Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. RESULTS: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.

Primary Graft Dysfunction: Factor V's Value for Its Early Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Primary graft dysfunction is a common postoperative complication, lacking consensus regarding diagnostic criteria. Olthoff criteria are the most used, based on blood parameters in the first 7 postoperative days. This lack of consensus and late diagnosis evidence the need of early parameters. This study proposes factor V (FV) as a marker in the first 3 postoperative days for primary graft dysfunction. METHODS: Within a 500-patient database, 27 patients with graft loss in the first 90 days were chosen and compared with a group of 54 patients composed of the immediately preceding and following transplant to each case. Through receiver operating characteristic curves, FV and maximum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (GPT) predictive value on the first 3 postoperative days were assessed. The best threshold value was selected according to the Youden index. RESULTS: FV was significantly higher in the control group, with second postoperative day as the highest discriminative one (area under the curve = 0.893). In addition, a cutoff point of FV 37.50 exhibited a specificity of 92% and sensibility of 69% in predicting allograft failure in the first 3 months. GPT showed a lower validity with area under the curve = 0.77, and a GPT of 1539 presented a specificity of 82% and sensibility of 67%. Combining FV < 37.5 and GPT > 1539, a specificity of 98% and sensibility of 55% was reached. CONCLUSIONS: FV could postulate as an early marker of primary graft dysfunction because of its high specificity despite having a lower sensibility. With de association of FV and GPT the maximum specificity for predicting graft loss in the first 3 months was reached, becoming a promising parameter for further analysis.

Outcome of Liver Transplants Using Donors After Cardiac Death With Normothermic Regional Perfusion.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incorporation of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) to donors after cardiac death (DCD) allows the recovery of liver grafts without the deleterious effects on graft survival the super-rapid technique may cause. The aim of the present report is to determine if the use of NRP in Maastricht type III DCD donors achieves short- and medium-term results comparable to donors after brain death (DBD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an observational cohort study including 117 liver transplants executed between November 2016 and April 2021, divided into NRP (n = 39) and DBD (n = 78). RESULTS: Donors were younger in the NRP group (NRP 52 vs DBD 59.4 years; P < .005). Liver recipients in each study group were of similar age and severity of liver disease, although the predominant transplant indication in the NRP group was hepatocellular carcinoma. No differences in ischemia times were found. The incidence of early allograft disfunction and primary nonfunction was balanced between NRP and DBD. Eight patients required retransplant, all of them in the DBD group. No differences were found in biliary complications (NRP 12% vs DBD 5%; P = .104). Ischemic cholangiopathy affected a single DBD patient. Graft survival's Kaplan Meier curve shows a better outcome in the NRP group, although the difference did not reach significance (P = .075). CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of perfusion machines, and specifically the NPR in situ, converts suboptimal liver grafts such as DCD into organs comparable to DBDs.

Results of liver transplantation with donors older than 80 years: a case control study.

AIM: The inclusion of elderly donors can increase the pool of organs available for transplant. BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients who received livers from donors aged ≥ 80 years vs. younger donors. METHODS: We considered all liver transplantations performed in our unit between January 2006 and January 2015. Twelve patients received liver from a cadaveric donor aged ≥ 80 years (study group) and their outcomes were compared with those of patients who received liver from a younger donor (control group). This study was carried out to analyze the characteristics of donors and recipients, as well as the clinical course and survival of recipients. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed in donors' age (55.6 ± 14.4 vs. 82.7 ± 2.7 years, p < 0.001), donors' ICU stay (p = 0.008), donors' ALT levels (p = 0.009) and donors' AST levels (p = 0.01). Statistically significant differences were found in ischemia time (p < 0.05). In total, 8.3% of the recipients of liver from a donor aged < 80 required retransplantation vs. 25% of recipients of donor's ≥ 80 years. Patient survival at one, three and five years was 89%, 78.6% and 74.5%, respectively vs. 83.4%, 79.4% and 59.6% for the study group. CONCLUSION: Livers from older donors can be safely used for transplantation with acceptable patient survival rates. However, graft survival rates are lower for recipients of livers from older donors as compared to younger donors, and survival only increased with retransplantation.