Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer (NORPACT-1): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49-71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62-84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2-34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6-not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00-2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46-67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55-83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2-34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4-not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99-2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven. FUNDING: Norwegian Cancer Society, South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority, The Sjöberg Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital Research Grants.

Hepatocellular carcinoma.

An update on the management of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is provided in the present article for those interested in the UEMS/EBSQ exam in Surgical Oncology. The most recent publications in HCC, including surveillance, guidelines, and indications for liver resection, liver transplantation, and locoregional or systemic therapies, are summarised. The objective is to yield a set of main points regarding HCC that are required in the core curriculum of hepatobiliary oncological surgery.

Surgery as a Principle and Technical Consideration for Primary Tumor Resection of Small Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Small bowel neuroendocrine tumors (SB-NETs) are increasingly identified and have become the most frequent entity among small bowel tumors. An increasing incidence, a high prevalence, and a prolonged survival with optimal modern multidisciplinary management makes SB-NETs a unique set of tumors to consider for surgical oncologists. The major goals of surgical treatment in the setting of SB-NET include control of tumor volume, control of endocrine secretion, and prevention of locoregional complications. Key considerations include assessment of multifocality and resection of mesenteric nodal masses with the use of mesenteric-sparing approaches and acceptance of R1 margins if necessary to clear disease while avoiding short bowel syndrome. A description through eight steps for consideration is presented to allow for systematic surgical planning and execution of resection. Moreover, some controversies and evolving considerations to the surgical principles and technical procedures remain. The role of primary tumor resection in the presence of (unresectable) liver metastasis is still unclear. Reports of feasibility of minimally invasive surgery are emerging, with undetermined selection criteria for appropriateness or long-term outcomes. Resection of SB-NETs should be considered in all patients fit for surgery and should follow principles to achieve surgical oncological control that is appropriate for the stage and tumor burden, considering the age and comorbidity of the individual patient.

Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) clone 22C3 expression in resected colorectal cancer as companion diagnostics for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: A comparison study and inter-rater agreement evaluation across proposed cut-offs and predictive (TPS, CPS and IC) scores.

BACKGROUND: Expression of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) guides the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in several cancers. In colorectal cancer (CRC), ICI are only approved for metastatic CRC, while several studies suggest high efficacy even in operable CRC. The aim of this study was to investigate the inter-rater agreement of PD-L1 as a companion diagnostic marker. METHODS: Specimens from resected stage I-III CRC (n = 166 tumors) were stained with PD-L1 22C3 clone. PD-L1 expression was scored by two pathologists as tumor proportion score (TPS), combined positive score (CPS) and immune cell score (IC). Inter-rater agreement was tested using three different agreement coefficients. RESULTS: Raw scores of the two pathologists had 'good' to 'excellent' correlation. Spearman's rho for TPS=0.917 (95 %CI 0.839-0.995), for CPS=0.776 (95 %CI 0.726-0.826) and IC=0.818 (95 %CI 0.761-0.875). For TPS, kappa (κ)-agreements for both the ≥1 % and ≥10 % cutoffs had excellent correlation. For CPS the ≥1 % and ≥10 % cutoffs demonstrated κ=0.32 (95 %CI 0.12-0.51) and κ=0.36 (95 %CI 0.25-0.48) respectively. Cutoffs for IC showed κ=0.53 (95 %CI 0.18-0.79) for the ≥1 % cutoff, and κ=0.61 (95 %CI 0.48-0.73) for the ≥10 % cutoff. Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC1) showed higher agreement coefficients than κ-values for most, but not all cut-offs. CONCLUSION: Agreement for PD-L1 was good to excellent for raw scores. Agreement variation across several criteria and cut-offs suggests the need for more robust criteria for PD-L1 as a companion diagnostic marker.

Clinical trials of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for early-stage operable colon and rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR). Despite the remarkable response reported in preliminary trials, the role of ICI in patients with early-stage, operable CRC remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate trials on neoadjuvant ICI in operable CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Scoping review of clinical trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and EU clinical trial registers) and PubMed/Medline database of trials on neoadjuvant ICI for operable CRC was done up to December 2022. RESULTS: Some 40 trials investigating neoadjuvant ICI for early-stage, operable CRC were identified, including five published trials and three conference abstracts. Preclinical phase I/II trial predominated with only three clinical phase III trials. Few trials investigated neoadjuvant ICI as the only intervention (monotherapy). Trials in rectal cancer were designed for combined ICI with chemo(radio)therapy, only 8 trials stating an MSI/dMMR status for inclusion, one designed for MSS/pMMR only and, the rest agnostic for MMR status. Thirty-eight (95%) trials investigated programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor or with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, in two trials each, respectively. Pathological complete response as primary outcome after surgery was the most frequently used study endpoint. In rectal cancer, six trials included a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with complete clinical response. No "watch and wait" study design for colon cancer after neoadjuvant ICI were identified. CONCLUSION: High response rates from neoadjuvant ICI in early-stage colon and rectal cancer are reported in phase I/II studies. Contemporary trial designs are heterogeneous, with few comparable inclusion criteria, use of several drug combinations and durations and, wide variation of endpoints reported. Harmonizing clinical and translational aspects including survival data is needed for improved future trial designs with clinical impact.

E-AHPBA-ESSO-ESSR Innsbruck consensus guidelines for preoperative liver function assessment before hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Standardized assessment of preoperative liver function is crucial to identify patients at risk. These European consensus guidelines provide guidance for preoperative patient assessment. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus. The expert panel consisted of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and hepatologists. The guideline process was supervised by a methodologist and reviewed by a patient representative. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Evidence assessment and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. RESULTS: Based on 271 publications covering 4 key areas, 21 statements (at least 85 per cent agreement) were produced (median level of evidence 2- to 2+). Only a few systematic reviews (2++) and one RCT (1+) were identified. Preoperative liver function assessment should be considered before complex resections, and in patients with suspected or known underlying liver disease, or chemotherapy-associated or drug-induced liver injury. Clinical assessment and blood-based scores reflecting liver function or portal hypertension (for example albumin/bilirubin, platelet count) aid in identifying risk of PHLF. Volumetry of the future liver remnant represents the foundation for assessment, and can be combined with indocyanine green clearance or LiMAx® according to local expertise and availability. Functional MRI and liver scintigraphy are alternatives, combining FLR volume and function in one examination. CONCLUSION: These guidelines reflect established methods to assess preoperative liver function and PHLF risk, and have uncovered evidence gaps of interest for future research.

Liver surgery is an effective treatment for liver tumours. Liver failure is a major problem in patients with a poor liver quality or having large operations. The treatment options for liver failure are limited, with high death rates. To estimate patient risk, assessing liver function before surgery is important. Many methods exist for this purpose, including functional, blood, and imaging tests. This guideline summarizes the available literature and expert opinions, and aids clinicians in planning safe liver surgery.

Source control in emergency general surgery: WSES, GAIS, SIS-E, SIS-A guidelines.

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are among the most common global healthcare challenges and they are usually precipitated by disruption to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their successful management typically requires intensive resource utilization, and despite the best therapies, morbidity and mortality remain high. One of the main issues required to appropriately treat IAI that differs from the other etiologies of sepsis is the frequent requirement to provide physical source control. Fortunately, dramatic advances have been made in this aspect of treatment. Historically, source control was left to surgeons only. With new technologies non-surgical less invasive interventional procedures have been introduced. Alternatively, in addition to formal surgery open abdomen techniques have long been proposed as aiding source control in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. It is ironic that while a lack or even delay regarding source control clearly associates with death, it is a concept that remains poorly described. For example, no conclusive definition of source control technique or even adequacy has been universally accepted. Practically, source control involves a complex definition encompassing several factors including the causative event, source of infection bacteria, local bacterial flora, patient condition, and his/her eventual comorbidities. With greater understanding of the systemic pathobiology of sepsis and the profound implications of the human microbiome, adequate source control is no longer only a surgical issue but one that requires a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach. Thus, while any breach in the GI tract must be controlled, source control should also attempt to control the generation and propagation of the systemic biomediators and dysbiotic influences on the microbiome that perpetuate multi-system organ failure and death. Given these increased complexities, the present paper represents the current opinions and recommendations for future research of the World Society of Emergency Surgery, of the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery of Surgical Infection Society Europe and Surgical Infection Society America regarding the concepts and operational adequacy of source control in intra-abdominal infections.

Multisocietal European consensus on the terminology, diagnosis, and management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases: an E-AHPBA consensus in partnership with ESSO, ESCP, ESGAR, and CIRSE.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases is complex. The aim of this project was to provide a practical framework for care of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases, with a focus on terminology, diagnosis, and management. METHODS: This project was a multiorganizational, multidisciplinary consensus. The consensus group produced statements which focused on terminology, diagnosis, and management. Statements were refined during an online Delphi process, and those with 70 per cent agreement or above were reviewed at a final meeting. Iterations of the report were shared by electronic mail to arrive at a final agreed document comprising 12 key statements. RESULTS: Synchronous liver metastases are those detected at the time of presentation of the primary tumour. The term 'early metachronous metastases' applies to those absent at presentation but detected within 12 months of diagnosis of the primary tumour, the term 'late metachronous metastases' applies to those detected after 12 months. 'Disappearing metastases' applies to lesions that are no longer detectable on MRI after systemic chemotherapy. Guidance was provided on the recommended composition of tumour boards, and clinical assessment in emergency and elective settings. The consensus focused on treatment pathways, including systemic chemotherapy, synchronous surgery, and the staged approach with either colorectal or liver-directed surgery as first step. Management of pulmonary metastases and the role of minimally invasive surgery was discussed. CONCLUSION: The recommendations of this contemporary consensus provide information of practical value to clinicians managing patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases.

The multi-societal European consensus on the terminology, diagnosis and management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases: an E-AHPBA consensus in partnership with ESSO, ESCP, ESGAR, and CIRSE.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases is complex. The aim of this project was to provide a practical framework for care of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases with a focus on terminology, diagnosis and management. METHODS: This project was a multi-organisational, multidisciplinary consensus. The consensus group produced statements which focused on terminology, diagnosis and management. Statements were refined during an online Delphi process and those with 70% agreement or above were reviewed at a final meeting. Iterations of the report were shared by electronic mail to arrive at a final agreed document comprising twelve key statements. RESULTS: Synchronous liver metastases are those detected at the time of presentation of the primary tumour. The term "early metachronous metastases" applies to those absent at presentation but detected within 12 months of diagnosis of the primary tumour with "late metachronous metastases" applied to those detected after 12 months. Disappearing metastases applies to lesions which are no longer detectable on MR scan after systemic chemotherapy. Guidance was provided on the recommended composition of tumour boards and clinical assessment in emergency and elective settings. The consensus focused on treatment pathways including systemic chemotherapy, synchronous surgery and the staged approach with either colorectal or liver-directed surgery as first step. Management of pulmonary metastases and the role of minimally invasive surgery was discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations of this contemporary consensus provide information of practical value to clinicians managing patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases.

Optimal surgical approach for digestive neuroendocrine neoplasia primaries: Oncological benefits versus short and long-term complications.

The rising incidence and the accumulating prevalence of neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) in the population makes this a common, prevalent and a clinically relevant disease group. Surgical resection represents the only potentially curative treatment for digestive NENs. Thus, resection should in principle be considered for all patients with NEN, although taking the patients age, relevant comorbidity, and performance status into account for operability. Patients with insulinomas, NEN of the appendix and rectal NENs are usually cured by surgery alone. However, less than a third of patients are amendable to curative surgery alone at time of diagnosis. Furthermore, recurrence is common and may occur years after primary surgery, hence the long follow-up time recommended in most NENs (>10 years). As many patients with NENs present with locoregional or metastatic disease, there is considerable debate regarding the role of debulking surgery in these settings. However, good long-term survival can be achieved in a considerable proportion of patients, with 50-70% alive up to 10 years after surgery. Location and grade are the main determinants of long-term survival. Here we present considerations to surgery for primary neuroendocrine tumors in the digestive tract.

Learning from experience: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives on reporting and dealing with serious adverse events.

INTRODUCTION: In surgery, serious adverse events have effects on the patient journey, the patient outcome and may constitute a burden to the surgeon involved. This study aims to investigate facilitators and barriers to transparency around, reporting of and learning from serious adverse events among surgeons. METHODS: Based on a qualitative study design, we recruited 15 surgeons (4 females and 11 males) with 4 different surgical subspecialties from four Norwegian university hospitals. The participants underwent individual semistructured interviews and data were analysed according to principles of inductive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We identified four overarching themes. All surgeons reported having experienced serious adverse events, describing these as part of 'the nature of surgery'. Most surgeons reported that established strategies failed to combine facilitation of learning with taking care of the involved surgeons. Transparency about serious adverse events was by some felt as an extra burden, fearing that openness on technical-related errors could affect their future career negatively. Positive implications of transparency were linked with factors such as minimising the surgeon's feeling of personal burden with positive impact on individual and collective learning. A lack of facilitation of individual and structural transparency factors could entail 'collateral damage'. Our participants suggested that both the younger generation of surgeons in general, and the increasing number of women in surgical professions, might contribute to 'maturing' the culture of transparency. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that transparency associated with serious adverse events is hampered by concerns at both personal and professional levels among surgeons. These results emphasise the importance of improved systemic learning and the need for structural changes; it is crucial to increase the focus on education and training curriculums and offer advice on coping strategies and establish arenas for safe discussions after serious adverse events.

A young man with acute abdomen and anaemia. / En ung mann med akutte magesmerter og anemi.

A young man was hospitalised with acute abdomen and signs of pancreatitis. He became seriously ill and required surgery to address the underlying cause.

Practice patterns in diagnostics, staging, and management strategies of gallbladder cancer among Nordic tertiary centers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is a rare malignancy in the Nordic countries and no common Nordic treatment guidelines exist. This study aimed to characterize the current diagnostic and treatment strategies in the Nordic countries and disclose differences in these strategies. METHODS: This was a survey study with a cross-sectional questionnaire of all 19 university hospitals providing curative-intent surgery for GBC in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland. RESULTS: In all Nordic countries except Sweden, neoadjuvant/downstaging chemotherapy was used in GBC patients. In T1b and T2, majority of the centers (15-18/19) performed extended cholecystectomy. In T3, majority of the centers (13/19) performed cholecystectomy with resection of segments 4b and 5. In T4, majority of the centers (12-14/19) chose palliative/oncological care. The centers in Sweden extended lymphadenectomy beyond the hepatoduodenal ligament, whereas all other Nordic centers usually limited lymphadenectomy to the hepatoduodenal ligament. All Nordic centers except those in Norway used adjuvant chemotherapy routinely for GBC. There were no major differences between the Nordic centers in diagnostics and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical and oncological treatment strategies of GBC vary considerably between the Nordic centers and countries.

A core set of quality performance indicators for HPB procedures: a global consensus for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, and complex biliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) conditions is performed worldwide. This investigation aimed to develop a set of globally accepted procedural quality performance indicators (QPI) for HPB surgical procedures. METHODS: A systematic literature review generated a dataset of published QPI for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, complex biliary surgery and cholecystectomy. Using a modified Delphi process, three rounds were conducted with working groups composed of self-nominating members of the International Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association (IHPBA). The final set of QPI was circulated to the full membership of the IHPBA for review. RESULTS: Seven "core" indicators were agreed for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, and complex biliary surgery (availability of specific services on site, a specialised surgical team with at least two certified HPB surgeons, a satisfactory institutional case volume, synoptic pathology reporting, undertaking of unplanned reintervention procedures within 90 days, the incidence of post-procedure bile leak and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications and 90-day post-procedural mortality). Three further procedure specific QPI were proposed for pancreatectomy, six for hepatectomy and complex biliary surgery. Nine procedure-specific QPIs were proposed for cholecystectomy. The final set of proposed indicators were reviewed and approved by 102 IHPBA members from 34 countries. CONCLUSIONS: This work presents a core set of internationally agreed QPI for HPB surgery.