Recommendations on Robotic Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery. The Paris Jury-Based Consensus Conference.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the first consensus guidelines on the safety and indications of robotics in Hepato-Pancreatic-Biliary (HPB) surgery. The secondary aim was to identify priorities for future research. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: HPB robotic surgery is reaching the IDEAL 2b exploration phase for innovative technology. An objective assessment endorsed by the HPB community is timely and needed. METHODS: The ROBOT4HPB conference developed consensus guidelines using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury produced unbiased guidelines based on the work of ten expert panels answering predefined key questions and considering the best-quality evidence retrieved after a systematic review. The recommendations conformed with the GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies. RESULTS: Fifty-four experts from 20 countries considered 285 studies, and the conference included an audience of 220 attendees. The jury (n=10) produced recommendations or statements covering five sections of robotic HPB surgery: technology, training and expertise, outcome assessment, and liver and pancreatic procedures. The recommendations supported the feasibility of robotics for most HPB procedures and its potential value in extending minimally invasive indications, emphasizing however the importance of expertise to ensure safety. The concept of expertise was defined broadly, encompassing requirements for credentialing HPB robotics at a given center. The jury prioritized relevant questions for future trials and emphasized the need for prospective registries, including validated outcome metrics for the forthcoming assessment of HPB robotics. CONCLUSION: The ROBOT4HPB consensus represents a collaborative and multidisciplinary initiative, defining state-of-the-art expertise in HPB robotics procedures. It produced the first guidelines to encourage their safe use and promotion.

Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery.

ABSTRACT: This forum summarizes the proceedings of the joint European Surgical Association (ESA)/American Surgical Association (ASA) symposium on Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery that took place in Bordeaux, France, as part of the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the ESA. Three presentations focused on a) the main messages from the Outcome4Medicine Consensus Conference, which took place in Zurich, Switzerland, in June 2022, b) the patient perspective, and c) benchmarking were hold by ESA members and discussed by ASA members in a symposium attended by members of both associations.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDS) is a promising modality for management of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with potential for better stent patency. We compared its outcomes with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stenting (ERCP-M). METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with MDBO secondary to borderline resectable, locally advanced, or unresectable peri-ampullary cancers across 10 Canadian institutions and 1 French institution. This was a superiority trial with a noninferiority assessment of technical success. Patients were randomized to EUS-CDS or ERCP-M. The primary end point was the rate of stent dysfunction at 1 year, considering competing risks of death, clinical failure, and surgical resection. Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2022, 144 patients were recruited; 73 were randomized to EUS-CDS and 71 were randomized to ERCP-M. The mean (SD) procedure time was 14.0 (11.4) minutes for EUS-CDS and 23.1 (15.6) minutes for ERCP-M (P < .01); 40% of the former was performed without fluoroscopy. Technical success was achieved in 90.4% (95% CI, 81.5% to 95.3%) of EUS-CDS and 83.1% (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.1%) of ERCP-M with a risk difference of 7.3% (95% CI, -4.0% to 18.8%) indicating noninferiority. Stent dysfunction occurred in 9.6% vs 9.9% of EUS-CDS and ERCP-M cases, respectively (P = .96). No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy and oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although not superior in stent function, EUS-CDS is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP-M in patients with MDBO. These findings provide evidence for greater adoption of EUS-CDS in clinical practice as a complementary and exchangeable first-line modality to ERCP in patients with MDBO. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03870386.

The Benefits of Benchmarking-A New Perspective on Measuring Quality in Surgery.

This Viewpoint discusses benchmarking as a new means to assess surgical quality.

Feasibility of Prospectively Comparing Opioid Analgesia With Opioid-Free Analgesia After Outpatient General Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The overprescription of opioids to surgical patients is recognized as an important factor contributing to the opioid crisis. However, the value of prescribing opioid analgesia (OA) vs opioid-free analgesia (OFA) after postoperative discharge remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the comparative effectiveness of OA vs OFA after outpatient general surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, assessor-blind, pragmatic pilot RCT was conducted from January 29 to September 3, 2020 (last follow-up on October 2, 2020). at 2 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing outpatient abdominal (ie, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or hernia repair) or breast (ie, partial or total mastectomy) general surgical procedures. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to drugs used in the trial, preoperative opioid use, conditions that could affect assessment of outcomes, and intraoperative or early complications requiring hospitalization. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock nonopioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock nonopioids with increasing doses and/or addition of nonopioid medications for breakthrough pain) after postoperative discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were a priori RCT feasibility criteria (ie, rates of surgeon agreement, patient eligibility, patient consent, treatment adherence, loss to follow-up, and missing follow-up data). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and interference, analgesic intake, 30-day unplanned health care use, and adverse events. Between-group comparison of outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 15 surgeons were approached; all (100%; 95% CI, 78%-100%) agreed to have patients recruited and adhered to the study procedures. Rates of patient eligibility and consent were 73% (95% CI, 66%-78%) and 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%), respectively. Seventy-six patients were randomized (39 [51%] to OA and 37 [49%] to OFA) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [14.5] years; 50 [66%] female); 40 (53%) underwent abdominal surgery, and 36 (47%) underwent breast surgery. Seventy-five patients (99%; 95% CI, 93%-100%) adhered to the allocated treatment; 1 patient randomly assigned to OFA received an opioid prescription. Seventeen patients (44%) randomly assigned to OA consumed opioids after discharge. Seventy-three patients (96%; 95% CI, 89%-99%) completed the 30-day follow-up. The rate of missing questionnaires was 37 of 3724 (1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%). All the a priori RCT feasibility criteria were fulfilled. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this pilot RCT support the feasibility of conducting a robust, full-scale RCT to inform evidence-based prescribing of analgesia after outpatient general surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254679.

Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Upfront Surgery in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes Including Survival and Risk of Tumor Recurrence.

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard of care in advanced pancreatic cancer. Its role in resectable disease, however, is controversial. This meta-analysis aims to ascertain the clinical outcomes of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer undergoing preoperative EUS-FNA compared to those going directly to surgery. Methods: A literature search was performed from 1996 to April 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge for studies comparing preoperative EUS-FNA to EUS without FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer for clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes include cancer-free survival, tumor recurrence and peritoneal carcinomatosis, and post-FNA-pancreatitis rate. Results: Six retrospective studies were included. Preoperative EUS-FNA had better OS than the non-FNA group (WMD, 4.40 months [0.02 to 8.78]). Cancer-free survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (WMD, 2.08 months [-2.22 to 6.38]). EUS with FNA was not associated with increased rates of tumor recurrence or peritoneal carcinomatosis. Conclusion: Preoperative EUS-FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer may be associated with significantly greater OS when compared to the non-FNA group, with no significant difference in the rates of tumor recurrence or peritoneal seeding. Important limitations of our meta-analysis include the lack of prospective controlled data, which are unlikely to emerge given feasible constraints.

Prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: results of a Canadian RAND/UCLA appropriateness expert panel.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to define the appropriateness of interventions for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) after pancreatectomy, given the lack of consistent data on this topic. METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, we assembled an expert panel to rate clinical scenarios for interventions to prevent POPF after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: The following interventions were rated appropriate: individualized risk prediction for all patients; perioperative pasireotide administration for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and a pancreatic duct size of less 3 mm and for patients undergoing DP; pancreaticogastrostomy for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and pancreaticojejunostomy for PD for patients with a pancreatic duct size of 6 mm or greater regardless of pancreatic gland texture; duct-to-mucosa anastomosis for all patients undergoing PD and dunking anastomosis for patients undergoing PD who have a pancreatic duct size of less than 3 mm with a firm pancreatic gland; simple stapled and reinforced stapled transection for all DP; surgical drains for PD and DP in patients with a soft pancreatic gland; and open and minimally invasive surgery for DP and open surgery for PD. The following were rated inappropriate: gastrointestinal anastomosis for stump closure in all DP and omission of surgical drain in PD for patients with a pancreatic duct diameter less than 3 mm and a soft pancreatic gland. CONCLUSION: The expert panel identified appropriate and inappropriate scenarios for POPF prevention following pancreatectomy, to provide guidance to clinicians. However, the appropriateness of the interventions in the majority of the clinical scenarios was rated as uncertain, demonstrating equipoise.

Oncology clinic-based germline genetic testing for exocrine pancreatic cancer enables timely return of results and unveils low uptake of cascade testing.

BACKGROUND: Traditional medical genetics models are unable to meet the growing demand for germline genetic testing (GT) in patients with exocrine pancreatic cancer (PC). This study investigates the impact of an ambulatory oncology clinic-based GT model. METHODS: From 2012 to 2021, patients with PC were prospectively enrolled and considered for GT. Two chronological cohorts were compared: (1) the preuniversal genetic testing (pre-UGT) cohort, which received GT based on clinical criteria or family history; and (2) the post-UGT cohort, where an 86-gene panel was offered to all patients with PC. RESULTS: Of 847 eligible patients, 735 (86.8%) were enrolled (pre-UGT, n=579; post-UGT, n=156). A higher proportion of the post-UGT cohort received prospective GT (97.4% vs 58.5%, p<0.001). The rate of pathogenic germline alterations (PGA) across both cohorts was 9.9%, with 8.0% of PGAs in PC susceptibility genes. The post-UGT cohort had a higher prevalence of overall PGAs (17.2% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) and PGAs in PC susceptibility genes (11.9% vs 6.3%, p<0.001). The median turnaround time from enrolment to GT report was shorter in the post-UGT cohort (13 days vs 42 days, p<0.001). Probands with a PGA disclosed their GT results to 84% of their first-degree relatives (FDRs). However, only 31% of informed FDRs underwent GT, and the number of new cases per index case was 0.52. CONCLUSION: A point-of-care GT model is feasible and expedites access to GT for patients with PC. Strategies to increase the uptake of cascade testing are needed to maximise the clinical impact of an oncology clinic-based GT model.

Modified endoscopic ultrasound-guided double-balloon-occluded gastroenterostomy bypass (M-EPASS): a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: We recently developed a double-balloon device, using widely available existing technology, to facilitate endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). Our aim is to assess the feasibility of this modified approach to EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastroenterostomy bypass (M-EPASS). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing M-EPASS from January 2019 to August 2020. The double-balloon device consists of two vascular balloons that optimize the distension of a targeted small-bowel segment for EUS-guided stent insertion. The primary end point was the rate of technical success. RESULTS: 11 patients (45 % women; mean [standard deviation (SD)] age 64.9 [8.6]) with malignant gastric outlet obstruction were included. Technical and clinical success (ability to tolerate an oral diet) were achieved in 91 % (10/11) and 80 % (8/10) of patients, respectively. There was one adverse event (9 %) due to stent migration. Two patients (18 %) required re-intervention for stent obstruction secondary to food impaction. The mean (SD) time to a low residue diet was 3.5 (2.4) days. CONCLUSION: M-EPASS appears to facilitate the technique of EUS-GE, potentially enhancing its safety and clinical adoption. Larger studies are needed to validate this innovative approach to gastric outlet obstruction.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost. RESULTS: 235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %-96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %-97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %-96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %-98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

Use of stents in patients undergoing chemotherapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer-causing biliary obstruction while awaiting surgery: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background and study aims Biliary stenting is indicated to relieve obstruction from borderline resectable pancreatic cancer while patients receive preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. We compared the cost-effectiveness of plastic versus metal biliary stenting in this setting. Methods A decision tree analysis compares two competing types of biliary stents (initially metal vs. initially plastic) to treat malignant distal biliary obstruction while receiving neoadjuvant therapy with different scenarios including possible complications as bridge till the patient undergoes curative surgical attempt. Using published information, effectiveness was chosen as the probability of successfully reaching a state of being ready for surgery once chemotherapy was completed. Costs (2018 US$) were based on national data. A third-party payer perspective was adopted, and sensitivity analyses were performed over a time-horizon of one year. Results Initially inserting a metal versus a plastic biliary stent was more efficacious with a higher probability of reaching the readiness for surgery endpoint (96 % vs. 85 %), on average 18 days earlier while also being less expensive (US$ 9,304 vs. US$ 11,538). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of these results across varying probability assumptions of plausible ranges and remained a dominant strategy even when lowering the willingness-to-pay threshold to US$ 1,000. Conclusions Initial metal stenting to relieve malignant biliary obstruction from borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery is a dominant intervention in economic terms, when compared to initially inserting a plastic biliary stent as it results in a greater proportion of patients being fit for surgery earlier and at a lower cost.

Use of Propensity Score Methodology in Contemporary High-Impact Surgical Literature.

BACKGROUND: Propensity score (PS) analysis is a statistical method commonly used in observational trials to account for confounding. Improper use of PS analysis can bias the effect estimate. The aim of this study is to review the use and reporting of PS methods in high-impact surgical journals with a focus on propensity score matching (PSM). STUDY DESIGN: The 10 surgical journals with the highest impact factors were searched to identify studies using PS analysis from January 1, 2016 to December 14, 2018. We selected evaluation criteria for the conduct of PS analysis based on previous reports. Two authors systematically appraised the quality of reporting of PS analyses. Univariate and multivariate regression was performed to determine the relationship between appropriate use of PSM and study conclusion. RESULTS: Three hundred and three studies using PS analysis were included. Ninety-one percent (n = 275) of studies included the covariates used to generate the PS and 79% (n = 239) included the type of regression model used. Ninety percent (n = 272) of studies did not justify the covariates included in their PS. Eighty-four percent of studies used PSM (n = 254), with 48% (n = 123) failing to assess covariate balance between groups. We found that justification of the selection of covariates included in the PS and the characterization of unmatched patients were both associated with lower odds of the study finding a significant result (odds ratio 0.37; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.87; p = 0.02 and odds ratio 0.35; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; p = 0.007, respectively, at multivariate logistic regression). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that even in research published in high-quality surgical journals, several studies report their PS methodology inadequately. The inadequate conduct of PS analysis can impact a study's conclusion.

ELEMENT TRIAL: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial on endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage of first intent with a lumen-apposing metal stent vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, its growth has been limited by a lack of multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) and dedicated devices. A dedicated EUS-BD lumen- apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed with the potential to greatly facilitate the technique and safety of the procedure. We aim to compare a first intent approach with EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a dedicated biliary LAMS vs. standard ERCP in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction. METHODS: The ELEMENT trial is a multicenter single-blinded RCT involving 130 patients in nine Canadian centers. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or borderline resectable malignant distal biliary obstruction meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized to EUS-choledochoduodenostomy using a LAMS or ERCP with traditional metal stent insertion in a 1:1 proportion in blocks of four. Patients with hilar obstruction, resectable cancer, or benign disease are excluded. The primary endpoint is the rate of stent dysfunction needing re-intervention. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, interruptions in chemotherapy, rate of surgical resection, time to stent dysfunction, and adverse events. DISCUSSION: The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction, which is an important and timely question that has not been addressed using an RCT study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03870386. Date of registration: 03/12/2019.

Simple Magnetic Resonance Scores Associate With Outcomes of Patients With Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has a variable, often progressive, course. Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) is used in the diagnosis of PSC. Magnetic resonance risk scoring systems, called Anali without and with gadolinium, are used to predict disease progression, determined by radiologic factors. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of Anali scores in patients with PSC and validate our findings in a separate cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with large-duct PSC (internal cohort, 119 patients in France; external cohort, 119 patients in Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom). All the first-available MRC results were reviewed by 2 radiologists and the Anali scores were calculated as follows: Anali without gadolinium = (1× dilatation of intrahepatic bile ducts) + (2× dysmorphy) + (1× portal hypertension); Anali with gadolinium = (1× dysmorphy) + (1× parenchymal enhancement heterogeneity). The primary end point was survival without liver transplantation or cirrhosis decompensation. The prognostic value of Anali scores was assessed by Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: During a total of 549 patient-years for the internal cohort and 497 patient-years for the external cohort, we recorded 2 and 8 liver transplantations, 4 and 3 liver-related deaths, and 26 and 25 cirrhosis decompensations, respectively. In the univariate analysis, factors associated with survival without liver transplantation or cirrhosis decompensation in the internal cohort were as follows: serum levels of bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, γ-glutamyl transferase, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, and Anali scores. Anali scores without and with gadolinium identified patients' survival without liver transplantation or cirrhosis decompensation with a c-statistic of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.87), respectively. Independent prognostic factors identified by multivariate analysis were Anali scores and bilirubinemia. The prognostic value of Anali scores was confirmed in the external cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In internal and external cohorts, we found that Anali scores, determined from MRC, were associated with outcomes of patients with PSC. These scores might be used as prognostic factors.

Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations. BACKGROUND/METHODS: Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents. RESULTS: Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely "market driven" approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.

Reflex Testing for Germline BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM Mutations in Pancreatic Cancer: Mutation Prevalence and Clinical Outcomes From Two Canadian Research Registries.

PURPOSE: We investigated the translational value of reflex testing for germline mutations in four homology-directed DNA repair predisposition genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM) in consecutive patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients with French-Canadian (FC) ancestry were evaluated for founder mutations, and 114 patients were subsequently assessed by full gene sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification for nonfounder mutations. Two hundred thirty-six patients unselected for ancestry were also assessed for mutations by full gene sequencing. RESULTS: The FC founder mutation prevalence among the 150 patients was 5.3% (95% CI, 2.6% to 10.3%), and the nonfounder mutation prevalence across the four genes among the 114 patients tested was 2.6% (95% CI, 0.6% to 7.8%). In the case series unselected for ancestry, 10.0% (95% CI, 2.7% to 26.4%) of patients reporting Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) ancestry carried an AJ founder mutation, with no nonfounder mutations identified. The mutation prevalence among patients without FC/AJ ancestry was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6% to 8.8%). Mutations were more frequent in patients diagnosed at ≤ 50 years of age (P = .03) and in patients with either two or more first- or second-degree relatives with pancreas, breast, ovarian or prostate cancer, or one such relative and a second primary of one of these cancer types (P < .001). BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 carriers with late-stage (III or IV) disease had an overall survival advantage (P = .049), particularly if treated with platinum-based chemotherapies (P = .030). CONCLUSION: Considering these results, we recommend reflex founder mutation testing of patients with FC/AJ ancestry and full gene sequencing of patients who are ≤ 50 years or meet the identified family history criteria. Reflex testing of all incident patients for these four genes may become justified as full gene sequencing costs decline.