The Effect of Histopathological Growth Patterns of Colorectal Liver Metastases on the Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Histopathological growth patterns (HGPs) are a prognostic biomarker in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Desmoplastic HGP (dHGP) is associated with liver-only recurrence and superior overall survival (OS), while non-dHGP is associated with multi-organ recurrence and inferior OS. This study investigated the predictive value of HGPs for adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy in CRLM. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of CRLM and perioperative systemic chemotherapy in two centers were included. Survival outcomes and the predictive value of HAIP versus no HAIP per HGP group were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods, respectively. RESULTS: We included 1233 patients. In the dHGP group (n = 291, 24%), HAIP chemotherapy was administered in 75 patients (26%). In the non-dHGP group (n = 942, 76%), HAIP chemotherapy was administered in 247 patients (26%). dHGP was associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.73, p < 0.001). HAIP chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.82, p < 0.001). No interaction could be demonstrated between HGP and HAIP on OS (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.72-2.32, p = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that HGPs of CRLM modify the survival benefit of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in patients with resected CRLM.

Perioperative or adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX for resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-3): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The main concern regarding adjuvant chemotherapy is that only half of patients actually receive adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, guarantees early systemic treatment and may increase chemotherapy use and thereby improve overall survival. Furthermore, it may prevent futile surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease. However, some argue that neoadjuvant therapy delays surgery, which could lead to progression towards unresectable disease and thus offset the potential benefits. Comparison of perioperative (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant) with (only) adjuvant administration of mFOLFIRINOX in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal approach. METHODS: This multicenter, phase 3, RCT will include 378 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients are recruited from 20 Dutch centers and three centers in Norway and Sweden. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial contact and ≤ 90 degrees venous contact. Patients in the intervention arm are scheduled for 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (2-week cycle of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 at day 1, followed by 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 g/m2). Patients in the comparator arm start with surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary outcome is overall survival by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, resection rate, quality of life, adverse events, and surgical complications. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after the inclusion of 378 patients in 36 months, with analysis planned 18 months after the last patient has been randomized. DISCUSSION: The multicenter PREOPANC-3 trial compares perioperative mFOLFIRINOX with adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT04927780. Registered June 16, 2021.

Venous Thromboembolism and Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Perioperative Pancreatic Cancer Care.

Recent studies have shown that patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by surgery have an improved outcome compared to patients treated with upfront surgery. Hence, patients with PDAC are more and more frequently treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. PDAC patients are at a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is associated with decreased survival rates. As patients with PDAC were historically offered immediate surgical resection, data on VTE incidence and associated preoperative risk factors are scarce. Current guidelines recommend primary prophylactic anticoagulation in selected groups of patients with advanced PDAC. However, recommendations for patients with (borderline) resectable PDAC treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting are lacking. Nevertheless, the prevention of complications is crucial to maintain the best possible condition for surgery. This narrative review summarizes current literature on VTE incidence, associated risk factors, risk assessment tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis in PDAC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.

A nationwide randomized controlled trial on additional treatment for isolated local pancreatic cancer recurrence using stereotactic body radiation therapy (ARCADE).

BACKGROUND: Disease recurrence is the main cause of mortality after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In 20-30% of resected patients, isolated local PDAC recurrence occurs. Retrospective studies have suggested that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) might lead to improved local control in these patients, potentially having a beneficial effect on both survival and quality of life. The "nationwide randomized controlled trial on additional treatment for isolated local pancreatic cancer recurrence using stereotactic body radiation therapy" (ARCADE) will investigate the value of SBRT in addition to standard of care in patients with isolated local PDAC recurrence compared to standard of care alone, regarding both survival and quality of life outcomes. METHODS: The ARCADE trial is nested within a prospective cohort (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) according to the 'Trials within Cohorts' design. All PACAP participants with isolated local PDAC recurrence after primary resection who provided informed consent for being randomized in future studies are eligible. Patients will be randomized for local therapy (5 fractions of 8 Gy SBRT) in addition to standard of care or standard of care alone. In total, 174 patients will be included. The main study endpoint is survival after recurrence. The most important secondary endpoint is quality of life. DISCUSSION: It is hypothesized that additional SBRT, compared to standard of care alone, improves survival and quality of life in patients with isolated local recurrence after PDAC resection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04881487 . Registered on May 11, 2021.

Impact of nationwide centralization of oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic surgery on travel distance and experienced burden in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the impact of nationwide centralization of surgery on travel distance and travel burden among patients with oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer according to age in the Netherlands. As centralization of care increases to improve postoperative outcomes, travel distance and experienced burden might increase. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery between 2006 and 2017 for oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands were included. Travel distance between patient's home address and hospital of surgery in kilometres was calculated. Questionnaires were used to assess experienced travel burden in a subpopulation (n = 239). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors for longer travel distance. RESULTS: Over 23,838 patients were included, in whom median travel distance for surgical care increased for oesophageal cancer (n = 9217) from 18 to 28 km, for gastric cancer (n = 6743) from 9 to 26 km, and for pancreatic cancer (n = 7878) from 18 to 25 km (all p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed an increase in travel distance for all cancer types over time. In general, patients experienced a physical and social burden, and higher financial costs, due to traveling extra kilometres. Patients aged >70 years travelled less often independently (56% versus 68%), as compared to patients aged ≤70 years. CONCLUSION: With nationwide centralization, travel distance increased for patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer surgery. Younger patients travelled longer distances and experienced a lower travel burden, as compared to elderly patients. Nevertheless, on a global scale, travel distances in the Netherlands remain limited.

Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P = 0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P = 0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84). CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis of the impact of a fibrin sealant patch on pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: CPR trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the main cause of morbidity in patients after distal pancreatectomy. The objective of this study was to investigate whether an absorbable fibrin sealant patch could prevent POPF after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: A multicentre, patient-blinded, parallel-group randomized superiority trial was performed in seven Dutch hospitals. Allocation was done using a computer-generated randomization list with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio and concealed varying permuted block sizes. Pancreatic stump closure with a fibrin patch was compared with standard treatment in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The primary endpoint was the development of grade B/C POPF. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed which combined the present findings with all available evidence. RESULTS: Between October 2010 and August 2017, 247 patients were enrolled. Fifty-four patients (22.2 per cent) developed a POPF, 25 of 125 patients in the patch group versus 29 of 122 in the control group (20.0 versus 23.8 per cent; P = 0·539). No related adverse effects were observed. In the meta-analysis, no significant difference was seen between the patch and control groups (19.7 versus 22.0 per cent; odds ratio 0.89, 95 per cent c.i. 0.60 to 1.32; P = 0·556). CONCLUSION: Application of a fibrin patch to the pancreatic stump does not reduce the incidence of POPF in distal pancreatectomy. Future studies should focus on alternative fistula mitigation strategies, considering pancreatic neck thickness and duct size as risk factors. Trial registration number NL5876 (Netherlands Trial Registry).

Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-2 trial): study protocol for a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy has several potential advantages over upfront surgery in patients with localized pancreatic cancer; more patients receive systemic treatment, fewer patients undergo futile surgery, and R0 resection rates are higher, thereby possibly improving overall survival (OS). Two recent randomized trials have suggested benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over upfront surgery, both including single-agent chemotherapy regimens. Potentially, the multi-agent FOLFIRINOX regimen (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) may further improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting for localized pancreatic cancer, but randomized studies are needed. The PREOPANC-2 trial investigates whether neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves OS compared with neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: This nationwide multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial includes patients with pathologically confirmed resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with a WHO performance score of 0 or 1. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial and ≤ 90 degrees venous involvement; borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as ≤90 degrees arterial and ≤ 270 degrees venous involvement without occlusion. Patients receive 8 cycles of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by surgery without adjuvant treatment (arm A), or 3 cycles of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with hypofractionated radiotherapy (36 Gy in 15 fractions) during the second cycle, followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine (arm B). The primary endpoint is OS by intention-to-treat. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, quality of life, resection rate, and R0 resection rate. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after inclusion of 368 eligible patients assuming an accrual period of 3 years and 1.5 years follow-up. DISCUSSION: The PREOPANC-2 trial directly compares two neoadjuvant regimens for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Our study will provide evidence on the neoadjuvant treatment of choice for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Primary registry and trial identifying number: EudraCT: 2017-002036-17 . Date of registration: March 6, 2018. Secondary identifying numbers: The Netherlands National Trial Register - NL7094 , NL61961.078.17, MEC-2018-004.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP. METHODS: A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above). RESULTS: A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Extended Resections for Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: Results from a Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Extended resections (i.e., major hepatectomy and/or pancreatoduodenectomy) are rarely performed for gallbladder cancer (GBC) because outcomes remain inconclusive. Data regarding extended resections from Western centers are sparse. This Dutch, multicenter cohort study analyzed the outcomes of patients who underwent extended resections for locally advanced GBC. METHODS: Patients with GBC who underwent extended resection with curative intent between January 2000 and September 2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Extended resection was defined as a major hepatectomy (resection of ≥ 3 liver segments), a pancreatoduodenectomy, or both. Treatment and survival data were obtained. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, survival, and characteristics of short- and long-term survivors were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 33 patients. For 16 of the patients, R0 resection margins were achieved. Major postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ 3A) occurred for 19 patients, and 4 patients experienced postoperative mortality within 90 days. Recurrence occurred for 24 patients. The median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 months (95% confidence interval, 6.5-19.0 months). A 2-year survival period was achieved for 10 patients (30%) and a 5-year survival period for 5 patients (15%). Common bile duct, liver, perineural and perivascular invasion and jaundice were associated with reduced survival. All three recurrence-free patients had R0 resection margins and no liver invasion. CONCLUSION: The median OS after extended resections for advanced GBC was 12.8 months in this cohort. Although postoperative morbidity and mortality were significant, long-term survival (≥ 2 years) was achieved in a subset of patients. Therefore, GBC requiring major surgery does not preclude long-term survival, and a subgroup of patients benefit from surgery.

Microscopic resection margin status in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - A nationwide analysis.

INTRODUCTION: First, this study aimed to assess the prognostic value of different definitions for resection margin status on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Second, preoperative predictors of direct margin involvement were identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This nationwide observational cohort study included all patients who underwent upfront PDAC resection (2014-2016), as registered in the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Patients were subdivided into three groups: R0 (≥1 mm margin clearance), R1 (<1 mm margin clearance) or R1 (direct margin involvement). Survival was compared using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Logistic regression with baseline variables was performed to identify preoperative predictors of R1 (direct). RESULTS: 595 patients with a median OS of 18 months (IQR 10-32 months) months were analysed. R0 (≥1 mm) was achieved in 277 patients (47%), R1 (<1 mm) in 146 patients (24%) and R1 (direct) in 172 patients (29%). R1 (direct) was associated with a worse OS, as compared with both R0 (≥1 mm) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 [95% and confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.70); P < 0.01) and R1 (<1 mm) (HR 1.29 [95%CI 1.01-1.67]; P < 0.05). No OS difference was found between R0 (≥1 mm) and R1 (<1 mm) (HR 1.05 [95% CI 0.82-1.34]; P = 0.71). Preoperative predictors associated with an increased risk of R1 (direct) included age, male sex, performance score 2-4, and venous or arterial tumour involvement. CONCLUSION: Resection margin clearance of <1 mm, but without direct margin involvement, does not affect survival, as compared with a margin clearance of ≥1 mm. Given that any vascular tumour involvement on preoperative imaging was associated with an increased risk of R1 (direct) resection with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy might be considered in these patients.

Impact of time interval between multidisciplinary team meeting and intended pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Dutch guidelines indicate that treatment of pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies should be started within 3 weeks of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. This study aimed to assess the impact of time to surgery on oncological outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients scheduled for pancreatoduodenectomy and who were discussed in an MDT meeting from May 2012 to December 2016 were eligible. Time to surgery was defined as days between the final preoperative MDT meeting and surgery, categorized in tertiles (short interval, 18 days or less; intermediate, 19-32 days; long, 33 days or more). Oncological outcomes included overall survival, resection rate and R0 resection rate. RESULTS: A total of 2027 patients were included, of whom 677, 665 and 685 had a short, intermediate and long time interval to surgery respectively. Median time to surgery was 25 (i.q.r. 14-36) days. Longer time to surgery was not associated with overall survival (hazard ratio 0·99, 95 per cent c.i. 0·87 to 1·13; P = 0·929), resection rate (relative risk (RR) 0·96, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 1·01; P = 0·091) or R0 resection rate (RR 1·01, 0·94 to 1·09; P = 0·733). Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a long time interval had a lower resection rate (RR 0·92, 0·85 to 0·99; P = 0·029). DISCUSSION: A longer time interval between the last MDT meeting and pancreatoduodenectomy did not decrease overall survival.

ANTECEDENTES: Las guías holandesas señalan que el inicio del tratamiento de los cánceres de cabeza de páncreas o periampulares se realice durante las tres semanas posteriores a la reunión del equipo multidisciplinar. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la repercusión del tiempo transcurrido hasta la cirugía en los resultados oncológicos. MÉTODOS: Se trataba de un estudio de cohortes retrospectivo de base poblacional de pacientes con tumores pancreáticos de cabeza y periampulares a partir del registro de cáncer holandés. Se incluyeron los pacientes programados para duodenopancreatectomía cefálica discutidos en una reunión de equipo multidisciplinario entre mayo de 2012 y diciembre de 2016. El tiempo hasta la cirugía se definió como los días transcurridos entre la reunión final del equipo multidisciplinar y la cirugía, clasificándose en terciles (corto ≤ 18 días; intermedio 19-32 días; largo ≥ 33 días). Los resultados oncológicos analizados fueron la supervivencia global, la tasa de resección y la tasa de resección R0. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 2.027 pacientes, de los que 677, 665 y 685 correspondieron a los terciles de intervalo corto, intermedio y largo, respectivamente. La mediana del tiempo hasta la cirugía fue de 25 días (rango intercuartílico 14-36). La existencia de un intervalo de tiempo largo hasta la cirugía no se asociaba con la supervivencia global (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR 0,99; i.c. del 95% 0,87-1,13; P = 0,93), la tasa de resección (riesgo relativo, RR 0,96; i.c. del 95% 0,91-1,01; P = 0,09) o la tasa de resección R0 (RR 1,01; i.c. del 95% 0,94-1,09; P = 0,73). Los pacientes con adenocarcinoma ductal pancreático y mayor intervalo tuvieron una tasa de resección más baja (RR 0,92; i.c. del 95%: 0,85-0,99; P = 0,03). CONCLUSIÓN: Un mayor intervalo de tiempo entre la última reunión del equipo multidisciplinar y la duodenopancreatectomía cefálica no disminuyó la supervivencia global.

Advances in adjuvant therapy of biliary tract cancer: an overview of current clinical evidence based on phase II and III trials.

Patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) have a high recurrence rate after complete surgical resection. To reduce the risk of recurrence and to improve survival, several chemotherapeutic agents that have shown to be active in locally advanced and metastatic BTC have been investigated in the adjuvant setting in prospective clinical trials. Based on the results of the BILCAP phase III trial, capecitabine was adapted as the standard of care by the ASCO clinical practice guideline. Ongoing randomized controlled trials mainly compare capecitabine with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. This review provides an update of adjuvant therapy in BTC based on published data of phase II and III trials and ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Care after pancreatic resection according to an algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive management of pancreatic fistula versus current practice (PORSCH-trial): design and rationale of a nationwide stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic resection is a major abdominal operation with 50% risk of postoperative complications. A common complication is pancreatic fistula, which may have severe clinical consequences such as postoperative bleeding, organ failure and death. The objective of this study is to investigate whether implementation of an algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive management of pancreatic fistula may improve outcomes after pancreatic resection. METHODS: This is a nationwide stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, superiority trial, designed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. During a period of 22 months, all Dutch centers performing pancreatic surgery will cross over in a randomized order from current practice to best practice according to the algorithm. This evidence-based and consensus-based algorithm will provide daily multilevel advice on the management of patients after pancreatic resection (i.e. indication for abdominal imaging, antibiotic treatment, percutaneous drainage and removal of abdominal drains). The algorithm is designed to aid early detection and minimally invasive step-up management of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Outcomes of current practice will be compared with outcomes after implementation of the algorithm. The primary outcome is a composite of major complications (i.e. post-pancreatectomy bleeding, new-onset organ failure and death) and will be measured in a sample size of at least 1600 patients undergoing pancreatic resection. Secondary endpoints include the individual components of the primary endpoint and other clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization and costs analysis. Follow up will be up to 90 days after pancreatic resection. DISCUSSION: It is hypothesized that a structured nationwide implementation of a dedicated algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive step-up management of postoperative pancreatic fistula will reduce the risk of major complications and death after pancreatic resection, as compared to current practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL 6671. Registered on 16 December 2017.

Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial).

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established. METHODS: The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €-427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €-4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75-10) versus 7 (4-8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.

Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy and resection versus resection alone in patients with low-risk resectable colorectal liver metastases - the multicenter randomized controlled PUMP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrences are reported in 70% of all patients after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), in which half are confined to the liver. Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy aims to reduce the risk of intrahepatic recurrence. A large retrospective propensity score analysis demonstrated that HAIP chemotherapy is particularly effective in patients with low-risk oncological features. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) --the PUMP trial-- is to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in low-risk patients with resectable CRLM. METHODS: This is an open label multicenter RCT. A total of 230 patients with resectable CRLM without extrahepatic disease will be included. Only patients with a clinical risk score (CRS) of 0 to 2 are eligible, meaning: patients are allowed to have no more than two out of five poor prognostic factors (disease-free interval less than 12 months, node-positive colorectal cancer, more than 1 CRLM, largest CRLM more than 5 cm in diameter, serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen above 200 µg/L). Patients randomized to arm A undergo complete resection of CRLM without any adjuvant treatment, which is the standard of care in the Netherlands. Patients in arm B receive an implantable pump at the time of CRLM resection and start adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy 4-12 weeks after surgery, with 6 cycles of floxuridine scheduled. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, hepatic PFS, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Pharmacokinetics of intra-arterial administration of floxuridine will be investigated as well as predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of HAIP chemotherapy. In a side study, the accuracy of CT angiography will be compared to radionuclide scintigraphy to detect extrahepatic perfusion. We hypothesize that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy leads to improved survival, improved quality of life, and a reduction of costs, compared to resection alone. DISCUSSION: If this PUMP trial demonstrates that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy improves survival in low-risk patients, this treatment approach may be implemented in the standard of care of patients with resected CRLM since adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone has not improved survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PUMP trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), number: 7493 . Date of registration September 23, 2018.

Variation in pancreatoduodenectomy as delivered in two national audits.

BACKGROUND: Nationwide audits facilitate quality and outcome assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy. Differences may exist between countries but studies comparing nationwide outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy based on audits are lacking. This study aimed to compare the German and Dutch audits for external data validation. METHODS: Anonymized data from patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016 were extracted from the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery StuDoQ|Pancreas and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, and compared using descriptive statistics. Univariable and multivariable risk analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Overall, 4495 patients were included, 2489 in Germany and 2006 in the Netherlands. Adenocarcinoma was a more frequent indication for pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. German patients had worse ASA fitness grades, but Dutch patients had more pulmonary co-morbidity. Dutch patients underwent more minimally invasive surgery and venous resections, but fewer multivisceral resections. No difference was found in rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, grade C postpancreatectomy haemorrhage and in-hospital mortality. There was more centralization in the Netherlands (1·3 versus 13·3 per cent of pancreatoduodenectomies in very low-volume centres; P < 0·001). In multivariable analysis, both hospital stay (difference 2·49 (95 per cent c.i. 1·18 to 3·80) days) and risk of reoperation (odds ratio (OR) 1·55, 95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 1·97) were higher in the German audit, whereas risk of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0·57, 0·37 to 0·88) and readmission (OR 0·38, 0·30 to 0·49) were lower. Several baseline and surgical characteristics, including hospital volume, but not country, predicted mortality. CONCLUSION: This comparison of the German and Dutch audits showed variation in case mix, surgical technique and centralization for pancreatoduodenectomy, but no difference in mortality and pancreas-specific complications.

Systematic review of clinical prediction models for survival after surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: As more therapeutic options for pancreatic cancer are becoming available, there is a need to improve outcome prediction to support shared decision-making. A systematic evaluation of prediction models in resectable pancreatic cancer is lacking. METHODS: This systematic review followed the CHARMS and PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 11 October 2017. Studies reporting development or validation of models predicting survival in resectable pancreatic cancer were included. Models without performance measures, reviews, abstracts or more than 10 per cent of patients not undergoing resection in postoperative models were excluded. Studies were appraised critically. RESULTS: After screening 4403 studies, 22 (44 319 patients) were included. There were 19 model development/update studies and three validation studies, altogether concerning 21 individual models. Two studies were deemed at low risk of bias. Eight models were developed for the preoperative setting and 13 for the postoperative setting. Most frequently included parameters were differentiation grade (11 of 21 models), nodal status (8 of 21) and serum albumin (7 of 21). Treatment-related variables were included in three models. The C-statistic/area under the curve values ranged from 0·57 to 0·90. Based on study design, validation methods and the availability of web-based calculators, two models were identified as the most promising. CONCLUSION: Although a large number of prediction models for resectable pancreatic cancer have been reported, most are at high risk of bias and have not been validated externally. This overview of prognostic factors provided practical recommendations that could help in designing easily applicable prediction models to support shared decision-making.