Dabigatran (Pradaxa) Is Safe for Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians and American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association recommend using low-molecular-weight heparin for 28 days postoperatively for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after cancer surgery. Dabigatran is a once daily oral anticoagulant that is FDA approved for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery, uses fixed dosing, and has an antidote. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for malignant pancreatic tumors (neuroendocrine excluded) from January 2017 to January 2018 were converted to dabigatran 220 mg daily on discharge until postoperative day 28; patients with medical or insurance contraindications were converted to enoxaparin or another direct oral anticoagulant. The primary endpoint was bleeding complications through 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were considered for this study (median age 67 ± 10; 58.9% male). Eighty-seven (82.9%) patients received dabigatran and 18 (17.1%) received another form of anticoagulation. There were 19 (4.2%) patients not prescribed dabigatran due to medical or inpatient contraindications. Four patients experienced bleeding complications after discharge while on dabigatran. Two (2%) were major bleeds (Clavien-Dindo IV and V), and 2 (2%) were minor (Clavien-Dindo I). Patient compliance was excellent, with 93% of prescribed patients fully completing their prophylaxis. There were 2 patients that developed symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. CONCLUSION: The use of a direct oral anticoagulant as extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after major gastrointestinal surgery has not been studied to date. These results show dabigatran to be a safe alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin for extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with regard to bleeding complications.

Irreversible electroporation of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a primer for the radiologist.

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is increasingly used for the ablation of unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Unlike other ablation technologies that cannot be safely used around critical vasculature or ducts for risk of thermal damage, IRE uses high-voltage pulses to disrupt cellular membranes. This causes cell death by apoptosis and inflammation. IRE has been deployed by both open and percutaneous approaches. Generator parameters are the same for both approaches, and settings are pancreas specific. Variations in settings, probe placement, and probe exposure can result in thermal damage or reversible electroporation and resultant treatment failure, morbidity, or mortality. When used properly, IRE appears to improve overall survival and local recurrence, but does not influence the rate of distant recurrence. However, studies of both open and percutaneous approaches have been relatively small, non-controlled, and without appropriate comparisons. It is challenging for the radiologist to interpret treatment effects after IRE because of a dearth of guiding literature and pathologic correlates. This primer describes technical aspects, pathology correlates, post-IRE imaging, and outcomes for percutaneous and open approaches.

Resection of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer without Regression of Arterial Encasement After Modern-Era Neoadjuvant Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Modern-era systemic therapy for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC) offers improved survival relative to historical regimens but not necessarily improved radiographic downstaging to allow more patients to undergo resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival, progression, and pathologic outcomes after resection of LAPC that did not regress from > 180 degrees arterial encasement after neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Sixty-one LAPC patients were brought to the operating room after neoadjuvant therapy for NCCN-defined unresectable pancreatic cancer between 2012 and 2017. Pts were explored with intent of pancreatectomy and irreversible electroporation for margin extension; 5 (8%) had metastatic lesions on exploratory laparoscopy and were excluded from analyses. Imaging was re-examined to confirm LAPC prior to surgery. Data were analyzed from a prospective pancreatic cancer database. RESULTS: Patients had arterial involvement of the celiac axis (37.5%) and/or superior mesenteric artery (42.9%) and/or an extended length of the common hepatic (n = 44.6%) artery. Twenty-nine males and 27 females, median 65 years of age, received neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based (58.9%) or FOLFIRINOX (35.7%) chemotherapy and stereotactic body (42.9%) or intensity-modulated (51.8%) radiation therapy. Median months from initiation of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery was 7.5. Sixty-one percent underwent Whipple, 21% distal, and 18% modified Appleby procedures; 57% patients underwent venous reconstruction. Ninety-day mortality was 2%. An R0 margin was achieved in 80%, and 53% were N0. Median overall and progression-free survival was 18.5 (95%CI 12.27-32.33) and 8.5 months (95%CI 6.0-15.0), respectively. One- and 3-year survival from surgery was 68.5% (95%CI 53.0-79.7) and 39.0% (95%CI 23.7-53.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: With modern-era neoadjuvant therapy, R0 resections can be achieved in a majority of non-metastatic patients with locally advanced, unresectable disease based on cross-sectional imaging.