classification. Patient, treatment, and histopathological variables were compared between subtypes. The prognostic value of subtyping in (simulated) pre- and postoperative settings was assessed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results Of 199 patients with resected pancreatic cancer, 164 (82.4 per cent) were classified as the classical and 35 (17.6 per cent) as the basal-like subtype. Patients with a basal-like subtype had worse OS (11 versus 16 months (HR 1.49, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 2.15; P = 0.035)) than patients with a classical subtype. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, including only clinical variables, the basal-like subtype was a statistically significant predictor for poor OS (HR 1.61, 95 per cent c.i. 1.11 to 2.34; P = 0.013). When histopathological variables were added to this model, the prognostic value of subtyping decreased (HR 1.49, 95 per cent c.i. 1.01 to 2.19; P = 0.045). Conclusion The basal-like subtype was associated with worse OS in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Adding molecular classification to inform on tumor biology may be used in patient stratification.

Background The prognostic value of four proposed modifications to the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system has yet to be evaluated. This study aimed to validate five proposed modifications. Methods Patients who underwent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resection (2014–2016), as registered in the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, were included. Stratification and prognostication of TNM staging systems were assessed using Kaplan–Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard analyses, and C-indices. A new modification was composed based on overall survival (OS). Results Overall, 750 patients with a median OS of 18 months (interquartile range 10–32) were included. The 8th edition had an increased discriminative ability compared with the 7th edition {C-index 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.61) vs. 0.56 (95% CI 0.54–0.58)}. Although the 8th edition showed a stepwise decrease in OS with increasing stage, no differences could be demonstrated between all substages; stage IIA vs. IB (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% CI 0.80–2.09; p = 0.29) and stage IIB vs. IIA (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75–1.83; p = 0.48). The four modifications showed comparable prognostic accuracy (C-index 0.59–0.60); however, OS did not differ between all modified TNM stages (ns). The new modification, migrating T3N1 patients to stage III, showed a C-index of 0.59, but did detect significant survival differences between all TNM stages (p Conclusions The 8th TNM staging system still lacks prognostic value for some categories of patients, which was not clearly improved by four previously proposed modifications. The modification suggested in this study allows for better prognostication in patients with all stages of disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the accrual proportion and patients' reasons for not participating in the PREOPANC trial on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy vs. immediate surgery in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and to compare these patients' outcomes with those of patients who had been randomized in the trial.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The external validity of multicenter randomized trials in cancer treatment has been criticized for suboptimal non-representative inclusion. In trials, it is unclear how outcomes compare between randomized and non-randomized patients.METHODS: At eight of 16 participant centers, this multicenter observational study identified validation patients, who had been eligible but not randomized during recruitment for the PREOPANC trial. We assessed the accrual proportion, investigated their most common reasons for not participating in the trial, and compared resection rates, radical (R0) resection rates and overall survival (OS) between the validation patients and PREOPANC patients, who had been randomized in the trial to immediate surgery.RESULTS: In total, 455 patients had been eligible during the recruitment period, 151 of whom (33%) had been randomized. Fifty-five percent of the 304 validation patients had refused to participate. Median OS in the validation group was 15.2 months, against 15.5 months in the PREOPANC group (p = 1.00). The respective resection rates (76% vs. 73%) and R0 resection rates (51% vs. 46%) did not differ between the groups.CONCLUSIONS: The PREOPANC trial included a reasonable percentage of 33% of eligible patients. In terms of the outcomes survival, resection rate, and R0 resection rate, this appeared to be a representative group.

Background Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. Methods This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). Results A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). Conclusion In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.Of 1311 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, 17 per cent underwent venous wedge resection and 10 per cent underwent venous segmental resection. Venous segmental, but not venous wedge, resection was associated with higher major morbidity rates (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to no venous resection. This nationwide study found worse short- and long-term outcomes in patients who had venous segmental resection. The results of this study urge the need for improving outcomes in patients who require venous segmental resection.

Background: Data regarding long-term quality of life and exocrine and endocrine insufficiency after pancreatic surgery for premalignant and benign (non-pancreatitis) disease are lacking. Methods: This cross-sectional study included patients ≥3 years after pancreatoduodenectomy or left pancreatectomy in six Dutch centers (2006–2016). Outcomes were measured with the EQ-5D-5L, the EORTC QLQ-C30, an exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency questionnaire, and PAID20. Results: Questionnaires were completed by 153/183 patients (response rate 84%, median follow-up 6.3 years). Surgery related complaints were reported by 72/153 patients (47%) and 13 patients (8.4%) would not undergo this procedure again. The VAS (EQ-5D-5L) was 76 ± 17 versus 82 ± 0.4 in the general population (p < 0.001). The mean global health status (QLQ-C30) was 78 ± 17 versus 78 ± 17, p = 1.000. Fatigue, insomnia, and diarrhea were clinically relevantly worse in patients. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency was reported by 62 patients (41%) with relieve of symptoms by enzyme supplementation in 48%. New-onset diabetes mellitus was present in 22 patients (14%). The median PAID20 score was 6.9/20 (IQR 2.5–17.8). Conclusion: Although generic quality of life after pancreatic resection for pre-malignant and benign disease was similar to the general population and diabetes-related distress was low, almost half suffered from a range of symptoms highlighting the need for long-term counseling.

Background Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005–2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P = 0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P = 0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel–Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84). Conclusion Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Background. Surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma could differ from pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers, but large multicenter series are lacking. This study aimed to determine surgical outcome in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma, compared with other periampullary cancers, in a nationwide multicenter cohort. Methods. After pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer between 2014 and 2019, consecutive patients were included from the nationwide, mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Patients were stratified by diagnosis. Baseline, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcome were compared between groups. The association between diagnosis and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher) was assessed via multivariable regression analysis. Results. Overall, 3113 patients, after pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer, were included in this study: 264 (8.5%) patients with duodenal adenocarcinomas and 2849 (91.5%) with other cancers. After pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma, patients had higher rates of major complications (42.8% vs. 28.6%; p < 0.001), postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery [ISGPS] grade B/C; 23.1% vs. 13.4%; p < 0.001), complication-related intensive care admission (14.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.046), re-interventions (39.8% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.001), in-hospital mortality (5.7% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.025), and longer hospital stay (15 days vs. 11 days; p < 0.001) compared with pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers. In multivariable analysis, duodenal adenocarcinoma was independently associated with major complications (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.27; p = 0.011). Conclusion. Pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma is associated with higher rates of major complications, pancreatic fistula, re-interventions, and in-hospital mortality compared with patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers. These findings should be considered in patient counseling and postoperative management.

Background: Guidelines recommend against preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with pancreatic head cancer if bilirubin levels are = 250 and < 250.Methods: Patients were identified from databases of 3 centers. Outcomes were compared in patients with a bilirubin level >= 250 versus = 250. PBD technical success (83% vs. 81%, p = 0.80) and PBD related complications (33% vs. 29%, p = 0.60) did not differ between these groups. Analyzing bilirubin levels >= 250 versus = 250 and < 250. Our study does not support a different approach regarding PBD in patients with severe jaundice.

Background: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure.The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.Methods/design: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.Discussion: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

Introduction: First, this study aimed to assess the prognostic value of different definitions for resection margin status on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Second, preoperative predictors of direct margin involvement were identified.Materials and methods: This nationwide observational cohort study included all patients who underwent upfront PDAC resection (2014-2016), as registered in the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Patients were subdivided into three groups: R0 (>= 1 mm margin clearance), R1 (= 1 mm) was achieved in 277 patients (47%), R1 (= 1 mm) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 [95% and confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.70); P < 0.01) and R1 (= 1 mm) and R1 (1 mm. Given that any vascular tumour involvement on preoperative imaging was associated with an increased risk of R1 (direct) resection with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy might be considered in these patients. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background Conditional survival is the survival probability after already surviving a predefined time period. This may be informative during follow-up, especially when adjusted for tumor characteristics. Such prediction models for patients with resected pancreatic cancer are lacking and therefore conditional survival was assessed and a nomogram predicting 5-year survival at a predefined period after resection of pancreatic cancer was developed. Methods This population-based study included patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2005–2016). Conditional survival was calculated as the median, and the probability of surviving up to 8 years in patients who already survived 0–5 years after resection was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. A prediction model was constructed. Results Overall, 3082 patients were included, with a median age of 67 years. Median overall survival was 18 months (95% confidence interval 17–18 months), with a 5-year survival of 15%. The 1-year conditional survival (i.e. probability of surviving the next year) increased from 55 to 74 to 86% at 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery, respectively, while the median overall survival increased from 15 to 40 to 64 months at 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery, respectively. The prediction model demonstrated that the probability of achieving 5-year survival at 1 year after surgery varied from 1 to 58% depending on patient and tumor characteristics. Conclusions This population-based study showed that 1-year conditional survival was 55% 1 year after resection and 74% 3 years after resection in patients with pancreatic cancer. The prediction model is available via www.pancreascalculator.com to inform patients and caregivers.

Purpose It is plausible that patients with pancreatic cancer experience fear of tumor recurrence or progression (FOP). The aim of this study was to compare FOP in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with surgical resection, palliative systemic treatment, or best supportive care (BSC) and analyze the association between quality of life (QoL) and FOP and the effect of FOP on overall survival (OS). Methods This study included patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2015 and 2018, who participated in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP). The association between QoL and WOPS was assessed with logistic regression analyses. OS was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with the log-rank tests and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusted for clinical covariates and QoL. Results Of 315 included patients, 111 patients underwent surgical resection, 138 received palliative systemic treatment, and 66 received BSC. Patients who underwent surgical resection had significantly lower WOPS scores (i.e., less FOP) at initial diagnosis compared to patients who received palliative systemic treatment or BSC only (P < 0.001). Better QoL was independently associated with the probability of having a low FOP in the BSC (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.98) but not in the surgical resection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.01) and palliative systemic treatment groups (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00). The baseline WOPS score was not independently associated with OS in any of the subgroups. Conclusion Given the distress that FOP evokes, FOP should be explicitly addressed by health care providers when guiding pancreatic cancer patients through their treatment trajectory, especially those receiving palliative treatment or BSC.

Contains fulltext : 251552.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify predictors for early and very early disease recurrence in patients undergoing resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) resection with and without neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Included were patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Multivariable multinomial regression was performed to identify preoperative predictors for manifestation of recurrence within 3, 6 and 12 months after PDAC resection. RESULTS: 836 patients with a median follow-up of 37 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-48) months and overall survival of 18 (IQR 10-32) months were analyzed. 670 patients (80%) developed recurrence: 82 patients (10%)

Introduction: Whereas neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in pancreatic cancer, it is currently not recommended for other periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancers. This has important implications for the relevance of the preoperative diagnosis for pancreatoduodenectomy. This retrospective multicentre cohort study aimed to determine the frequency of clinically relevant misdiagnoses in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or other periampullary cancer. Methods: Data from all consecutive patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The preoperative diagnosis as concluded by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was compared with the final postoperative diagnosis at pathology to determine the rate of clinically relevant misdiagnosis (defined as missed pancreatic cancer or incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer). Results: In total, 1244 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy of whom 203 (16%) had a clinically relevant misdiagnosis preoperatively. Of all patients with a final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 13% (87/ 679) were preoperatively misdiagnosed as distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41, 6.0%), ampullary cancer (n = 27, 4.0%) duodenal cancer (n = 16, 2.4%), or other (n = 3, 0.4%). Of all patients with a final diagnosis of periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancer, 21% (116/565) were preoperatively incorrectly diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Accuracy of preoperative diagnosis was 84% for pancreatic cancer, 71% for distal cholangiocarcinoma, 73% for ampullary cancer and 73% for duodenal cancer. A prediction model for the preoperative likelihood of pancreatic cancer (versus other periampullary cancer) prior to pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated an AUC of 0.88. Discussion: This retrospective multicentre cohort study showed that 16% of patients have a clinically relevant misdiagnosis that could result in either missing the opportunity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer or inappropriate administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer. A preoperative prediction model is available on www.pancreascalculator.com. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Contains fulltext : 226028.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: The relation between type of postoperative complication and not receiving chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unclear. The aim was to investigate which patient factors and postoperative complications were associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection (2014-2017) for PDAC were identified from the nationwide mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The association between patient-, tumor-, center-, treatment characteristics, and the risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, of 1306 patients, 24% (n = 312) developed postoperative Clavien Dindo ≥3 complications. In-hospital mortality was 3.5% (n = 46). Some 433 patients (33%) did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Independent predictors (all p

Contains fulltext : 226022.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome (TO) is a multidimensional measure for quality assurance, reflecting the "ideal" surgical outcome. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) for all indications between 2014 and 2017, queried from the nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. An international survey was conducted among 24 experts from 10 countries to reach consensus on the requirements for TO in pancreatic surgery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify TO predictors. Between-hospital variation in TO rates was compared using observed-versus-expected rates. RESULTS: Based on the survey (92% response rate), TO was defined by the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (all ISGPS grade B/C), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III), readmission, and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 3341 patients were included (2633 (79%) PD and 708 (21%) DP) of whom 60.3% achieved TO; 58.3% for PD and 67.4% for DP. On multivariable analysis, ASA class 3 predicted a worse TO rate after PD (ASA 3 OR 0.59 [0.44-0.80]), whereas a dilated pancreatic duct (>3 mm) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were associated with a better TO rate (OR 2.22 [2.05-3.57] and OR 1.36 [1.14-1.63], respectively). For DP, female sex and the absence of neoadjuvant therapy predicted better TO rates (OR 1.38 [1.01-1.90] and OR 2.53 [1.20-5.31], respectively). When comparing institutions, the observed-versus-expected rate for achieving TO varied from 0.71 to 1.46 per hospital after casemix-adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: TO is a novel quality measure in pancreatic surgery. TO varies considerably between pancreatic centers, demonstrating the potential benefit of quality assurance programs.

Contains fulltext : 235659.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Guidelines advise self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) over plastic stents in preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. This study aims to assess nationwide practice and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic head and periampullary cancer who underwent EBD before pancreatoduodenectomy were included from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2017-2018). Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were performed. RESULTS: In total, 575/1056 patients (62.0%) underwent preoperative EBD: 246 SEMS (42.8%) and 329 plastic stents (57.2%). EBD-related complications were comparable between the groups (44/246 (17.9%) vs. 64/329 (19.5%), p = 0.607), including pancreatitis (22/246 (8.9%) vs. 25/329 (7.6%), p = 0.387). EBD-related cholangitis was reduced after SEMS placement (10/246 (4.1%) vs. 32/329 (9.7%), p = 0.043), which was confirmed in multivariable analysis (OR 0.36 95%CI 0.15-0.87, p = 0.023). Major postoperative complications did not differ (58/246 (23.6%) vs. 90/329 (27.4%), p = 0.316), whereas postoperative pancreatic fistula (24/246 (9.8%) vs. 61/329 (18.5%), p = 0.004; OR 0.50 95%CI 0.27-0.94, p = 0.031) and hospital stay (14.0 days vs. 17.4 days, p = 0.005; B 2.86 95%CI -5.16 to -0.57, p = 0.014) were less after SEMS placement. CONCLUSION: This study found that preoperative EBD frequently involved plastic stents. SEMS seemed associated with lower risks of cholangitis and less postoperative pancreatic fistula, but without an increased pancreatitis risk.

Background: The aim of this survey was to gain insights in the current surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with portal–superior mesenteric vein resection (VR). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify international expert surgeons (N = 150) and pathologists (N = 40) who published relevant studies between 2009 and 2019. These experts and Dutch surgeons (N = 17) and pathologists (N = 20) were approached to complete an online survey. Results: Overall, 76 (46%) surgeons and 37 (62%) pathologists completed the survey. Most surgeons (71%) estimated that preoperative imaging corresponded correctly with intraoperative findings of venous involvement in 50–75% of patients. An increased complication risk following VR was expected by 55% of surgeons, mainly after Type 4 (segmental resection-venous conduit anastomosis). Most surgeons (61%) preferred Type 3 (segmental resection-primary anastomosis). Most surgeons (75%) always perform the VR themselves. Standard postoperative imaging for patency control was performed by 54% of surgeons and 39% adjusted thromboprophylaxis following VR. Most pathologists (76%) always assessed tumor infiltration in the resected vein and only 54% of pathologists always assess the resection margins of the vein itself. Variation in assessment of tumor infiltration depth was observed. Conclusion: This international survey showed variation in the surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with venous involvement. This highlights the lack of evidence and emphasizes the need for research on imaging modalities to improve patient selection for VR, surgical techniques, postoperative management and standardization of the pathological assessment.

Background: Individuals with a very high lifetime risk of developing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; for example, hereditary pancreatitis and main-duct or mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, may wish to discuss prophylactic total pancreatectomy but strategies to do so are lacking. Objective: To develop a shared decision-making programme for prophylactic total pancreatectomy using decision tables. Methods: Focus group meetings with patients were used to identify relevant questions. Systematic reviews were performed to answer these questions. Results: The first tables included hereditary pancreatitis and main-duct or mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. No studies focused on prophylactic total pancreatectomy in these groups. In 52 studies (3570 patients), major morbidity after total pancreatectomy was 25% and 30-day mortality was 6%. After minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (seven studies, 35 patients) this was, respectively, 13% and 0%. Exocrine insufficiency-related symptoms occurred in 33%. Quality of life after total pancreatectomy was slightly lower compared with the general population. Conclusion: The decision tables can be helpful for discussing prophylactic total pancreatectomy with individuals at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background Pancreatic resection is a major abdominal operation with 50% risk of postoperative complications. A common complication is pancreatic fistula, which may have severe clinical consequences such as postoperative bleeding, organ failure and death. The objective of this study is to investigate whether implementation of an algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive management of pancreatic fistula may improve outcomes after pancreatic resection. Methods This is a nationwide stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, superiority trial, designed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. During a period of 22 months, all Dutch centers performing pancreatic surgery will cross over in a randomized order from current practice to best practice according to the algorithm. This evidence-based and consensus-based algorithm will provide daily multilevel advice on the management of patients after pancreatic resection (i.e. indication for abdominal imaging, antibiotic treatment, percutaneous drainage and removal of abdominal drains). The algorithm is designed to aid early detection and minimally invasive step-up management of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Outcomes of current practice will be compared with outcomes after implementation of the algorithm. The primary outcome is a composite of major complications (i.e. post-pancreatectomy bleeding, new-onset organ failure and death) and will be measured in a sample size of at least 1600 patients undergoing pancreatic resection. Secondary endpoints include the individual components of the primary endpoint and other clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization and costs analysis. Follow up will be up to 90 days after pancreatic resection. Discussion It is hypothesized that a structured nationwide implementation of a dedicated algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive step-up management of postoperative pancreatic fistula will reduce the risk of major complications and death after pancreatic resection, as compared to current practice. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register: NL 6671. Registered on 16 December 2017.

Contains fulltext : 190038.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Background: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients.Material and methods: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future.Results: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing.Conclusion: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting. 8 p.

OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop an alternative fistula risk score (a-FRS) for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy, without blood loss as a predictor.Background: Blood loss, one of the predictors of the original-FRS, was not a significant factor during 2 recent external validations.Methods: The a-FRS was developed in 2 databases: the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centers) and the University Hospital Southampton NHS. Primary outcome was grade B/C POPF according to the 2005 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. The score was externally validated in 2 independent databases (University Hospital of Verona and University Hospital of Pennsylvania), using both 2005 and 2016 ISGPS definitions. The a-FRS was also compared with the original-FRS.Results: For model design, 1924 patients were included of whom 12% developed POPE Three predictors were strongly associated with POPF: soft pancreatic texture [odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.80-3.69], small pancreatic duct diameter (per mm increase, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61-0.76), and high body mass index (BMI) (per kg/m(2) increase, OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). Discrimination was adequate with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78) after internal validation, and 0.78 (0.74-0.82) after external validation. The predictive capacity of a-FRS was comparable with the original-FRS, both for the 2005 definition (AUC 0.78 vs 0.75, P = 0.03), and 2016 definition (AUC 0.72 vs 0.70, P = 0.05).Conclusion: The a-FRS predicts POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy based on 3 easily available variables (pancreatic texture, duct diameter, BMI) without blood loss and pathology, and was successfully validated for both the 2005 and 2016 POPF definition. The online calculator is available at www.pancreascalculator.com .