Comparison of epidural infusion versus intrathecal morphine block as part of enhanced recovery after open pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The accepted approach to pain management following open pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains controversial, with the most recent enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols recommending epidural anesthesia (EA). Few studies have investigated intrathecal (IT) morphine, combined with transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks. We aim to compare the different approaches to pain management for open PD. METHODS: Patients who underwent open PD at our institution from 2020 to 2022 were included in the study. Patient characteristics, pain management, and postoperative outcomes between EA, IT morphine with TAP blocks, and TAP blocks only were compared using univariate analysis. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study (58% male, median age 66 years [interquartile range, IQR: 58-73]). Most patients received IT morphine (N = 24, 48%) or EA (N = 18, 36%). The TAP block-only group required higher doses of postoperative narcotics while hospitalized (p = 0.004) and at discharge (p = 0.017). The IT morphine patients had a shorter median time to Foley removal (p = 0.007). Postoperative pain scores, non-opioid administration, postoperative bolus requirements, postoperative outcomes, and length of stay were similar between pain modalities. CONCLUSIONS: IT morphine and EA showed comparable efficacy with superior results compared to TAP blocks alone. Integration of IT morphine into PD ERAS protocols should be considered.

Disparities in Surgical Treatment of Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma at Minority Serving Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Minority serving hospitals (MSH) are those serving a disproportionally high number of minority patients. Previous research has demonstrated that treatment at MSH is associated with worse outcomes. We hypothesize that patients treated at MSH are less likely to undergo surgical resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma compared to patients treated at non-MSH. METHODS: Patients with resectable pancreatic cancer were identified using the National Cancer Database. Institutions treating Black and Hispanic patients in the top decile were categorized as an MSH. Factors associated with the primary outcome of definitive surgical resection were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Univariate and multivariable survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 75,513 patients included in this study, 7.2% were treated at MSH. Patients treated at MSH were younger, more likely to be uninsured, and higher stage compared to those treated at non-MSH (P < 0.001). Patients treated at MSH underwent surgical resection at lower rates (MSH 40% versus non-MSH 44.5%, P < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, treatment at MSH was associated with decreased likelihood of undergoing definitive surgery (odds ratio 0.91, P = 0.006). Of those who underwent surgical resection, multivariable survival analysis revealed that treatment at an MSH was associated with increased morality (hazard ratio 1.12, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated at MSH are less likely to undergo surgical resection compared to those treated at non-MSH. Targeted interventions are needed to address the unique barriers facing MSH facilities in providing care to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Management of Clinical T2N0 Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: What Is the Optimal Treatment?

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma includes neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery. The optimal treatment for clinical T2N0M0 (cT2N0) disease is debated. This study aims to determine the optimal treatment in these patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients who underwent surgery for cT2N0 esophageal and GEJ adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2017. Patients were grouped into surgery-alone, neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and adjuvant therapy (AT) groups. Subgroups of high-risk patients (tumor ≥ 3 cm, poor differentiation, or lymphovascular invasion) and patients upstaged after upfront surgery were identified. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to compare overall survival. RESULTS: Of 2160 patients included, 957 (44.3%) underwent surgery-alone, 821 (38.0%) underwent NAT and surgery, and 382 (17.7%) underwent surgery and AT. One thousand six hundred nineteen (75.0%) patients had high-risk features. Six hundred fourteen (45.9%) patients were upstaged after upfront surgery. In the overall cohort, AT was associated with improved survival compared to NAT (HR 0.618, p < 0.001) and surgery-alone (HR 0.699, p < 0.001). There was no difference in survival between NAT and surgery-alone (HR 1.132, p = 0.112). Similar results were observed in high-risk patients. Patients upstaged after upfront surgery who received AT had improved survival compared to those initially treated with NAT (HR 0.613, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that cT2N0 esophageal and GEJ adenocarcinomas may not benefit from the intensive multimodality therapy utilized in locally advanced disease. Selective use of AT for patients who are upstaged pathologically, or have high-risk features, is associated with improved outcomes.

Is preoperative biliary stenting associated with increased rate of postoperative complications for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy? A review of national surgical quality improvement program data.

BACKGROUND: Jaundice in the setting of periampullary neoplasms is often treated with biliary stenting. Level 1 data demonstrated an increase in perioperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients undergoing stent placement. However, the impact of this data on practice patterns in the US remains unknown. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Pancreatectomy Targeted Participant Use Data File was used to identify patients from 2014 to 2017 undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between those with biliary stent and those without. RESULTS: Of the 5524 patients, 3321 (60.1%) had biliary stent placement. The stent group was older, had a higher ASA class, and had preoperative weight loss compared to the group without biliary stenting (all p < 0.05). When adjusting for demographic and operative characteristics, the non-stent group had lower associated overall complications and postoperative infections. There was no significant difference in mortality and pancreatic fistula rate between groups. CONCLUSION: Preoperative biliary stenting is still common prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy. With a trend toward increased utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, stenting will likely remain a common practice. Recognition of increased rates of complications associated with stent placement allows for appropriate risk-benefit analysis.

Undertreatment of Pancreatic Cancer: The Intersection of Bias, Biology, and Geography.

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Black patients with pancreatic cancer experience higher incidence and increased mortality. Although racial biologic differences exist, socioeconomic status, insurance type, physician bias, and patient beliefs contribute to the disparities in outcomes observed among patients who are Black, indigenous, and people of color.

Endoscopic hemostatic spray for uncontrolled bleeding after complicated endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection: a report of 2 cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a significant bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and EMR cases. This case series describes the use of an endoscopic hemostasis spray, which is not typically used to treat this type of bleeding, after multiple attempts with other modalities failed. METHODS: We present 2 patient cases of ESD and EMR used to treat a gastric adenoma (case 1) and 2 gastric hyperplastic masses (case 2) with refractory bleeding after use of multiple other treatment modalities. Both patients were not surgical candidates because of their medical comorbidities. RESULTS: Bleeding was eventually controlled with the use of endoscopic hemostasis spray after attempts were made using SB Knife Jr tip, Coagrasper Hemostatic Forceps, Argon Photocoagulation, and scope tamponade. CONCLUSIONS: In very specific cases, endoscopic hemostasis spray may have some utility for refractory bleeding after dissection of gastric lesions. After using this spray, it became technically challenging to suture endoscopically because of the mud-like quality of the hemostasis material.

Pathologic upstaging in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Risk factors and impact on survival.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and pathologic staging determine treatment of pancreatic cancer. Clinical stage has been shown to underestimate final pathologic stage in pancreatic cancer, resulting in upstaging. METHODS: National Cancer Database was used to identify clinical stage I pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Univariate, multivariable logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazard ratio were used to determine differences between upstaged and stage concordant patients. RESULTS: Upstaging was seen in 80.2% of patients. Factors found to be significantly associated with upstaging included pancreatic head tumors (OR 2.56), high-grade histology (OR 1.74), elevated Ca 19-9 (OR 2.09), and clinical stage T2 (OR 1.99). Upstaging was associated with a 45% increased risk of mortality compared to stage concordant disease (HR 1.44, p < .001). CONCLUSION: A majority of clinical stage I pancreatic cancer is upstaged after resection. Factors including tumor location, grade, Ca 19-9, and tumor size can help identify those at high risk for upstaging.

Biliary Drainage Before and After Liver Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma.

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is a rare tumor that requires surgical resection for a potential cure. The role of preoperative biliary drainage has long been debated, given its treatment of biliary sepsis and decompression of the future liver remnant (FLR), but high procedure-specific morbidity. The indications, methods, and outcomes for preoperative biliary drainage are discussed to serve as a guide for perioperative management of patients with resectable PHC. Multiple studies from the literature related to perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, biliary drainage, and management of the FLR were reviewed. Commonly employed preoperative biliary drainage includes endoscopic biliary stenting and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Drainage of the FLR remains controversial, with most experts recommending drainage of the only in patients with an FLR <50%. Biliary drainage for resectable PHC requires a patient-specific approach with careful determination of the FLR and balancing of potential morbidity with the benefits of drainage.