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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Meta-analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8 months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8 months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1 versus 15·0 months respectively). The overall resection rate was lower with neoadjuvant treatment than with upfront surgery (66·0 versus 81·3 per cent; P < 0·001), but the R0 rate was higher (86·8 (95 per cent c.i. 84·6 to 88·7) versus 66·9 (64·2 to 69·6) per cent; P < 0·001). Reported by intention to treat, the R0 rates were 58·0 and 54·9 per cent respectively (P = 0·088). The pathological lymph node rate was 43·8 per cent after neoadjuvant therapy and 64·8 per cent in the upfront surgery group (P < 0·001). Toxicity of at least grade III was reported in up to 64 per cent of the patients. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.

Trends in use of lymphadenectomy in surgery with curative intent for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The role of routine lymph node dissection (LND) in the surgical treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the trends of LND use in the surgical treatment of ICC. METHODS: Patients undergoing curative intent resection for ICC in 2000-2015 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Use of lymphadenectomy was evaluated over time and by geographical region (West versus East); LND use and final nodal status were analysed relative to AJCC T categories. RESULTS: Among the 1084 patients identified, half (535, 49·4 per cent) underwent concomitant hepatic resection and LND. Between 2000 and 2015, the proportion of patients undergoing LND for ICC nearly doubled: 44·4 per cent in 2000 versus 81·5 per cent in 2015 (P < 0·001). Use of LND increased over time among both Eastern and Western centres. The odds of LND was associated with the time period of surgery and the extent of the tumour/T status (referent T1a: OR 2·43 for T2, P = 0·001; OR 2·13 for T3, P = 0·016). Among the 535 patients who had LND, lymph node metastasis (LNM) was noted in 209 (39·1 per cent). Specifically, the incidence of LNM was 24 per cent in T1a disease, 22 per cent in T1b, 42·9 per cent in T2, 48 per cent in T3 and 66 per cent in T4 (P < 0·001). AJCC T3 and T4 categories, harvesting of six or more lymph nodes, and presence of satellite lesions were independently associated with LNM. CONCLUSION: The rate of LNM was high across all T categories, with one in five patients with T1 disease having nodal metastasis. The trend in increased use of LND suggests a growing adoption of AJCC recommendations in the treatment of ICC.

Association of the location of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (head, body, tail) with tumor stage, treatment, and survival: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) location (head, body, tail) and tumor stage, treatment and overall survival (OS) is unclear. METHODS: Patients with PDAC diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 were included from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were compared with the tumor locations. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Overall, 19,023 patients were included. PDAC locations were 13,451 (71%) head, 2429 (13%) body and 3143 (16%) tail. Differences were found regarding metastasized disease (head 42%, body 69%, tail 84%, p < .001), size (>4 cm: 21%, 40%, 51%, p < .001) and resection rate (17%, 4%, 7%, p < .001). For patients without metastases, median OS did not differ between head, body, tail (after resection: 16.8, 15.0, 17.3 months, without resection: 5.2, 6.1, 4.6 months, respectively). For patients with metastases, median OS differed slightly (2.6, 2.4, 1.9 months, respectively, adjusted HR body versus head 1.17 (95%CI 1.10-1.23), tail versus head 1.35 (95%CI 1.29-1.41)). CONCLUSIONS: PDAC locations in body and tail are larger, more often metastasized and less often resectable than in the pancreatic head. Whereas survival is similar after resection, survival in metastasized disease is somewhat less for PDAC in the pancreatic body and tail.

Translating the ABC-02 trial into daily practice: outcome of palliative treatment in patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer treated with gemcitabine and cisplatin.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is an uncommon cancer with an unfavorable prognosis. Since 2010, the standard of care for patients with unresectable BTC is palliative treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, based on the landmark phase III ABC-02 trial. This current study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer in daily practice that meet the criteria for the ABC-02 trial in comparison to patients who did not. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with unresectable BTC between 2010 and 2015 with an indication for gemcitabine and cisplatin were included. We divided these patients into three groups: (I) patients who received chemotherapy and met the criteria of the ABC-02 trial, (II) patients who received chemotherapy and did not meet these criteria and (III) patients who had an indication for chemotherapy, but received best supportive care without chemotherapy. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: We collected data of 208 patients, of which 138 (66.3%) patients received first line chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Median OS of 69 patients in group I, 63 patients in group II and 65 patients in group III was 9.6 months (95%CI = 6.7-12.5), 9.5 months (95%CI = 7.7-11.3) and 7.6 months (95%CI = 5.0-10.2), respectively. Median PFS was 6.0 months (95%CI = 4.4-7.6) in group I and 5.1 months (95%CI = 3.7-6.5) in group II. Toxicity and number of dose reductions (p = .974) were comparable between the two chemotherapy groups. CONCLUSION: First-line gemcitabine and cisplatin is an effective and safe treatment for patients with unresectable BTC who do not meet the eligibility criteria for the ABC-02 trial. Median OS, PFS and treatment side effects were comparable between the patients who received chemotherapy (group I vs. group II).

Surgical Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients with Cirrhosis: Impact of Lymphadenectomy on Peri-Operative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of lymphadenectomy (LND) on cirrhotic patients undergoing hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) have not been investigated. We sought to analyze the impact of LND on morbidity among patients undergoing resection for ICC. METHODS: A total of 1005 patients who underwent hepatectomy for ICC at one of the 14 participating institutions between 1990 and 2015 were identified. A propensity score match analysis was performed to reduce confounding biases between cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis groups. RESULTS: Cirrhosis was diagnosed in 118 (11.7%) patients. Among non-cirrhotic patients, 63% underwent major liver resection versus only 20% among patients with cirrhosis (p < 0.001). LND was also less common among cirrhotic versus non-cirrhotic patients (19 vs. 50%, p < 0.001). The incidence of complications was 41 and 30% among patients who did not and did have cirrhosis, respectively (p = 0.022). The propensity-matched cohort included 150 patients. The incidence of complications was 71% among patients who underwent lymphadenectomy versus 23% among patients who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (OR 8.39) (p < 0.001). In the propensity-matched analysis, the median HLN was comparable among patients independent of cirrhosis status (median HLN: non-cirrhosis, 2.5 vs. cirrhosis, 2) (p = 0.95). While lymphadenectomy was associated with a higher risk of infections (non-cirrhosis, 0% vs. cirrhosis, 21%, p < 0.001) among patients with cirrhosis, infections were not associated with lymphadenectomy among non-cirrhotic patients (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Lymphadenectomy was associated with an increased risk of complications among patients with cirrhosis undergoing surgery for ICC. The benefit of lymphadenectomy in cirrhotic patients should be considered in light of the higher risk of postoperative complications compared with non-cirrhotic patients.

Implications of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Etiology on Recurrence and Prognosis after Curative-Intent Resection: a Multi-Institutional Study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to investigate the prognosis of patients following curative-intent surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) stratified by hepatitis B (HBV-ICC), hepatolithiasis (Stone-ICC), and no identifiable cause (conventional ICC) etiologic subtype. METHODS: 986 patients with HBV-ICC (n = 201), stone-ICC (n = 103), and conventional ICC (n = 682) who underwent curative-intent resection were identified from a multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate residual bias. RESULTS: HBV-ICC patients more often had cirrhosis, earlier stage tumors, a mass-forming lesion, well-to-moderate tumor differentiation, and an R0 resection versus stone-ICC or conventional ICC patients. Five-year recurrence-free survival among HBV-ICC and conventional ICC patients was 23.9 and 17.8%, respectively, versus a recurrence-free of only 8.3% among patients with stone-ICC. Similarly, 5-year overall survival among patients with stone-ICC was only 18.3% compared with 48.9 and 38.0% for patients with HBV-ICC and conventional ICC, respectively. On PSM, patients with stone-ICC group had equivalent long-term outcomes as HBV-ICC patients. In contrast, on PSM, stone-ICC patients had a median overall survival of only 18.0 months versus 44.0 months for patients with conventional ICC. Median overall survival after intrahepatic-only recurrence among patients who had stone-ICC (6.0 months) was worse than OS among HBV-ICC (13.0 months) or conventional ICC (12.0 months) (p = 0.006 and p = 0.082, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: While HBV-ICC had a better prognosis on unadjusted analyses, these differences were mitigated on PSM suggesting no stage-for-stage differences in outcomes compared with stone-ICC or conventional ICC. In contrast, patients with stone-ICC had worse long-term outcomes. These data highlight the relative importance of ICC etiology relative to established clinicopathological factors in the prognosis of patients with ICC.

Impact of Morphological Status on Long-Term Outcome Among Patients Undergoing Liver Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The influence of morphological status on the long-term outcome of patients undergoing liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is poorly defined. We sought to study the impact of morphological status on overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing curative-intent resection for ICC. METHODS: A total of 1083 patients who underwent liver resection for ICC between 1990 and 2015 were identified. Data on clinicopathological characteristics, operative details, and morphological status were recorded and analyzed. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce confounding biases. RESULTS: Among 1083 patients, 941(86.9%) had a mass-forming (MF) or intraductal-growth (IG) type, while 142 (13.1%) had a periductal-infiltrating (PI) or MF with PI components (MF + PI) ICC. Patients with an MF/IG ICC had a 5-year OS of 41.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 37.7-45.9) compared with 25.5% (95% CI 17.3-34.4) for patients with a PI/MF + PI (p < 0.001). Morphological type was found to be an independent predictor of OS as patients with a PI/MF + PI ICC had a higher hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82; p = 0.006) compared with patients who had an MF/IG ICC. Compared with T1a-T1b-T2 MF/IG tumors, T1a-T1b-T2 PI/MF + PI and T3-T4 PI/MF + PI tumors were associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.47 vs. 3.59). Conversely, patients with T3-T4 MF/IG tumors had a similar risk of death compared with T1a-T1b-T2 MF/IG patients (p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing curative-intent resection of ICC, morphological status was a predictor of long-term outcome. Patients with PI or MF + PI ICC had an approximately 45% increased risk of death long-term compared with patients who had an MF or IG ICC.

Survival after resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma-development and external validation of a prognostic nomogram.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to derive and validate a prognostic nomogram to predict disease-specific survival (DSS) after a curative intent resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nomogram was developed from 173 patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York, USA. The nomogram was externally validated in 133 patients treated at the Academic Medical Center (AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Prognostic accuracy was assessed with concordance estimates and calibration, and compared with the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. The nomogram will be available as web-based calculator at mskcc.org/nomograms. RESULTS: For all 306 patients, the median overall survival (OS) was 40 months and the median DSS 41 months. Median follow-up for patients alive at last follow-up was 48 months. Lymph node involvement, resection margin status, and tumor differentiation were independent prognostic factors in the derivation cohort (MSKCC). A nomogram with these prognostic factors had a concordance index of 0.73 compared with 0.66 for the AJCC staging system. In the validation cohort (AMC), the concordance index was 0.72, compared with 0.60 for the AJCC staging system. Calibration was good in the derivation cohort; in the validation cohort patients had a better median DSS than predicted by the model. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed nomogram to predict DSS after curative intent resection of PHC had a better prognostic accuracy than the AJCC staging system. Calibration was suboptimal because DSS differed between the two institutions. The nomogram can inform patients and physicians, guide shared decision making for adjuvant therapy, and stratify patients in future randomized, controlled trials.