Search

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal., Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients)., Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score)., Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

Importance: Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data., Objective: To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers., Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022., Exposures: The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers., Main Outcomes and Measures: The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C., Results: From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated., Conclusion and Relevance: In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

Importance: Glucose control in patients after total pancreatectomy is problematic because of the complete absence of α- and β-cells, leading to impaired quality of life. A novel, bihormonal artificial pancreas (BIHAP), using both insulin and glucagon, may improve glucose control, but studies in this setting are lacking., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of the BIHAP in patients after total pancreatectomy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized crossover clinical trial compared the fully closed-loop BIHAP with current diabetes care (ie, insulin pump or pen therapy) in 12 adult outpatients after total pancreatectomy. Patients were recruited between August 21 and November 16, 2020. This first-in-patient study began with a feasibility phase in 2 patients. Subsequently, 12 patients were randomly assigned to 7-day treatment with the BIHAP (preceded by a 5-day training period) followed by 7-day treatment with current diabetes care, or the same treatments in reverse order. Statistical analysis was by Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests, with significance set at a 2-sided P < .05., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent in euglycemia (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring., Results: In total, 12 patients (7 men and 3 women; median [IQR] age, 62.5 [43.1-74.0] years) were randomly assigned, of whom 3 did not complete the BIHAP phase and 1 was replaced. The time spent in euglycemia was significantly higher during treatment with the BIHAP (median, 78.30%; IQR, 71.05%-82.61%) than current diabetes care (median, 57.38%; IQR, 52.38%-81.35%; P = .03). In addition, the time spent in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]) was lower with the BIHAP (median, 0.00% [IQR, 0.00%-0.07%] vs 1.61% [IQR, 0.80%-3.81%]; P = .004). No serious adverse events occurred., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients using the BIHAP after total pancreatectomy experienced an increased percentage of time in euglycemia and a reduced percentage of time in hypoglycemia compared with current diabetes care, without apparent safety risks. Larger randomized trials, including longer periods of treatment and an assessment of quality of life, should confirm these findings., Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NL8871.