The Value of Textbook Outcome in Benchmarking Pancreatoduodenectomy for Nonfunctioning Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite variable that can define the quality of pancreatic surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate TO after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PanNETs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent PD for NF-PanNETs (2007-2016) in different centers were included in this retrospective study. TO was defined as the absence of severe postoperative complications and mortality, length of hospital stay ≤ 19 days, R0 resection, and at least 12 lymph nodes harvested. RESULTS: Overall, 477 patients were included. The TO rate was 32%. Tumor size [odds ratio (OR) 1.696; p = 0.013], a minimally invasive approach (OR 12.896; p = 0.001), and surgical volume (OR 2.062; p = 0.023) were independent predictors of TO. The annual frequency of PDs increased over time as well as the overall rate of TO. At a median follow-up of 44 months, patients who achieved TO had similar disease-free (p = 0.487) and overall survival (p = 0.433) rates compared with patients who did not achieve TO. TO rate in patients with NF-PanNET > 2 cm was 35% versus 27% in patients with NF-PanNET ≤ 2 cm (p = 0.044). Considering only NF-PanNETs > 2 cm, patients with TO and those without TO had comparable 5-year overall survival rates (p = 0.766) CONCLUSIONS: TO is achieved in one-third of patients after PD for NF-PanNETs and is not associated with a benefit in terms of long-term survival.

Portal vein resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. An international multicenter comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The role of portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer is well established but not for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Evidence from studies providing information on long-term outcome after venous resection in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms patients is lacking. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study comparing pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection with standard pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the long-term survival in both groups. Progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated using the method of Kaplan and Meier, but a propensity score-matched cohort analysis was subsequently performed to remove selection bias and improve homogeneity. The secondary outcome was Clavien-Dindo ≥3. RESULTS: Sixty-one (11%) patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection and 480 patients pancreaticoduodenectomy. Five (1%) perioperative deaths were recorded in the pancreaticoduodenectomy group, and postoperative clinically relevant morbidity rates were similar in the 2 groups (pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection 48% vs pancreaticoduodenectomy 33%). In the initial survival analysis, pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection was associated with worse 3-year progression-free survival (48% pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection vs 83% pancreaticoduodenectomy; P < .01) and 5-year overall survival (67% pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection vs 91% pancreaticoduodenectomy). After propensity score matching, no significant difference was found in both 3-year progression-free survival (49% pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection vs 59% pancreaticoduodenectomy; P = .14) and 5-year overall survival (71% pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection vs 69% pancreaticoduodenectomy; P = .98). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates no significant difference in perioperative risk with a similar overall survival between pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection. Tumor involvement of the superior mesenteric/portal vein axis should not preclude surgical resection in patients with locally advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1): a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide. DISCUSSION: The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 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.

Nationwide comprehensive gastro-intestinal cancer cohorts: the 3P initiative.

BACKGROUND: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future. RESULTS: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting.

Nationwide outcomes in patients undergoing surgical exploration without resection for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in diagnostic imaging and staging, unresectable pancreatic cancer is still encountered during surgical exploration with curative intent. This nationwide study investigated outcomes in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer found during surgical exploration. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with primary pancreatic (adeno)carcinoma (2009-2013) in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. Predictors of unresectability, 30-day mortality and poor survival were evaluated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 10 595 patients with pancreatic cancer during the study interval. The proportion of patients undergoing surgical exploration increased from 19·9 to 27·0 per cent (P < 0·001). Among 2356 patients who underwent surgical exploration, the proportion of patients with tumour resection increased from 61·6 per cent in 2009 to 71·3 per cent in 2013 (P < 0·001), whereas the contribution of M1 disease (18·5 per cent overall) remained stable. Patients who had exploration only had an increased 30-day mortality rate compared with those who underwent tumour resection (7·8 versus 3·8 per cent; P < 0·001). In the non-resected group, among those with M0 (383 patients) and M1 (435) disease at surgical exploration, the 30-day mortality rate was 4·7 and 10·6 per cent (P = 0·002), median survival was 7·2 and 4·4 months (P < 0·001), and 1-year survival rates were 28·0 and 12·9 per cent, respectively. Among other factors, low hospital volume (0-20 resections per year) was an independent predictor for not undergoing tumour resection, but also for 30-day mortality and poor survival among patients without tumour resection. CONCLUSION: Exploration and resection rates increased, but one-third of patients who had surgical exploration for pancreatic cancer did not undergo resection. Non-resectional surgery doubled the 30-day mortality rate compared with that in patients undergoing tumour resection.

Hepatic vascular inflow occlusion is associated with reduced disease free survival following resection of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic vascular inflow occlusion (VIO) can be applied during resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) to control intra-operative blood loss, but has been linked to accelerated growth of micrometastases in experimental models. This study aimed to investigate the effects of hepatic VIO on disease-free and overall survival (DFS and OS) in patients following resection for CRLM. METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between January 2006 and September 2015 at our center were analyzed. Hepatic VIO was performed if deemed indicated by the operating surgeon and severe ischemia was defined as ≥20 min continuous or ≥45 min cumulative intermittent VIO. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for DFS and OS. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM. VIO was performed in 64 procedures (31%), and fulfilled the definition of severe ischemia in 40 patients. Patients with severe ischemia had inferior DFS (5-year DFS 32% vs. 11%, P < 0.01), and inferior OS (5-year OS 37% vs. 64%, P < 0.01). At multivariate analysis, a high clinical risk score (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.60 (1.08-2.36)) and severe ischemia (HR 1.89 (1.21-2.97)) were independent predictors of worse DFS. Severe ischemia was not an independent predictor of OS. CONCLUSION: The present cohort study suggests that prolonged hepatic VIO during liver resection for CRLM was associated with reduced DFS. A patient-tailored approach seems advisable although larger studies should confirm these findings.

The influence of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy during preoperative staging of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

AIM: To determine whether somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) influences the preoperative staging and clinical management of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NF-pNETs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All SRS examinations performed between 2002-2013 were selected. Patients with NF-pNET were included if both computed tomography (CT) and SRS was performed during preoperative staging. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and SRS for detecting NF-pNET metastases was analysed. Altered TNM classification and changed clinical management were calculated. Changed management was defined as a change from surgical resection into systemic treatment or vice versa. NF-pNETs were defined as tumours without clinical symptoms of hormonal hypersecretion. RESULTS: Overall, 62 patients with NF-pNET were included with a mean age of 57 years (SD: 12.4)(2). In 28 patients (45%), CT and SRS were correct and in agreement in the detection of primary tumour/metastases. In 34 patients (55%), one of the techniques was incorrect and therefore, there was no agreement. SRS altered the TNM classification in 14 patients (23%) and clinical management in nine patients (15%). In patients without metastases on CT, SRS detected lymph node metastases in one patient. The sensitivity to detect the primary tumour with CT was 95% and with SRS was 73%. In detecting metastases, the sensitivity and specificity were both 85% for CT versus 80% and 90% for SRS. CONCLUSION: Overall, CT and SRS were in agreement in the detection of NF-pNET. In NF-pNET without suspicious metastatic lesions on CT, SRS has limited value. SRS may be indicated to confirm lesions suspicious for neuroendocrine tumours metastases.

Metal or plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in resectable pancreatic cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In pancreatic cancer, preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) increases complications compared with surgery without PBD, demonstrated by a recent randomised controlled trial (RCT). This outcome might be related to the plastic endoprosthesis used. Metal stents may reduce the PBD-related complications risk. METHODS: A prospective multicentre cohort study was performed including patients with obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic cancer, scheduled to undergo PBD before surgery. This cohort was added to the earlier RCT (ISRCTN31939699). The RCT protocol was adhered to, except PBD was performed with a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS). This FCSEMS cohort was compared with the RCT's plastic stent cohort. PBD-related complications were the primary outcome. Three-group comparison of overall complications including early surgery patients was performed. RESULTS: 53 patients underwent PBD with FCSEMS compared with 102 patients treated with plastic stents. Patients' characteristics did not differ. PBD-related complication rates were 24% in the FCSEMS group vs 46% in the plastic stent group (relative risk of plastic stent use 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.2, p=0.011). Stent-related complications (occlusion and exchange) were 6% vs 31%. Surgical complications did not differ, 40% vs 47%. Overall complication rates for the FCSEMS, plastic stent and early surgery groups were 51% vs 74% vs 39%. CONCLUSIONS: For PBD in pancreatic cancer, FCSEMS yield a better outcome compared with plastic stents. Although early surgery without PBD remains the treatment of choice, FCSEMS should be preferred over plastic stents whenever PBD is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Registry (NTR3142).

Hospital of diagnosis and likelihood of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection for pancreatic cancer offers the only chance of cure. Assessment of the resectability of a pancreatic tumour is therefore of great importance. The aim of the study was to investigate whether centre of diagnosis influences the likelihood of surgery and whether this affects long-term survival. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer (M0) between 2005 and 2013 in the Netherlands were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were classified as a pancreatic centre (at least 20 resections/year) or a non-pancreatic centre (fewer than 20 resections/year). The relationship between centre of diagnosis and likelihood of surgery was analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Influence of centre on overall survival was assessed by means of multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Some 8141 patients were diagnosed with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer, of whom 3123 (38·4 per cent) underwent surgery. Of the 2712 patients diagnosed in one of 19 pancreatic centres, 52·4 per cent had exploratory laparotomy compared with 31·4 per cent of 5429 patients diagnosed in one of 74 non-pancreatic centres (P < 0·001). A pancreatectomy was performed in 42·8 and 24·6 per cent of the patients respectively (P < 0·001). Multivariable analysis revealed that patients diagnosed in a pancreatic centre had a higher chance of undergoing surgery (odds ratio 2·21, 95 per cent c.i. 1·98 to 2·47). Centre of diagnosis was not associated with improved long-term survival (hazard ratio 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 1·00). CONCLUSION: Patients with non-metastasized pancreatic cancer had a greater likelihood of having surgical treatment when the diagnosis was established in a pancreatic centre.

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.

Gastric emptying and quality of life after pancreatoduodenectomy with retrocolic or antecolic gastroenteric anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a major problem after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). A recent multicentre randomized trial reported no difference in gastric emptying rates between retrocolic and antecolic reconstruction routes. The present study looked at quality of life with these two approaches and the correlation with gastric emptying. METHODS: This was a substudy of patients completing a panel of quality-of-life questionnaires within a randomized trial comparing retrocolic and antecolic gastroenteric reconstruction after PD. Gastric emptying was assessed by scintigraphy 1 week after surgery. Quality of life was measured with the EuroQoL - 5D questionnaire (EQ-5D), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) with its pancreatic cancer module (PAN26), and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). RESULTS: There were 38 patients in the retrocolic and 35 in the antecolic group. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were similar in the two groups. Median time to half-emptying of stomach content after surgery was 145 and 64 min in the retrocolic and antecolic group respectively (P = 0.189). Median percentages of residual activity after 2 h were 64 and 28 per cent respectively (P = 0.213). Quality of life did not differ at any time point between the groups. At 2 weeks after surgery, patients with DGE had significantly worse outcomes on two EQ-5D domains, ten QLQ-C30/PAN26 subscales, and two GIQLI subscales and total score. Effect sizes were moderate to large. CONCLUSION: The route of gastroenteric reconstruction after PD does not influence either gastric emptying at scintigraphy or quality of life. The impact of DGE on quality of life is clinically significant. Registration number NTR1697 (www.trialregister.nl).

Non-radical resection versus bypass procedure for pancreatic cancer - a consecutive series and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Most survival studies comparing non-radical resections to bypass surgery in patients with pancreatic cancer often do not differentiate between an R1 and R2 resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether non-radical R1 and R2 resections have better postoperative outcomes and survival compared to a palliative bypass. METHODS: A single center cohort study was performed analyzing mortality, morbidity and 1-year survival after R1 (tumor cells within 1 mm from the circumferential margin), R2 and bypass surgery in patients with pancreatic cancer. For the systematic review, studies were identified comparing R1 or R2 resections with bypass, in patients with pancreatic cancer. Postoperative outcomes were compared including the cohort study. RESULTS: The cohort study (n=405) showed higher morbidity rates after R1 (n=191) and R2 (n=11) resections compared to bypass (52% and 73% vs. 34%, p < 0.01). In-hospital mortality did not differ (overall 1.7%). 1-year survival rates were 71%, 46% and 32% after R1, R2 resection and bypass (p=0.6 between R2 and bypass). The systematic review identified 8 studies, after including the cohort study 1535 patients were analyzed. Increased morbidity after R1-R2 resection (48%) compared to bypass (30-34%) was found. Median survival was 14-18 months after R1 resection vs. 9-13 months after bypass and 8.5-11.5 months after R2 resection vs. 7.5-10.7 months after bypass. CONCLUSION: An R2 resection should be avoided in patients with pancreatic cancer due to its poor prognosis. Survival benefit after an R1 resection, as compared to bypass surgery, justifies a resection despite the increased morbidity rate.

Impact of lymph node ratio on survival in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

BACKGROUND: According to some studies, the number of lymph nodes with metastases in relation to the total number of removed lymph nodes, the lymph node ratio (LNR), is one of the most powerful predictors of survival after resection in patients with pancreatic cancer. However, contradictory results have been reported, and small sample sizes of the cohorts and different definitions of a microscopic positive resection margin (R1) hamper the interpretation of data. METHODS: The predictive value of LNR for 3-year survival was assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. From 1992 to 2012, all patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer operated on with pancreatoduodenectomy were selected from a database. Clinicopathological characteristics were analysed. Microscopic positive resection margin was defined as the microscopic presence of tumour cells within 1 mm of the margins. A nomogram was created. RESULTS: Some 760 patients were included. Predictive factors for death in 350 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma included in the nomogram were: R1 resection (hazard ratio (HR) 1·55, 95 per cent c.i. 1·07 to 2·25), poor tumour differentiation (HR 2·78, 1·40 to 5·52), LNR above 0·18 (HR 1·75, 1·13 to 2·70) and no adjuvant therapy (HR 1·54, 1·01 to 2·34). The C statistic was 0·658 (0·632 to 0·698), and calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ(2) = 5·67, P =0·773). LNR and poor tumour differentiation (HR 4·51 and 3·30 respectively) were also predictive in patients with distal common bile duct (CBD) cancer. LNR, R1 resection and jaundice were predictors of death in patients with ampullary cancer (HR 7·82, 2·68 and 1·93 respectively). CONCLUSION: LNR is a common predictor of poor survival in pancreatic, distal CBD and ampullary cancer.

Systematic review of innovative ablative therapies for the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is associated with a very poor prognosis. Current palliative (radio)chemotherapy provides only a marginal survival benefit of 2-3 months. Several innovative local ablative therapies have been explored as new treatment options. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the clinical outcomes of these ablative therapies. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify clinical studies, published before 1 June 2014, involving ablative therapies in LAPC. Outcomes of interest were safety, survival, quality of life and pain. RESULTS: After screening 1037 articles, 38 clinical studies involving 1164 patients with LAPC, treated with ablative therapies, were included. These studies concerned radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (7 studies), irreversible electroporation (IRE) (4), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) (16), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (5), iodine-125 (2), iodine-125-cryosurgery (2), photodynamic therapy (1) and microwave ablation (1). All strategies appeared to be feasible and safe. Outcomes for postoperative, procedure-related morbidity and mortality were reported only for RFA (4-22 and 0-11 per cent respectively), IRE (9-15 and 0-4 per cent) and SBRT (0-25 and 0 per cent). Median survival of up to 25·6, 20·2, 24·0 and 12·6 months was reported for RFA, IRE, SBRT and HIFU respectively. Pain relief was demonstrated for RFA, IRE, SBRT and HIFU. Quality-of-life outcomes were reported only for SBRT, and showed promising results. CONCLUSION: Ablative therapies in patients with LAPC appear to be feasible and safe.

Pancreatoduodenectomy associated complications influence cancer recurrence and time interval to death.

BACKGROUND: Resection is the only life-prolonging option for pancreatic or periampullary cancer. Cell-mediated immunity might reduce progression of metastasis or local recurrence likelihood, but surgery associated morbidity can suppress this immunity. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of complications on cancer specific survival after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. METHOD: 517 consecutive patients who underwent PD for pancreatic or periampullary adenocarcinoma were analysed. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 24 (14-44) months, 377 (73%) patients had died from progressive disease, 140 (27%) were alive. Median survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 22 (18-25) months following an uncomplicated postoperative course versus 16 (13-19) months for patients with major surgical complications (p = 0.021). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that microscopically residual disease (R1), complications, and adjuvant therapy were independent factors for recurrence. Within the R1 group, survival for patients with complications was even more limited, 9.7 (8.3-11.0) versus 18.7 (15.0-22.5) for those without (p < 0.001). For patients with R1 resection complications was the only independent predictor for a shorter time interval to death (hazard ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.16-3.30). Complications did not influence survival of patients with periampullary adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: Complications after resection are independently related to an impaired survival following PD for pancreatic, but not periampullary cancer. The effect is even more dramatic in patients who had an R1 resection. Although the relation is not causal per se, the findings support the hypothesis of a complication-induced, compromised immunity rendering patients more susceptible for recurrent disease.

Is current perioperative practice in hepatic surgery based on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles?

BACKGROUND: The worldwide introduction of multimodal enhanced recovery programs has also changed perioperative care in patients who undergo liver resection. This study was performed to assess current perioperative practice in liver surgery in 11 European HPB centers and compare it to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles. METHODS: In each unit, 15 consecutive patients (N = 165) who underwent hepatectomy between 2010 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Compliance was classified as "full," "partial," or "poor" whenever ≥ 80, ≥ 50, or <50 % of the 22 ERAS protocol core items were met. The primary study end point was overall compliance with the ERAS core program per unit and per perioperative phase. RESULTS: Most patients were operated on for malignancy (91 %) and 56 % were minor hepatectomies. The median number of implemented ERAS core items was 9 (range = 7-12) across all centers. Compliance was partial in the preoperative (median 2 of 3 items, range = 1-3) and perioperative phases (median 5 of 10 items, range: 4-7). Median postoperative compliance was poor (median 2 of 9 items, range = 0-4). A statistically significant difference was observed between median length of stay and median time to recovery (7 vs. 5 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Perioperative care among centers that perform liver resections varied substantially. In current HPB surgical practice, some elements of the ERAS program, e.g., preoperative counselling and minimal fasting, have already been implemented. Elements in the perioperative phase (avoidance of drains and nasogastric tube) and postoperative phase (early resumption of oral intake, early mobilization, and use of recovery criteria) should be further optimized.