Perineural Invasion is an Important Prognostic Factor in Patients With Radically Resected (R0) and Node-negative (pN0) Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between perineural invasion (PNI) and overall survival (OS) in a nationwide cohort of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), stratified for margin negative (R0) or positive (R1) resection and absence or presence of lymph node metastasis (pN0 or pN1-N2, respectively). BACKGROUND: Patients with R0 and pN0 resected PDAC have a relatively favorable prognosis. As PNI is associated with worse OS, this might be a useful factor to provide further prognostic information for patients counselling. METHODS: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on relevant pathological features (PNI, R status, and N status). OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox-proportional hazard analyses were performed to calculate hazard ratio's (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: In total, 1630 patients were included with a median follow-up of 43 (interquartile range 33-58) months. PNI was independently associated with worse OS in both R0 patients (HR 1.49 [95%CI 1.18-1.88]; P<0.001) and R1 patients (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.06-1.83]; P=0.02), as well as in pN0 patients (HR 1.75 [95%CI 1.27-2.41]; P<0.001) and pN1-N2 patients (HR 1.35 [95% CI 1.10-1.67]; P<0.01). In 315 patients with R0N0, multivariable analysis showed that PNI was the strongest predictor of OS (HR 2.24 [95% CI 1.52-3.30]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: PNI is strongly associated with worse survival in patients with resected PDAC, in particular in patients with relatively favorable pathological features. These findings may aid patient stratification and counselling and help guide treatment strategies.

Recommendations on maximising the clinical value of tissue in the management of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Background & Aims: Patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma can now be managed with targeted therapies directed against specific molecular alterations. Consequently, tissue samples submitted to the pathology department must produce molecular information in addition to a diagnosis or, for resection specimens, staging information. The pathologist's role when evaluating these specimens has therefore changed to accommodate such personalised approaches. Methods: We developed recommendations and guidance for pathologists by conducting a systematic review of existing guidance to generate candidate statements followed by an international Delphi process. Fifty-nine pathologists from 28 countries in six continents rated statements mapped to all elements of the specimen pathway from receipt in the pathology department to authorisation of the final written report. A separate survey of 'end-users' of the report including surgeons, oncologists, and gastroenterologists was undertaken to evaluate what information should be included in the written report to enable appropriate patient management. Results: Forty-eight statements reached consensus for inclusion in the guidance including 10 statements about the content of the written report that also reached consensus by end-user participants. A reporting proforma to allow easy inclusion of the recommended data points was developed. Conclusions: These guiding principles and recommendations provide a framework to allow pathologists reporting on patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma to maximise the informational yield of specimens required for personalised patient management. Impact and Implications: Biopsy or resection lesional tissue from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma must yield information about the molecular abnormalities within the tumour that define suitability for personalised therapies in addition to a diagnosis and staging information. Here, we have developed international consensus guidance for pathologists that report such cases using a Delphi process that sought the views of both pathologists and 'end-users of pathology reports. The guide highlights the need to report cases in a way that preserves tissue for molecular testing and emphasises that reporting requires interpretation of histological characteristics within the broader clinical and radiological context. The guide will allow pathologists to report cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in a uniform manner that maximises the value of the tissue received to facilitate optimal multidisciplinary patient management.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy combined with systemic chemotherapy for borderline resectable and unresectable colorectal liver metastases: phase II feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy combined with systemic chemotherapy (HAIP-SYS) for liver-only colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) has shown promising results but has not been adopted worldwide. This study evaluated the feasibility of HAIP-SYS in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a single-arm phase II study of patients with CRLMs who received HAIP-SYS consisting of floxuridine with concomitant systemic FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Main inclusion and exclusion criteria were borderline resectable or unresectable liver-only metastases, suitable arterial anatomy and no previous local treatment. Patients underwent laparotomy for pump implantation and primary tumour resection if in situ. Primary end point was feasibility, defined as ≥70% of patients completing two cycles of HAIP-SYS. Sample size calculations led to 31 patients. Secondary outcomes included safety and tumour response. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with median 13 CRLMs (i.q.r. 6-23) were included. Twenty-eight patients (90%) received two HAIP-SYS cycles. Three patients did not get two cycles due to extrahepatic disease at pump placement, definitive pathology of a recto-sigmoidal squamous cell carcinoma, and progressive disease. Five patients experienced grade 3 surgical or pump device-related complications (16%) and 11 patients experienced grade ≥3 chemotherapy toxicity (38%). At first radiological evaluation, disease control rate was 83% (24/29 patients) and hepatic disease control rate 93% (27/29 patients). At 6 months, 19 patients (66%) had experienced grade ≥3 chemotherapy toxicity and the disease control rate was 79%. CONCLUSION: HAIP-SYS for borderline resectable and unresectable CRLMs was feasible and safe in the Netherlands. This has led to a successive multicentre phase III randomized trial investigating oncological benefit (EUDRA-CT 2023-506194-35-00). Current trial registration number: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04552093).

Extrahepatic perfusion and incomplete hepatic perfusion after hepatic arterial infusion pump implantation: incidence and clinical implications.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigates the incidence of extrahepatic perfusion and incomplete hepatic perfusion at intraoperative methylene blue testing and on postoperative nuclear imaging in patients undergoing hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy. METHODS: The first 150 consecutive patients who underwent pump implantation in the Netherlands were included. All patients underwent surgical pump implantation with the catheter in the gastroduodenal artery. All patients underwent intraoperative methylene blue testing and postoperative nuclear imaging (99mTc-Macroaggregated albumin SPECT/CT) to determine perfusion via the pump. RESULTS: Patients were included between January-2018 and December-2021 across eight centers. During methylene blue testing, 29.3% had extrahepatic perfusion, all successfully managed intraoperatively. On nuclear imaging, no clinically relevant extrahepatic perfusion was detected (0%, 95%CI: 0.0-2.5%). During methylene blue testing, 2.0% had unresolved incomplete hepatic perfusion. On postoperative nuclear imaging, 8.1% had incomplete hepatic perfusion, leading to embolization in only 1.3%. CONCLUSION: Methylene blue testing during pump placement for intra-arterial chemotherapy identified extrahepatic perfusion in 29.3% of patients, but could be resolved intraoperatively in all patients. Postoperative nuclear imaging found no clinically relevant extrahepatic perfusion and led to embolization in only 1.3% of patients. The role of routine nuclear imaging after HAIP implantation should be studied in a larger cohort.

Robotic Versus Open Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Placement for Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). HAIP chemotherapy requires a catheter inserted in the gastroduodenal artery and a subcutaneous pump. The catheter can be placed using an open or robotic approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of robotic versus open HAIP placement in patients with unresectable iCCA. METHODS: We analyzed patients with unresectable iCCA included in the PUMP-II trial from January 2020 to September 2022 undergoing robotic or open HAIP placement at Amsterdam UMC, Erasmus MC, and UMC Utrecht. The primary outcome was time to functional recovery (TTFR). RESULTS: In total, 22 robotic and 28 open HAIP placements were performed. The median TTFR was 2 days after robotic placement versus 5 days after open HAIP placement (p < 0.001). One patient (4.5%) in the robotic group underwent a conversion to open because of a large bulky tumor leaning on the hilum immobilizing the liver. Postoperative complications were similar-36% (8/22) after robotic placement versus 39% (11/28) after open placement (p = 1.000). The median length of hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group-3 versus 5 days (p < 0.001). All 22 robotic patients initiated HAIP chemotherapy post-surgery, i.e. 93% (26/28) in the open group (p = 0.497). The median time to start HAIP chemotherapy was 14 versus 18 days (p = 0.153). CONCLUSION: Robotic HAIP placement in patients with unresectable iCCA is a safe and effective procedure and is associated with a significantly shorter TTFR and hospital stay than open HAIP placement.

Referral rate of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer and survival: outcomes of a multicentre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment outcomes of incidental gallbladder cancer generally stem from tertiary referral centres, while many patients are initially diagnosed and managed in secondary care centres. Referral patterns of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer are poorly reported. This study aimed to evaluate incidental gallbladder cancer treatment in secondary centres, rates of referral to tertiary centres and its impact on survival. METHODS: Medical records of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 in 27 Dutch secondary centres were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics, surgical treatment, tumour characteristics, referral pattern and survival were assessed. Predictors for overall survival were determined using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 382 patients with incidental gallbladder cancer were included. Of 243 patients eligible for re-resection (pT1b-pT3, M0), 131 (53.9%) were referred to a tertiary centre. The reason not to refer, despite indication for re-resection, was not documented for 52 of 112 non-referred patients (46.4%). In total, 98 patients underwent additional surgery with curative intent (40.3%), 12 of these in the secondary centre. Median overall survival was 33 months (95% c.i. 24 to 42 months) in referred patients versus 17 months (95% c.i. 3 to 31 months) in the non-referred group (P = 0.019). Referral to a tertiary centre was independently associated with improved survival after correction for age, ASA classification, tumour stage and resection margin (HR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.38 to 0.97; P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Poor incidental gallbladder cancer referral rates were associated with worse survival. Age, performance status, resection margin or tumour stage should not preclude referral of a patient with incidental gallbladder cancer to a tertiary centre.

The Difficulty of Detecting Occult Metastases in Patients with Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Development and External Validation of a Preoperative Prediction Model.

Occult metastases are detected in 10-15% of patients during exploratory laparotomy for pancreatic cancer. This study developed and externally validated a model to predict occult metastases in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Model development was performed within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, including all patients operated for pancreatic cancer (January 2013-December 2017). Multivariable logistic regression analysis based on the Akaike Information Criteria was performed with intraoperative pathologically proven metastases as the outcome. The model was externally validated with a cohort from the University Hospital of Verona (January 2013-December 2017). For model development, 2262 patients were included of whom 235 (10%) had occult metastases, located in the liver (n = 143, 61%), peritoneum (n = 73, 31%), or both (n = 19, 8%). The model included age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03), BMI (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), preoperative nutritional support (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.01-2.74), tumor diameter (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.04-2.45), tumor composition (solid vs. cystic) (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.20-4.35), and indeterminate lesions on preoperative imaging (OR 4.01, 95% CI 2.16-7.43). External validation showed poor discrimination with a C-statistic of 0.56. Although some predictor variables were significantly associated with occult metastases, the model performed insufficiently at external validation.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring of the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and in high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared to LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 minutes,P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI>25 kg/m2, previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with less conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Higher Postoperative Mortality and Inferior Survival After Right-Sided Liver Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Left-Sided Resection is Preferred When Possible.

BACKGROUND: A right- or left-sided liver resection can be considered in about half of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), depending on tumor location and vascular involvement. This study compared postoperative mortality and long-term survival of right- versus left-sided liver resections for pCCA. METHODS: Patients who underwent major liver resection for pCCA at 25 Western centers were stratified according to the type of hepatectomy-left, extended left, right, and extended right. The primary outcomes were 90-day mortality and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2022, 1701 patients underwent major liver resection for pCCA. The 90-day mortality was 9% after left-sided and 18% after right-sided liver resection (p < 0.001). The 90-day mortality rates were 8% (44/540) after left, 11% (29/276) after extended left, 17% (51/309) after right, and 19% (108/576) after extended right hepatectomy (p < 0.001). Median OS was 30 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 27-34) after left and 23 months (95% CI 20-25) after right liver resection (p < 0.001), and 33 months (95% CI 28-38), 27 months (95% CI 23-32), 25 months (95% CI 21-30), and 21 months (95% CI 18-24) after left, extended left, right, and extended right hepatectomy, respectively (p < 0.001). A left-sided resection was an independent favorable prognostic factor for both 90-day mortality and OS compared with right-sided resection, with similar results after excluding 90-day fatalities. CONCLUSIONS: A left or extended left hepatectomy is associated with a lower 90-day mortality and superior OS compared with an (extended) right hepatectomy for pCCA. When both a left and right liver resection are feasible, a left-sided liver resection is preferred.

Different Periampullary Types and Subtypes Leading to Different Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy: Reality and Not a Myth; An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

This international multicenter cohort study included 30 centers. Patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), intestinal-type (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary-type (AmpPB) ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were included. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b≥), clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Overall, 3622 patients were included in the study (370 DAC, 811 AmpIT, 895 AmpPB, 1083 dCCA, and 463 PDAC). Mortality rates were comparable between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, and dCCA (ranging from 3.7% to 5.9%), while lower for PDAC (1.5%, p = 0.013). Major morbidity rate was the lowest in PDAC (4.4%) and the highest for DAC (19.9%, p < 0.001). The highest rates of CR-POPF were observed in DAC (27.3%), AmpIT (25.5%), and dCCA (27.6%), which were significantly higher compared to AmpPB (18.5%, p = 0.001) and PDAC (8.3%, p < 0.001). The shortest LOS was found in PDAC (11 d vs. 14-15 d, p < 0.001). Discussion: In conclusion, this study shows significant variations in perioperative mortality, post-operative complications, and hospital stay among different periampullary cancers, and between the ampullary subtypes. Further research should assess the biological characteristics and tissue reactions associated with each type of periampullary cancer, including subtypes, in order to improve patient management and personalized treatment.

Impact of a non-therapeutic laparotomy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with induction (m)FOLFIRINOX: Trans-Atlantic Pancreatic Surgery (TAPS) Consortium study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery in selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer after induction chemotherapy may have drawbacks related to surgical risks and breaks or delays in oncological treatment, in particular when curative intent resection is not possible (that is non-therapeutic laparotomy). The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and oncological impact of a non-therapeutic laparotomy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with induction (m)FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective international multicentre study including patients diagnosed with pathology-proven locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with at least one cycle of (m)FOLFIRINOX (2012-2019). Patients undergoing a non-therapeutic laparotomy (group A) were compared with those not undergoing surgery (group B) and those undergoing resection (group C). RESULTS: Overall, 663 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer were included (67 patients (10.1%) in group A, 425 patients (64.1%) in group B, and 171 patients (25.8%) in group C). A non-therapeutic laparotomy occurred in 28.2% of all explorations (67 of 238), with occult metastases in 30 patients (30 of 67, 44.8%) and a 90-day mortality rate of 3.0% (2 of 67). Administration of palliative therapy (65.9% versus 73.1%; P = 0.307) and median overall survival (20.4 [95% c.i. 15.9 to 27.3] versus 20.2 [95% c.i. 19.1 to 22.7] months; P = 0.752) did not differ between group A and group B respectively. The median overall survival in group C was 36.1 (95% c.i. 30.5 to 41.2) months. The 5-year overall survival rates were 11.4%, 8.7%, and 24.7% in group A, group B, and group C, respectively. Compared with group B, non-therapeutic laparotomy (group A) was not associated with reduced overall survival (HR = 0.88 [95% c.i. 0.61 to 1.27]). CONCLUSION: More than a quarter of surgically explored patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer after induction (m)FOLFIRINOX did not undergo a resection. Such non-therapeutic laparotomy does not appear to substantially impact oncological outcomes.

Improved Clinical Staging System for Localized Pancreatic Cancer Using the ABC Factors: A TAPS Consortium Study.

PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that besides anatomy (A: resectable, borderline resectable [BR], or locally advanced [LA]) also biologic (B: carbohydrate antigen 19-9 [CA 19-9]) and conditional (C: performance status) factors should be considered when staging patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The prognostic value of the combined ABC factors has not been quantitatively validated. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated patients with localized PDAC treated with initial (modified) fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin ([m]FOLFIRINOX) at five high-volume pancreatic cancer centers in the United States and the Netherlands (2012-2019). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to investigate the impact of the ABC factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 1,835 patients with localized PDAC were included. Tumor stage at diagnosis was potentially resectable in 346 (18.9%), BR in 531 (28.9%), and LA in 958 (52.2%) patients. The baseline CA 19-9 was >500 U/mL in 559 patients (32.5%). Performance status was ≥1 in 1,110 patients (60.7%). Independent poor prognostic factors for OS were BR disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06 to 1.50]), LA disease (HR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.45 to 2.02]), CA 19-9 >500 U/mL (HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.52]), and WHO performance status ≥1 (HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.47]). Patients were assigned 1 point for each poor ABC factor and 2 points for LA disease. The median OS for patients with score 0-4 was 49.7, 29.9, 22.0, 19.1, and 14.9 months with corresponding 5-year OS rates of 47.0%, 28.9%, 19.2%, 9.3%, and 4.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ABC factors of tumor anatomy, CA 19-9, and performance status at diagnosis were independent prognostic factors for OS in patients with localized PDAC treated with initial (m)FOLFIRINOX. Staging of patients with localized PDAC at diagnosis should be based on anatomy, CA 19-9, and performance status.

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Implementation of Best Practices in Pancreatic Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

The Value of Biological and Conditional Factors for Staging of Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Upfront Resection: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Novel definitions suggest that resectability status for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) should be assessed beyond anatomical criteria, considering both biological and conditional factors. This has, however, yet to be validated on a nationwide scale. This study evaluated the prognostic value of biological and conditional factors for staging of patients with resectable PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed, including all consecutive patients who underwent upfront resection of National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectable PDAC in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on preoperative carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. PDAC was considered biologically unfavorable (RB+) if CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL and favorable (RB-) otherwise. ECOG ≥ 2 was considered conditionally unfavorable (RC+) and favorable otherwise (RC-). Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-proportional hazard analysis, presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 688 patients were analyzed with a median overall survival (OS) of 20 months (95% CI 19-23). OS was 14 months (95% CI 10 months-median not reached) in 20 RB+C+ patients (3%; HR 1.61, 95% CI 0.86-2.70), 13 months (95% CI 11-15) in 156 RB+C- patients (23%; HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.50-2.31), and 21 months (95% CI 12-41) in 47 RB-C+ patients (7%; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80-1.62) compared with 24 months (95% CI 22-27) in 465 patients with RB-C- PDAC (68%; reference). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after upfront resection of anatomically resectable PDAC is worse in patients with CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL, while performance status had no impact. This supports consideration of CA19-9 in preoperative staging of resectable PDAC.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.