Poor Prognostic Factors in Long-Term Survivors of Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International, Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the rate of LTS in resected PDAC and determine the association between predictors of OS and LTS. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Long-term survival (>5 y, LTS) remains rare in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Multiple predictors of overall survival (OS) are known but their association with LTS remains unclear. METHODS: An international, multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Included were patients from 2012-2019 with resected PDAC. Excluded were those with metastases at diagnosis or resection, R2 resections, and 90-day mortality. Predictors of OS were identified using multivariable Cox regression and their prevalence in patients with LTS assessed. LTS was calculated by excluding patients with shorter follow-up and predictors of LTS were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 3,003 patients were included (27.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Elevated baseline CA19-9, high tumor grade, nodal disease, and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were negative independent predictors of OS, while receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy predicted improved OS (all P<0.05). LTS was observed in 220/2,436 patients (9.0%), of whom 198 (90%) harbored poor prognostic factors: elevated baseline CA19-9 (58.1%), poor tumor differentiation (51.0%), nodal disease (46.8%), and perineural invasion (76.0%). Of those without any of these four features, 50.0% achieved LTS as compared to 21.3%, 13.3%, 5.2%, and 3.5% in those with 1, 2, 3, or 4 features. CONCLUSIONS: This bi-national cohort demonstrates a true LTS rate of 9.0% in resected PDAC. Clinicians should remain aware that presence of poor prognostic factors does not preclude LTS.

Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

Nutritional support in pancreatic cancer patients and its effect on nutritional status: an observational regional HPB network study investigating current practice.

PURPOSE: Preoperative malnutrition is associated with poor postoperative outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer. This study evaluated the effectiveness of current practice in nutritional support for patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Observational multicenter HPB network study conducted at the Isala Clinics Zwolle, Medical Spectrum Twente, Medical Center Leeuwarden, and University Medical Center Groningen between October 2021 and May 2023. Patients with a suspected pancreatic malignancy scheduled for surgery were screened for malnutrition using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) questionnaire and referred to a dedicated dietician for nutritional support comprising pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, dietary advice, and nutritional supplements to achieve adequate caloric and protein intake. At baseline, 1 day preoperatively, and 3 months postoperatively, the nutritional status and muscle thickness were evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 30 patients, of whom 12 (40%) classified as malnourished (PG-SGA ≥ 4) at baseline. Compared to well-nourished patients, malnourished patients were younger, were predominantly female, and had a higher body mass index, despite having lost more body weight in the past 6 months. All malnourished patients and 78% of the well-nourished patients received nutritional support. Consequently, a preoperative increase in caloric and protein intake and body weight were observed. Postoperatively, despite a further increase in caloric intake, a considerable decrease in protein intake, body weight, and muscle thickness was observed. CONCLUSION: Malnutrition is prevalent in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Nutritional support by a dedicated dietician is effective in enhancing patients' preoperative nutritional status. However, postoperative monitoring of adequate nutritional intake in patients could be improved.

Changes in Self-Reported and Device-Measured Physical Activity Before Abdominal Resection Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of interventions on physical activity levels of patients awaiting abdominal resection surgery using self-reported as well as device-measured outcome measures. DATA SOURCE: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched on the 18th of April 2023 up to April 2023 for studies on interventions to promote physical activity during the preoperative phase. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if pre- and post-intervention physical activity was measured between diagnosis and abdominal surgery. Risk of bias was assessed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) assessment tool for trials. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the effect of the pre-surgery activity promoting interventions on self-reported and device-measured physical activity. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the analysis with 452 subjects in the intervention groups. The random-effect meta-analysis showed a moderate improvement in intervention groups measures in pre-surgery physical activity levels compared to the baseline (SMD = 0.67, [CI = 0.30;1.03], I2 = 79%). The self-reported subgroup meta-analysis showed the largest increase in performed physical activity, (SMD = 0.78, [CI = 0.4;1.15], I2 = 79%) whilst non-significant increase was shown in the device-measured subgroup (SMD = 0.16, [CI = -0.64;0.97], I2 = 58%). CONCLUSION: Increasing physical activity in the preoperative phase is feasible. Self-reported physical activity outcome measures show larger effects compared to device-measured outcome measures. More high-quality research should be performed utilizing objective measures.

Trends and overall survival after combined liver resection and thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population-based propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients, combination of liver resection and ablation permit a more parenchymal-sparing approach. This study assessed trends in use of combined resection and ablation, outcomes, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This population-based study included all CRLM patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2022. To assess OS, data was linked to two databases containing date of death for patients treated between 2014 and 2018. Hospital variation in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation versus major liver resection alone in patients with 2-3 CRLM and ≤3 cm was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 3593 patients, of whom 1336 (37.2%) underwent combined resection and ablation. Combined resection increased from 31.7% in 2014 to 47.9% in 2022. Significant hospital variation (range 5.9-53.8%) was observed in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation. PSM resulted in 1005 patients in each group. Major morbidity was not different (11.6% vs. 5%, P = 1.00). Liver failure occurred less often after combined resection and ablation (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.017). Five-year OS rates were not different (39.3% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.145). CONCLUSION: Combined resection and ablation should be available and considered as an alternative to resection alone in any patient with multiple metastases.

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. RESULTS: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM >5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07-2.34, P = 0.023), >3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00-1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25-2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09-1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.

First-line systemic treatment strategies in patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CAIRO5): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study from the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases might qualify for local treatment with curative intent after reducing the tumour size by induction systemic treatment. We aimed to compare the currently most active induction regimens. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study (CAIRO5), patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, known RAS/BRAFV600E mutation status, WHO performance status of 0-1, and initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases were enrolled at 46 Dutch and one Belgian secondary and tertiary centres. Resectability or unresectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases was assessed centrally by an expert panel of liver surgeons and radiologists, at baseline and every 2 months thereafter by predefined criteria. Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation technique via a masked web-based allocation procedure. Patients with right-sided primary tumour site or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group A) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (group B). Patients with left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group C) or FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab (group D), every 14 days for up to 12 cycles. Patients were stratified by resectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, choice of irinotecan versus oxaliplatin, and BRAFV600E mutation status (for groups A and B). Bevacizumab was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg. Panitumumab was administered intravenously at 6 mg/kg. FOLFIRI consisted of intravenous infusion of irinotecan at 180 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by bolus fluorouracil at 400 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 2400 mg/m2. FOLFOX consisted of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 intravenously together with the same schedule of folinic acid and fluorouracil as in FOLFIRI. FOLFOXIRI consisted of irinotecan at 165 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 3200 mg/m2. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding patients who withdrew consent before starting study treatment or violated major entry criteria (no metastatic colorectal cancer, or previous liver surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02162563, and accrual is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 13, 2014, and Jan 31, 2022, 530 patients (327 [62%] male and 203 [38%] female; median age 62 years [IQR 54-69]) were randomly assigned: 148 (28%) patients to group A, 146 (28%) patients to group B, 118 (22%) patients to group C, and 118 (22%) patients to group D. Groups C and D were prematurely closed for futility. 521 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (147 in group A, 144 in group B, 114 in group C, and 116 in group D). The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was 51·1 months (95% CI 47·7-53·1) in groups A and B and 49·9 months (44·5-52·5) in in groups C and D. Median progression-free survival was 9·0 months (95% CI 7·7-10·5) in group A versus 10·6 months (9·9-12·1) in group B (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·76 [95% CI 0·60-0·98]; p=0·032), and 10·8 months (95% CI 9·9-12·6) in group C versus 10·4 months (9·8-13·0) in group D (stratified HR 1·11 [95% CI 0·84-1·48]; p=0·46). The most frequent grade 3-4 events in groups A and B were neutropenia (19 [13%] patients in group A vs 57 [40%] in group B; p<0·0001), hypertension (21 [14%] vs 20 [14%]; p=1·00), and diarrhoea (five [3%] vs 28 [19%]; p<0·0001), and in groups C and D were neutropenia (29 [25%] vs 24 [21%]; p=0·44), skin toxicity (one [1%] vs 29 [25%]; p<0·0001), hypertension (20 [18%] vs eight [7%]; p=0·016), and diarrhoea (five [4%] vs 18 [16%]; p=0·0072). Serious adverse events occurred in 46 (31%) patients in group A, 75 (52%) patients in group B, 41 (36%) patients in group C, and 49 (42%) patients in group D. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported in group B (two due to multiorgan failure, and one each due to sepsis, pneumonia, portal vein thrombosis, septic shock and liver failure, and sudden death), one in group C (multiorgan failure), and three in group D (cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal sepsis). INTERPRETATION: In patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was the preferred treatment in patients with a right-sided or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated primary tumour. In patients with a left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumour, the addition of panitumumab to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI showed no clinical benefit over bevacizumab, but was associated with more toxicity. FUNDING: Roche and Amgen.

Intersurgeon Variability in Local Treatment Planning for Patients with Initially Unresectable Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Analysis of the Liver Expert Panel of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Consensus on resectability criteria for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) is lacking, resulting in differences in therapeutic strategies. This study evaluated variability of resectability assessments and local treatment plans for patients with initially unresectable CRLM by the liver expert panel from the randomised phase III CAIRO5 study. METHODS: The liver panel, comprising surgeons and radiologists, evaluated resectability by predefined criteria at baseline and 2-monthly thereafter. If surgeons judged CRLM as resectable, detailed local treatment plans were provided. The panel chair determined the conclusion of resectability status and local treatment advice, and forwarded it to local surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 1149 panel evaluations of 496 patients were included. Intersurgeon disagreement was observed in 50% of evaluations and was lower at baseline than follow-up (36% vs. 60%, p < 0.001). Among surgeons in general, votes for resectable CRLM at baseline and follow-up ranged between 0-12% and 27-62%, and for permanently unresectable CRLM between 3-40% and 6-47%, respectively. Surgeons proposed different local treatment plans in 77% of patients. The most pronounced intersurgeon differences concerned the advice to proceed with hemihepatectomy versus parenchymal-preserving approaches. Eighty-four percent of patients judged by the panel as having resectable CRLM indeed received local treatment. Local surgeons followed the technical plan proposed by the panel in 40% of patients. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists among expert liver surgeons in assessing resectability and local treatment planning of initially unresectable CRLM. This stresses the value of panel-based decisions, and the need for consensus guidelines on resectability criteria and technical approach to prevent unwarranted variability in clinical practice.

Postoperative muscle loss, protein intake, physical activity and outcome associations.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle loss is often observed in intensive care patients. However, little is known about postoperative muscle loss, its associated risk factors, and its long-term consequences. The aim of this prospective observational study is to identify the incidence of and risk factors for surgery-related muscle loss (SRML) after major abdominal surgery, and to study the impact of SRML on fatigue and survival. METHODS: Patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery were included in the MUSCLE POWER STUDY. Muscle thickness was measured by ultrasound in three muscles bilaterally (biceps brachii, rectus femoris, and vastus intermedius). SRML was defined as a decline of 10 per cent or more in diameter in at least one arm and leg muscle within 1 week postoperatively. Postoperative physical activity and nutritional intake were assessed using motility devices and nutritional diaries. Fatigue was measured with questionnaires and 1-year survival was assessed with Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients (55 per cent male; mean (s.d.) age 64.3 (11.9) years) were included, 68 of whom patients (39 per cent) showed SRML. Preoperative weight loss and postoperative nutritional intake were statistically significantly associated with SRML in multivariable logistic regression analysis (P < 0.050). The combination of insufficient postoperative physical activity and nutritional intake had an odds ratio of 4.00 (95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 15.47) of developing SRML (P = 0.045). No association with fatigue was observed. SRML was associated with decreased 1-year survival (hazard ratio 4.54, 95 per cent c.i. 1.42 to 14.58; P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: SRML occurred in 39 per cent of patients after major abdominal cancer surgery, and was associated with a decreased 1-year survival.

European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Statement on Prehabilitation for Solid Organ Transplantation Candidates.

There is increasingly growing evidence and awareness that prehabilitation in waitlisted solid organ transplant candidates may benefit clinical transplant outcomes and improve the patient's overall health and quality of life. Lifestyle changes, consisting of physical training, dietary management, and psychosocial interventions, aim to optimize the patient's physical and mental health before undergoing surgery, so as to enhance their ability to overcome procedure-associated stress, reduce complications, and accelerate post-operative recovery. Clinical data are promising but few, and evidence-based recommendations are scarce. To address the need for clinical guidelines, The European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) convened a dedicated Working Group "Prehabilitation in Solid Organ Transplant Candidates," comprising experts in physical exercise, nutrition and psychosocial interventions, to review the literature on prehabilitation in this population, and develop recommendations. These were discussed and voted upon during the Consensus Conference in Prague, 13-15 November 2022. A high degree of consensus existed amongst all stakeholders including transplant recipients and their representatives. Ten recommendations were formulated that are a balanced representation of current published evidence and real-world practice. The findings and recommendations of the Working Group on Prehabilitation for solid organ transplant candidates are presented in this article.