Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP. CONCLUSION: A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Perineural Invasion is an Important Prognostic Factor in Patients With Radically Resected (R0) and Node-negative (pN0) Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between perineural invasion (PNI) and overall survival (OS) in a nationwide cohort of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), stratified for margin negative (R0) or positive (R1) resection and absence or presence of lymph node metastasis (pN0 or pN1-N2, respectively). BACKGROUND: Patients with R0 and pN0 resected PDAC have a relatively favorable prognosis. As PNI is associated with worse OS, this might be a useful factor to provide further prognostic information for patients counselling. METHODS: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on relevant pathological features (PNI, R status, and N status). OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox-proportional hazard analyses were performed to calculate hazard ratio's (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: In total, 1630 patients were included with a median follow-up of 43 (interquartile range 33-58) months. PNI was independently associated with worse OS in both R0 patients (HR 1.49 [95%CI 1.18-1.88]; P<0.001) and R1 patients (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.06-1.83]; P=0.02), as well as in pN0 patients (HR 1.75 [95%CI 1.27-2.41]; P<0.001) and pN1-N2 patients (HR 1.35 [95% CI 1.10-1.67]; P<0.01). In 315 patients with R0N0, multivariable analysis showed that PNI was the strongest predictor of OS (HR 2.24 [95% CI 1.52-3.30]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: PNI is strongly associated with worse survival in patients with resected PDAC, in particular in patients with relatively favorable pathological features. These findings may aid patient stratification and counselling and help guide treatment strategies.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

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.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Surveillance for Pancreatic Cancer in High-Risk Individuals Leads to Improved Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent pancreatic cancer surveillance programs of high-risk individuals have reported improved outcomes. This study assessed to what extent outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in patients with a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant diagnosed under surveillance are better as compared with patients with PDAC diagnosed outside surveillance. METHODS: In a propensity score matched cohort using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we compared resectability, stage, and survival between patients diagnosed under surveillance with non-surveillance patients with PDAC. Survival analyses were adjusted for potential effects of lead time. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2020, 43,762 patients with PDAC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Thirty-one patients with PDAC under surveillance were matched in a 1:5 ratio with 155 non-surveillance patients based on age at diagnosis, sex, year of diagnosis, and tumor location. Outside surveillance, 5.8% of the patients had stage I cancer, as compared with 38.7% of surveillance patients with PDAC (odds ratio [OR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.19). In total, 18.7% of non-surveillance patients vs 71.0% of surveillance patients underwent a surgical resection (OR, 10.62; 95% CI, 4.56-26.63). Patients in surveillance had a better prognosis, reflected by a 5-year survival of 32.4% and a median overall survival of 26.8 months vs 4.3% 5-year survival and 5.2 months median overall survival in non-surveillance patients (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI 0.19-0.50). For all adjusted lead times, survival remained significantly longer in surveillance patients than in non-surveillance patients. CONCLUSION: Surveillance for PDAC in carriers of a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant results in earlier detection, increased resectability, and improved survival as compared with non-surveillance patients with PDAC.

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. RESULTS: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

Nationwide Use and Outcome of Surgery for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Following Induction Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several international high-volume centers have reported good outcomes after resection of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following chemo(radio)therapy, but it is unclear how this translates to nationwide clinical practice and outcome. This study aims to assess the nationwide use and outcome of resection of LAPC following induction chemo(radio)therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study including all patients who underwent resection for LAPC following chemo(radio)therapy in all 16 Dutch pancreatic surgery centers (2014-2020), registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. LAPC is defined as arterial involvement > 90° and/or portomesenteric venous > 270° involvement or occlusion. RESULTS: Overall, 142 patients underwent resection for LAPC, of whom 34.5% met the 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. FOLFIRINOX was the most commonly (93.7%) used chemotherapy [median 5 cycles (IQR 4-8)]. Venous and arterial resections were performed in 51.4% and 14.8% of patients. Most resections (73.9%) were performed in high-volume centers (i.e., ≥ 60 pancreatoduodenectomies/year). Overall median volume of LAPC resections/center was 4 (IQR 1-7). In-hospital/30-day major morbidity was 37.3% and 90-day mortality was 4.2%. Median OS from diagnosis was 26 months (95% CI 23-28) and 5-year OS 18%. Surgery in high-volume centers [HR = 0.542 (95% CI 0.318-0.923)], ypN1-2 [HR = 3.141 (95% CI 1.886-5.234)], and major morbidity [HR = 2.031 (95% CI 1.272-3.244)] were associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of LAPC following chemo(radio)therapy is infrequently performed in the Netherlands, albeit with acceptable morbidity, mortality, and OS. Given these findings, a structured nationwide approach involving international centers of excellence would be needed to improve selection of patients with LAPC for surgical resection following induction therapy.

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis: a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines for splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis are lacking due to insufficient data on the full clinical spectrum. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective necrotizing pancreatitis cohort. Multivariable analyses were used to identify risk factors and compare the clinical course of patients with and without SVT. RESULTS: SVT was detected in 97 of the 432 included patients (22%) (median onset: 4 days). Risk factors were left, central, or subtotal necrosis (OR 28.52; 95% CI 20.11-40.45), right or diffuse necrosis (OR 5.76; 95% CI 3.89-8.51), and younger age (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90-0.97). Patients with SVT had higher rates of bleeding (n = 10,11%) and bowel ischemia (n = 4,4%) compared to patients without SVT (n = 14,4% and n = 2,0.6%; OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.27-8.23 and OR 7.29; 95% CI 1.31-40.4, respectively), and were independently associated with ICU admission (adjusted OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.37-4.68). Spontaneous recanalization occurred in 62% of patients (n = 40/71). Radiological and clinical outcomes did not differ between patients treated with and without anticoagulants. DISCUSSION: SVT is a common and early complication of necrotizing pancreatitis, associated with parenchymal necrosis and younger age. SVT is associated with increased complications and a worse clinical course, whereas anticoagulant use does not appear to affect outcomes.