Adolescent and Young Adults with Gastric Cancer (AYA-GC)-The Dilemma of an Under-Represented Group: A Multi-Institutional Analysis from the Indian Subcontinent.

Soumya Surath PandaGastric cancer (GC) is often ignored at a young age, which frequently leads to tragic consequences. The worldwide incidence of GC is increasing at a young age. In view of the limited Indian publication, we sought to characterize clinicopathological parameters and risk factors in the adolescents and young adults (AYA) population. Retrospective data from six centers (which are part of the Network of Oncology Clinical Trials in India) from 2015 to 2020 were collected from patient (18-39 years of age) records. This study was approved by the institutional ethical committee of individual centers. All statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Version 20). Data interpretation along with the analysis of obtained results was carried out using the following tests: Qualitative data was expressed in terms of frequency/percentage. One-hundred fifty-two AYA GC patients were enrolled. The 31 to 39 years age group was most affected in which 76.3% were females. The majority of patients were nonalcoholic (93.4%), nonsmokers (98.0%), and without a family history (98.0%). The most common (MC) presenting symptom was abdominal pain (67.1%). MC site was antrum (48%). Among esophagogastric junction cancers, the majority were type I and II Siewert classifications (77% [20/26] patients in cardia), MC histology-signet ring cell (67.1%) followed by diffuse-type (65.1%). Most were poorly differentiated (65.1%) and were diagnosed at an advanced stage (III & IV= 54.6%). This is one of our country's first large multicenter studies on GC in the AYA population. There was a higher female prevalence, aggressive tumor behavior and the majority of patients were diagnosed at a more advanced stage. The majority were nonsmokers with a negative family history. Awareness among general people, researchers, clinicians, and policymakers must be improved to better the loss of life years in the younger population.

External pancreatic ductal stenting in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: How to do it?

It has been shown that external pancreatic ductal stenting (EPDS) can reduce the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Although studies have described EPDS in open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), EPDS in minimally invasive PD has not been reported yet. Thus, the objective of this study was to describe the technique of EPDS in minimally invasive PD. The procedure was performed either laparoscopically or using a robot. Once PD was completed, key steps included triple enterotomy, threading of silk-suture through all enterotomies and exteriorization, completing posterior layer of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ), railroading stent through preplaced silk-suture, intubation of stent into the pancreatic duct, completion of PJ, followed by hepaticojejunostomy and parietalization of jejunum at the stent exit site. EPDS in PD through a minimally invasive approach can be performed safely in selected cases with either a small-sized pancreatic duct or a soft pancreas.

Modified binding pancreaticogastrostomy vs modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreaticoenteric anastomosis is one of the technically challenging steps of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), especially during the learning curve. Despite multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, the type of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis as a risk factor for post-pancreatectomy complications is debatable. Also, the ideal technique of pancreatic reconstruction during the learning curve of laparoscopic PD has not been well studied. AIM: To compare the short-term outcomes of modified binding pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) during learning curve of laparoscopic PD. METHODS: The first 25 patients with resectable pancreatic or periampullary tumors who underwent laparoscopic PD with modified binding PG or modified Blumgart PJ between January 2015 and May 2020 were retrospectively analyzed to compare perioperative outcomes during the same learning curve. A single layer of the full-thickness purse-string suture was placed around the posterior gastrotomy in the modified binding PG. In the modified Blumgart technique, only a single transpancreatic horizontal mattress suture was placed on either side of the pancreatic duct (total two sutures) to secure the pancreatic parenchyma to the jejunum. Also, on the ventral surface, the knot is tied on the jejunal wall without going through the pancreatic parenchyma. Post pancreatectomy complications are graded as per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery criteria. RESULTS: During the study period, modified binding PG was performed in 27 patients and modified Blumgart PJ in 29 patients. The demographic and clinical parameters of the first 25 patients included in both groups were comparable. Lower end cholangiocarcinoma and ampullary adenocarcinoma were the primary indications for laparoscopic PD in both groups (32/50, 64%). The median operative time for pancreatic reconstruction was significantly lower in the binding PG group (42 vs 58 min, P = 0.01). The clinically relevant (Grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was significantly more in the modified PJ group (28% vs 4%, P = 0.04). In contrast, intraluminal postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) was more in the binding PG group (32% vs 4%, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of delayed gastric emptying between the two groups. CONCLUSION: During the learning curve of laparoscopic PD, modified binding PG reduces POPF but is associated with increased intraluminal PPH compared to PJ using the modified Blumgart technique.