Outcomes of a 3-Year Prospective Surveillance in Individuals at High Risk of Pancreatic Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance of high-risk individuals (HRI) is becoming more common worldwide, aiming at anticipating PC diagnosis at a preclinical stage. In 2015, the Italian Registry of Families at Risk of Pancreatic Cancer was created. We aimed to assess the prevalence and incidence of pancreatic findings, oncological outcomes, and harms 7 years after the Italian Registry of Families at Risk of Pancreatic Cancer inception, focusing on individuals with at least a 3-year follow-up or developing events before. METHODS: HRI (subjects with a family history or mutation carriers with/without a family history were enrolled in 18 centers). They underwent annual magnetic resonance with cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound (NCT04095195). RESULTS: During the study period (June 2015-September 2022), 679 individuals were enrolled. Of these, 524 (77.2%) underwent at least baseline imaging, and 156 (29.8%) with at least a 3-year follow-up or pancreatic malignancy/premalignancy-related events, and represented the study population. The median age was 51 (interquartile range 16) years. Familial PC cases accounted for 81.4% of HRI and individuals with pathogenic variant for 18.6%. Malignant (n = 8) and premalignant (1 PanIN3) lesions were found in 9 individuals. Five of these 8 cases occurred in pathogenic variant carriers, 4 in familial PC cases (2 tested negative at germline testing and 2 others were not tested). Three of the 8 PC were stage I. Five of the 8 PC were resectable, 3 Stage I, all advanced cases being prevalent. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year cumulative hazard of PC was 1.7%, 2.5%, and 3%, respectively. Median overall and disease-free survival of patients with resected PC were 18 and 12 months (95% CI not computable). Considering HRI who underwent baseline imaging, 6 pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (1 resected) and 1 low-yield surgery (low-grade mixed-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm) were also reported. DISCUSSION: PC surveillance in a fully public health care system is feasible and safe, and leads to early PC or premalignant lesions diagnoses, mostly at baseline but also over time.

Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is Minimally Invasive Surgery Better than Open? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is gaining popularity. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after minimally invasive versus open procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the PRISMA statement, literature research was conducted focusing on papers comparing the incidence of POPF after open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) versus minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). RESULTS: Twenty-one papers were included in this meta-analysis, for a total of 4,448 patients. A total of 2,456 patients (55.2%) underwent OPD, while 1,992 (44.8%) underwent MIPD. Age, ASA score III patients, incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and duct diameter were significantly lower in the MIPD group. No statistically significant differences were found between the OPD and MIPD regarding the incidence of major complications (15.6% vs. 17.0%, respectively, p=0.55), mortality (3.7% vs. 2.4%, p=0.81), and POPF rate (14.3% vs. 12.9%, p=0.25). CONCLUSION: MIPD and OPD had comparable rates of postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, and POPF.

Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer.

Multimodal treatment including surgery and chemotherapy is considered the gold standard treatment of pancreatic cancer by most guidelines. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has been seen as a possible treatment option for resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced PaC. The aim of this paper is to offer a state-of-the-art review on neoadjuvant treatments in the setting of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase databases, in order to identify relevant studies published up to and including July 2021 that reported and analyzed the role of neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of pancreatic carcinoma. Most authors are concordant on the strong role of neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of borderline resectable pancreatic cancers. Recent randomized trials demonstrated improvement of R0 rate and survival after NAT in this setting. Patients with locally advanced cancers may become resectable after NAT, with better results than those obtained with palliative therapies. Even in the setting of resectable cancers, NAT is being evaluated by ongoing randomized trials. Chemotherapy regimens in the setting of NAT and response to NAT are discussed. NAT has an important role in the multimodal treatment of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. It has a role in patients with locally advanced tumors as it can allow surgical resection in a relevant proportion of patients. For resectable pancreatic cancers, the role of NAT is under evaluation by several randomized trials.

Treatment options for PNET liver metastases: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are rare pancreatic neoplasms. About 40-80% of patients with PNET are metastatic at presentation, usually involving the liver (40-93%). Liver metastasis represents the most significant prognostic factor. The aim of this study is to present an up-to-date review of treatment options for patients with liver metastases from PNETs. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed database to identify all pertinent studies published up to May 2018. RESULTS: The literature search evaluated all the therapeutic options for patients with liver metastases of PNETs, including surgical treatment, loco-regional therapies, and pharmacological treatment. All the different treatment options showed particular indications in different presentations of liver metastases of PNET. Surgery remains the only potentially curative therapeutic option in patients with PNETs and resectable liver metastases, even if relapse rates are high. Efficacy of medical treatment has increased with advances in targeted therapies, such as everolimus and sunitinib, and the introduction of radiolabeled somatostatin analogs. Several techniques for loco-regional control of metastases are available, including chemo- or radioembolization. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients with PNET metastases should be multidisciplinary and must be personalized according to the features of individual patients and tumors.