Search

The necessity of the staging laparoscopy in patients with pancreatic cancer is still debated. The objective of this study was to assess the yield of staging laparoscopy for detecting occult metastases in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. This was a post-hoc analysis of the randomized controlled PREOPANC trial in which patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomized between preoperative chemoradiotherapy or immediate surgery. Patients assigned to preoperative treatment underwent a staging laparoscopy prior to preoperative treatment according to protocol, to avoid unnecessary chemoradiotherapy in patients with occult metastatic disease. Of the 246 included patients, 7 did not undergo surgery. A staging laparoscopy was performed in 133 patients (55.6%) and explorative laparotomy in 106 patients (44.4%). At staging laparoscopy, occult metastases were detected in 13 patients (9.8%); 12 liver metastases and 1 peritoneal metastasis. At direct explorative laparotomy, occult metastases were found in 9 patients (8.5%); 6 with liver metastases, 1 with peritoneal metastases, and 2 with metastases at multiple sites. One patient had peritoneal metastases at exploration after a negative staging laparoscopy. Patients with occult metastases were more likely to receive palliative chemotherapy if found with staging laparoscopy compared to laparotomy (76.9% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.040). Staging laparoscopy detected occult metastases in about 10% of patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. These patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic chemotherapy compared to patients in whom occult metastases were detected with laparotomy. A staging laparoscopy is recommended before planned resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver surgery in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is associated with high postoperative morbidity because the tumor typically causes biliary obstruction. Preoperative biliary drainage is used to create a safer environment prior to liver surgery, but biliary drainage may be harmful when severe drainage-related complications deteriorate the patients' condition or increase the risk of postoperative morbidity. Biliary drainage can cause cholangitis/cholecystitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, portal vein thrombosis, bowel wall perforation, or dehydration. Two methods of preoperative biliary drainage are mostly applied: endoscopic biliary drainage, which is currently used in most regional centers before referring patients for surgical treatment, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Both methods are associated with severe drainage-related complications, but two small retrospective series found a lower incidence in the number of preoperative complications after percutaneous drainage compared to endoscopic drainage (18-25% versus 38-60%, respectively). The present study randomizes patients with potentially resectable PHC and biliary obstruction between preoperative endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Methods/Design: The study is a multi-center trial with an "all-comers" design, randomizing patients between endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. All patients selected to potentially undergo a major liver resection for presumed PHC are eligible for inclusion in the study provided that the biliary system in the future liver remnant is obstructed (even if they underwent previous inadequate endoscopic drainage). Primary outcome measure is the total number of severe preoperative complications between randomization and exploratory laparotomy. The study is designed to detect superiority of percutaneous drainage: a provisional sample size of 106 patients is required to detect a relative decrease of 50% in the number of severe preoperative complications (alpha = 0.95; beta = 0.8). Interim analysis after inclusion of 53 patients (50%) will provide the definitive sample size. Secondary outcome measures encompass the success of biliary drainage, quality of life, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Discussion: The DRAINAGE trial is designed to identify a difference in the number of severe drainage-related complications after endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients selected to undergo a major liver resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register [NTR4243, 11 October 2013]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has increased, necessitating histopathologic confirmation of cancer. This study evaluates the performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition (TA) procedures for borderline resectable and resectable PDAC. Pathology reports of patients included in two nationwide randomized controlled trials (PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2) were reviewed. The primary outcome was sensitivity for malignancy (SFM), considering both "suspicious for" and "malignant" as positive. Secondary outcomes were rate of adequate sampling (RAS) and diagnoses other than PDAC. Overall, 892 endoscopic procedures were performed in 617 patients, including endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided TA in 550 (89.1%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided brush cytology in 188 (30.5%), and periampullary biopsies in 61 patients (9.9%). The SFM was 85.2% for EUS, 88.2% for repeat EUS, 52.7% for ERCP, and 37.7% for periampullary biopsies. The RAS ranged 94–100%. Diagnoses other than PDAC were other periampullary cancers in 24 (5.4%), premalignant disease in five (1.1%), and pancreatitis in three patients (0.7%). EUS-guided TA of patients with borderline resectable and resectable PDAC included in RCTs had an SFM above 85% for both first and repeat procedures, meeting international standards. Two percent had false positive result for malignancy and 5% had other (non-PDAC) periampullary cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abdominal infections account for substantial morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy. Contaminated bile is the presumed main risk factor, and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis might prevent these complications. This study compared organ/space infection (OSIs) rates in patients receiving perioperative versus prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy. Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in two Dutch centers between 2016 and 2019 were included. Perioperative prophylaxis was compared prolonged prophylaxis (cefuroxime and metronidazole for five days). The primary outcome was an isolated OSI: an abdominal infection without concurrent anastomotic leakage. Odds ratios (OR) were adjusted for surgical approach and pancreatic duct diameter. OSIs occurred in 137 out of 362 patients (37.8%): 93 patients with perioperative and 44 patients with prolonged prophylaxis (42.5% versus 30.8%, P = 0.025). Isolated OSIs occurred in 38 patients (10.5%): 28 patients with perioperative and 10 patients with prolonged prophylaxis (12.8% versus 7.0%, P = 0.079). Bile cultures were obtained in 198 patients (54.7%). Patients with positive bile cultures showed higher isolated OSI rates with perioperative compared to prolonged prophylaxis (18.2% versus 6.6%, OR 5.7, 95% CI: 1.3–23.9). Prolonged antibiotics after pancreatoduodenectomy are associated with fewer isolated OSIs in patients with contaminated bile and warrant confirmation in a randomised controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT0578431). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: Upper gastrointestinal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. The multidimensional problems of incurable patients require close monitoring and frequent support, which cannot sufficiently be provided during conventional one to two month follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic. Objectives: To compare nurse-led follow-up at home with conventional medical follow-up in the outpatient clinic for patients with incurable primary or recurrent esophageal, pancreatic, or hepatobiliary cancer. Methods: Patients were randomized to nurse-led follow-up at home or conventional medical follow-up in the outpatient clinic. Outcome parameters were quality of life (QoL), patient satisfaction, and health care consumption, measured by different questionnaires at one and a half and four months after randomization. As well, cost analyses were done for both follow-up strategies in the first four months. Results: In total, 138 patients were randomized, of which 66 (48%) were evaluable. At baseline, both groups were similar with respect to clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and health-related QoL. Patients in the nurse-led follow-up group were significantly more satisfied with the visits, whereas QoL and health care consumption within the first four months were comparable between the two groups. Nurse-led follow-up was less expensive than conventional medical follow-up. However, the total costs for the first four months of follow-up in this study were higher in the nurse-led follow-up group because of a higher frequency of visits. Conclusion: The results suggest that conventional medical follow-up is interchangeable with nurse-led follow-up. A cost utility study is necessary to determine the preferred frequency and duration of the home visits. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve survival compared with upfront surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but high-quality evidence is lacking. We systematically searched for randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer published since database inception until December 2020. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat with subgroup analyses for resectability status. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Seven trials with 938 patients were included. All trials included a neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemo(radio)therapy arm. None of the studies used adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.85; P = 0.001; I 2 = 46%) compared with upfront surgery. This represents an increase in median OS from 19 to 29 months. In the subgroup of resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e., venous contact ≤180°, no arterial contact), no statistically significant difference in OS was observed (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53–1.12; P = 0.18; I 2 = 20%). In the subgroup of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e. venous contact >180°, any arterial contact), neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85; P = 0.004; I 2 = 59%). The GRADE certainty of evidence was high for the outcome of OS. Neoadjuvant therapy improves OS compared with upfront surgery in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. More evidence is required on whether neoadjuvant therapy improves survival for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. • Neoadjuvant therapy was superior for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. • For patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, no difference was demonstrated. • More evidence is required for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. • A limitation of the study is the use of gemcitabine-based adjuvant regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]