Search

Abstract Background Disease recurrence remains one of the biggest concerns in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, most patients experience local and/or distant PDAC recurrence within 2 years. High-level evidence regarding the benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is missing, and the impact of early detection and treatment of recurrence on survival and quality of life is unknown. In most European countries, recurrence-focused follow-up after surgery for PDAC is currently lacking. Consequently, guidelines regarding postoperative surveillance are based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. The recent emergence of more potent local and systemic treatment options for PDAC recurrence has increased interest in early diagnosis. To determine whether early detection and treatment of recurrence can lead to improved survival and quality of life, we designed an international randomized trial. Methods This randomized controlled trial is nested within an existing prospective cohort in pancreatic cancer centers in the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) and the United Kingdom (UK) (Pancreas Cancer: Observations of Practice and survival; PACOPS) according to the “Trials within Cohorts” (TwiCs) design. All PACAP/PACOPS participants with a macroscopically radical resection (R0-R1) of histologically confirmed PDAC, who provided informed consent for TwiCs and participation in quality of life questionnaires, are included. Participants randomized to the intervention arm are offered recurrence-focused surveillance, existing of clinical evaluation, serum cancer antigen (CA) 19–9 testing, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of chest and abdomen every three months during the first 2 years after surgery. Participants in the control arm of the study will undergo non-standardized clinical follow-up, generally consisting of clinical follow-up with imaging and serum tumor marker testing only in case of onset of symptoms, according to local practice in the participating hospital. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include quality of life, patterns of recurrence, compliance to and costs of recurrence-focused follow-up, and the impact on recurrence-focused treatment. Discussion The RADAR-PANC trial will be the first randomized controlled trial to generate high level evidence for the current clinical equipoise regarding the value of recurrence-focused postoperative surveillance with serial tumor marker testing and routine imaging in patients after PDAC resection. The Trials within Cohort design allows us to study the acceptability of recurrence-focused surveillance among cohort participants and increases the generalizability of findings to the general population. While it is strongly encouraged to offer all trial participants treatment at time of recurrence diagnosis, type and timing of treatment will be determined through shared decision-making. This might reduce the potential survival benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance, although insights into the impact on patients’ quality of life will be obtained. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04875325 . Registered on May 6, 2021.

Background and Aims: For a highly selected group of patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), liver transplantation (LT) is a treatment option. The Dutch screening protocol comprises nonregional lymph node (LN) assessment by EUS, and whenever LN metastases are identified, further LT screening is precluded. The aim of this study is to investigate the yield of EUS in patients with pCCA who are potentially eligible for LT., Methods: In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, all consecutive patients with suspected unresectable pCCA who underwent EUS in the screening protocol for LT were included from 2011 to 2021. During EUS, sampling of a "suspicious" nonregional LN was performed based on the endoscopist's discretion. The primary outcome was the added value of EUS, defined as the number of patients who were precluded from further screening because of malignant LNs., Results: A total of 75 patients were included in whom 84 EUS procedures were performed, with EUS-guided tissue acquisition confirming malignancy in LNs in 3 of 75 (4%) patients. In the 43 who underwent surgical staging according to the protocol, nonregional LNs with malignancy were identified in 6 (14%) patients. Positive regional LNs were found in 7 patients in post-LT-resected specimens., Conclusions: Our current EUS screening for the detection of malignant LNs in patients with pCCA eligible for LT shows a limited but clinically important yield. EUS with systematic screening of all LN stations, both regional and nonregional, and the sampling of suspicious lymph nodes according to defined and set criteria could potentially increase this yield., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: M. J. Bruno: Research funding for industry-initiated studies from Boston Scientific and Cook Medical; research funding for investigator-initiated studies from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Pentax Medical, Interscope, Mylan, and 3M; and consultant for Boston Scientific, and Cook Medical. J. E. van Hooft: Lecture fee from Cook Medical, Boston Scientfic, Falk, and Abbvie. Consultant for Olympus. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The majority of cancer patients report malnutrition, with a significant impact on patient's outcome. This study aimed to compare how nutritional assessment is conducted across different surgical oncology sub-specialties., Methods: Survey modules were designed for breast, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), upper-gastrointestinal (UGI), sarcoma, peritoneal and surface malignancies (PSM) and colorectal cancer (CRC) surgeries to describe 4 domains: participants' setting, evaluation of clinical factors, use of screening tools and clinical practice. Results were compared among sub-specialties and according to human development index (HDI) in the largest cohorts., Results: Out of 457 answers from 377 global participants (62% European), 35.0% were from breast and 28.9% were from CRC surgeons. Although MDTs management is consistently reported (64-88%), the presence of a nutritionist/dietician ranges from 14.1% to 44.2%. Breast surgeons seldom evaluate albumin (25.6%) and weight loss (30.6%), opposite to HPB, PSM and UGI groups (>70%, p 0.044). Overall, responders declared that the use of screening tools is largely neglected, that nutritional status is often assessed by the surgeons and that nutrition is not consistently modified according to risk factors (range among groups respectively: 1.9%-25.6%, 33.1%-51.4%, 33.1%-60.5%). Less than 20% of breast surgeons assess patients before/after surgery, comparing to >60% of PSM surgeons. However, no statistical differences were documented comparing groups for the majority of the items of the 4 domains. Nutritional evaluation is more often conducted by breast surgeons in medium/low HDI countries comparing very high/high HDI (p 0.04)., Conclusions: Nutritional assessment is largely neglected. These results identify target-issues for the implementation of clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors has any potential financial conflict of interest related to this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare in Western populations and data about treatment and outcomes are scarce. This study aims to analyze survival and identify opportunities for improvement using population-based data from a low-incidence country. GBC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 with GBC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were grouped according to time period (2005-2009/2010-2016) and disease stage. Trends in treatment and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. In total 1834 patients were included: 661 (36%) patients with resected, 278 (15%) with non-resected non-metastatic, and 895 (49%) with metastatic GBC. Use of radical versus simple cholecystectomy (12% vs. 26%, p < 0.001) in early (pT1b/T2) GBC increased. More patients with metastatic GBC received chemotherapy (11% vs. 29%, p < 0.001). OS improved from 4.8 months (2005-2009) to 6.1 months (2010-2016) ( p = 0.012). Median OS increased over time (2005-2009 vs. 2010-2016) in resected (19.4 to 26.8 months, p = 0.038) and metastatic (2.3 vs. 3.4 months, p = 0.001) GBC but not in unresected, non-metastatic GBC. In early GBC, patients with radical cholecystectomy had a median OS of 76.7 compared to 18.4 months for simple cholecystectomy ( p < 0.001). Palliative chemotherapy showed superior ( p < 0.001) survival in metastatic (7.3 versus 2.1 months) and non-resected non-metastatic (7.7 versus 3.5 months) GBC. In conclusion, survival of GBC remains poor. Radical surgery and palliative chemotherapy appear to improve prognosis but remain under-utilized.