Prospective trial to evaluate the prognostic value of different nutritional assessment scores for survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NURIMAS Pancreas SURVIVAL).

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is associated with poor survival in pancreatic cancer patients. Nutritional scores show great heterogeneity diagnosing malnutrition. The aim of this study was to find the score best suitable to identify patients with malnutrition related to worse survival after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study represents a follow-up study to the prospective NURIMAS Pancreas trial that evaluated short term impact of nutritional score results after surgery. METHODS: Risk of malnutrition was evaluated preoperatively using 12 nutritional assessment scores. Patients were followed-up prospectively for at least 3 years. Patients at risk for malnutrition were compared with those not at risk according to each score using Kaplan-Meier survival statistics. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients receiving a PDAC resection in curative intent were included. Malnutrition according to the Subjective Global Assessment score (SGA), the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), and the INSYST2 score was associated with worse overall survival (SGA: at-risk: 392 days; not at-risk: 942 days; P = 0.001; SNAQ: at-risk: 508 days; not at-risk: 971 days; P = 0.027; INSYST2: at-risk: 538 days; not at risk: 1068; P = 0.049). In the multivariate analysis, SGA (hazard ratio of death 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.47, P = 0.002) was associated with worse overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition as defined by the Subjective Global Assessment is independently associated with worse survival in resected PDAC patients. The SGA should be used to stratify PDAC patients in clinical studies. Severely malnourished patients according to the SGA profit from intensified nutritional therapy should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Use of Polygenic Risk Scores to Select Screening Intervals After Negative Findings From Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could help to define starting ages for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the role of PRS in determining the length of screening interval after negative findings from colonoscopies is unclear. We aimed to evaluate CRC risk according to PRS and time since last negative colonoscopy. METHODS: We collected data from 3827 cases and 2641 CRC-free controls in a population-based case-control study in Germany. We constructed a polygenic risk scoring system, based on 90 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, associated with risk of CRC in people of European descent. Participants were classified as having low, medium, or high genetic risk according to tertiles of PRSs among controls. Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess CRC risk according to PRS and time since last negative colonoscopy. RESULTS: Compared to individuals without colonoscopy in the low PRS category, a 42%-85% lower risk of CRC was observed for individuals who had a negative finding from colonoscopy within 10 years. Beyond 10 years after a negative finding from colonoscopy, significantly lower risk only persisted for the low and medium PRS groups, but not for the high PRS group. Adjusted odds ratios were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29-0.68), 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34-0.77), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.23) in the low, medium, and high PRS group, respectively. Within any time interval, risks were lower for distal than for proximal CRCs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on findings from a population-based case-control study, the recommended 10-year screening interval for colonoscopy may not need to be shortened among people with high PRSs, but could potentially be prolonged for people with low and medium PRSs. Studies are needed to address personalized time intervals for repeat colonoscopies in average-risk screening cohorts.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent long-term complication after abdominal surgery, with a prevalence greater than 30% in high-risk groups. The aim of the PRIMA trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in high-risk patients, to prevent incisional hernia. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands. We included patients aged 18 years or older who were undergoing elective midline laparotomy and had either an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body-mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m2 or higher. We randomly assigned participants using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three treatment groups: primary suture; onlay mesh reinforcement; or sublay mesh reinforcement. The primary endpoint was incidence of incisional hernia during 2 years of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by logistic regression. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761475. FINDINGS: Between March, 2009, and December, 2012, 498 patients were enrolled to the study, of whom 18 were excluded before randomisation. Therefore, we included 480 patients in the primary analysis: 107 were assigned primary suture only, 188 were allocated onlay mesh reinforcement, and 185 were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement. 92 patients were identified with an incisional hernia, 33 (30%) who were allocated primary suture only, 25 (13%) who were assigned onlay mesh reinforcement, and 34 (18%) who were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement (onlay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, OR 0·37, 95% CI 0·20-0·69; p=0·0016; sublay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, 0·55, 0·30-1·00; p=0·05). Seromas were more frequent in patients allocated onlay mesh reinforcement (34 of 188) than in those assigned primary suture (five of 107; p=0·002) or sublay mesh reinforcement (13 of 185; p=0·002). The incidence of wound infection did not differ between treatment groups (14 of 107 primary suture; 25 of 188 onlay mesh reinforcement; and 19 of 185 sublay mesh reinforcement). INTERPRETATION: A significant reduction in incidence of incisional hernia was achieved with onlay mesh reinforcement compared with sublay mesh reinforcement and primary suture only. Onlay mesh reinforcement has the potential to become the standard treatment for high-risk patients undergoing midline laparotomy. FUNDING: Baxter; B Braun Surgical SA.

Physical activity and survival of colorectal cancer patients: Population-based study from Germany.

Increasing evidence shows physical activity to be associated with improved colorectal cancer (CRC) prognosis. However, large-scale prospective patient cohorts, comprehensively ascertaining physical activity, comprehensively considering potential variation by CRC stage and considering specific outcome measures, are sparse. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the association of lifetime and latest prediagnostic leisure time physical activity with relevant prognostic outcomes in a large population-based cohort of CRC patients. 3,121 patients, diagnosed with CRC in 2003-2010 (median age: 69 years), were interviewed on sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, medication and comorbidities. Cancer recurrence, vital status and cause of death were documented over a median follow-up time of 4.8 years. Associations between lifetime and latest prediagnostic leisure time physical activity and overall, CRC-specific, recurrence-free and disease-free survival were evaluated with Cox regression. Latest but not lifetime leisure time physical activity [in metabolic task hours per week (MET-h/wk)] was associated with decreased overall and CRC-specific mortality (>56.2 vs. ≤13.2 MET-h/wk: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)Overall/latest = 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.61-0.91; aHRCRC-specific/latest = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.64-1.02). In particular lifetime and latest walking were associated with decreased mortality (>20 vs. 0-10 MET-h/wk of walking: aHROverall/latest = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.56-0.77; aHRCRC-specific/latest = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.60-0.87; aHROverall/lifetime = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.66-0.93; aHRCRC-specific/lifetime = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.58-0.86). Associations were particularly pronounced for lifetime walking in metastatic (stage IV) and for latest walking in nonmetastatic disease patients. Prediagnostic physical activity was associated with improved CRC prognosis. Associations might be restricted to certain activities or depend on (non)metastatic disease state. Further optimization of activity recommendations and increase of recommendation adherence may help to improve patients' prognosis.

Teres Ligament Patch Reduces Relevant Morbidity After Distal Pancreatectomy (the DISCOVER Randomized Controlled Trial).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of teres ligament covering on pancreatic fistula rate after distal pancreatectomy (DP). BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) represents the most significant complication after DP. Retrospective studies suggested a benefit of covering the resection margin by a teres ligament patch. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study (DISCOVER trial) included 152 patients undergoing DP, between October 2010 and July 2014. Patients were randomized to undergo closure of the pancreatic cut margin without (control, n = 76) or with teres ligament coverage (teres, n = 76). The primary endpoint was the rate of POPF, and the secondary endpoints included postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable regarding epidemiology (age, sex, body mass index), operative parameters (operation time [OP] time, blood loss, method of pancreas transection, additional operative procedures), and histopathological findings. Overall inhospital mortality was 0.6% (1/152 patients). In the group of patients with teres ligament patch, the rate of reoperations (1.3% vs 13.0%; P = 0.009), and also the rate of readmission (13.1 vs 31.5%; P = 0.011) were significantly lower. Clinically relevant POPF rate (grade B/C) was 32.9% (control) versus 22.4% (teres, P = 0.20). Multivariable analysis showed teres ligament coverage to be a protective factor for clinically relevant POPF (P = 0.0146). CONCLUSIONS: Coverage of the pancreatic remnant after DP is associated with less reinterventions, reoperations, and need for readmission. Although the overall fistula rate is not reduced by the coverage procedure, it should be considered as a valid measure for complication prevention due to its clinical benefit.

DISCOVER trial- Distal resection of the pancreas with or without coverage of the pancreatic remnant: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant tumours is the second most common surgical procedure on the pancreas. Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) represent the most significant clinical complication, causing prolongation of hospital stay and the need for additional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although various techniques for preventing POPF have been evaluated, to date, there is no available technique that ensures closure of the pancreatic remnant. METHODS/DESIGN: DISCOVER will aim to investigate differences in the postoperative course after a distal pancreatectomy comparing the standard surgical technique with an alternative technique that provides additional coverage of the pancreatic remnant by the falciform ligament. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the rate of POPF. As secondary endpoints, incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and quality of life will be assessed.DISCOVER is a single-centre, randomised, controlled surgical trial. For statistical analysis, a binary logistic regression model will be used. With a level of significance of 5% and a power of 80%, a sample size of 75 patients per group has been identified as necessary. DISCUSSION: The findings of this trial will help to evaluate the usefulness of the coverage procedure at reducing the rate of POPF. The results could influence the standard procedure for remnant closure after distal pancreatectomy. TRIAL-REGISTRATION: Clinical trials register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00000546).

Protocol of an expertise based randomized trial comparing surgical Venae Sectio versus radiological puncture of Vena Subclavia for insertion of Totally Implantable Access Port in oncological patients.

BACKGROUND: Totally Implantable Access Ports (TIAP) are being extensively used world-wide and can be expected to gain further importance with the introduction of new neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments in oncology. Two different techniques for the implantation can be selected: A direct puncture of a central vein and the utilization of a Seldinger device or the surgical Venae Sectio. It is still unclear which technique has the optimal benefit/risk ratio for the patient. DESIGN: A single-center, expertise based randomized, controlled superiority trial to compare two different TIAP implantation techniques. 100 patients will be included and randomized pre-operatively. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for primary elective implantation of a TIAP under local anesthesia who signed the informed consent will be included. The primary endpoint is the primary success rate of the randomized technique. Control Intervention: Venae Sectio will be employed to insert a TIAP by a surgeon; EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTION: Punction of V. Subclavia will be used to place a TIAP by a radiologist. Duration of study: Approximately 10 months, follow up time: 90 days. ORGANISATION/RESPONSIBILITY: The PORTAS 2 - Trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Center of Clinical Trials at the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for design and conduct of the trial including randomization and documentation of patients' data. Data management and statistical analysis will be performed by the independent Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI), University of Heidelberg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00600444).