Ampullary tumors: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, UNICANCER, GERCOR, SFCD, SFED, ACHBT, AFC, SFRO, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFP, SFR).

BACKGROUND: Management of ampullary tumors (AT) is challenging because of a low level of scientific evidence. This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of AT, either adenoma (AA) or carcinoma (AC), published in July 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: A collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical, endoscopic, oncological and surgical societies involved in the management of AT. Recommendations are based on recent literature review and expert opinions and graded in three categories (A, B, C), according to quality of evidence. RESULTS: Accurate diagnosis of AT requires at least duodenoscopy and EUS. All patients should be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board before treatment. Surveillance may only be proposed for small AA in familial adenomatous polyposis. For AA, endoscopic papillectomy is the preferred option only if R0 resection can be achieved. When not possible, surgical papillectomy should be considered. For AC beyond pT1a N0, pancreaticoduodenectomy is the procedure of choice. Adjuvant monochemotherapy (gemcitabine, 5FU) may be proposed. For aggressive tumors (pT3/T4, pN+, R1, poorly differentiated AC, pancreatobiliary differentiation) with high risk of recurrence, 6 months polychemotherapy (CAPOX/FOLFOX for the intestinal subtype and mFOLFIRINOX for the pancreatobiliary or the mixed subtype) may be a valid alternative. Clinical and radiological follow up is recommended for 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines help to homogenize and highlight unmet needs in the management of AA and AC. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A propensity score matched multicentric comparative French study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: This retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. RESULTS: During the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of "textbook" outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.

The impact of cirrhosis on short and long postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of cirrhosis on the postoperative outcomes of distal pancreatectomy is yet to be reported. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study patients with cirrhosis who underwent planned distal pancreatectomy between 2008 and 2020 in French high volume centers. Patients with cirrhosis were matched 1:4 for demographic, surgical, and histologic criteria with patients without cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, specifically related to cirrhosis and pancreatic surgery, and survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients with cirrhosis were matched with 128 patients without cirrhosis. Most patients (93.5%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The severe morbidity rate after distal pancreatectomy was higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis (28.13% vs 25.75%, P = .11. The operative time was significantly longer in the cirrhotic group compared with controls (P = .01). However, patients with and without cirrhosis had comparable blood loss and conversion rates. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar rates of pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that distal pancreatectomy in high-volume centers is feasible for patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Somatostatin Versus Octreotide for Prevention of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: The PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial: A FRENCH 007-ACHBT Study.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatectomy is open to debate. The present study compares clinically significant POPF rates in patients randomized between somatostatin versus octreotide as prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Multicentric randomized controlled open study in patient's candidate for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) comparing somatostatin continuous intravenous infusion for 7 days versus octreotid 100 µg, every 8 hours subcutaneous injection for 7 days, stratified by procedure (PD vs DP) and size of the main pancreatic duct (>4 mm) on grade B/C POPF rates at 90 days based on an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Of 763 eligible patients, 651 were randomized: 327 in the octreotide arm and 324 in the somatostatin arm, with comparable the stratification criteria - type of surgery and main pancreatic duct dilatation. Most patients had PD (n=480; 73.8%), on soft/normal pancreas (n=367; 63.2%) with a nondilated main pancreatic duct (n=472; 72.5%), most often for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=311; 47.8%). Almost all patients had abdominal drainage (n=621; 96.1%) and 121 (19.5%) left the hospital with the drain in place (median length of stay=16 days). A total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Continuous intravenous somatostatin is not statistically different from subcutaneous octreotide in the prevention of grade B/C POPF after pancreatectomy. FINDINGS: In the PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial including 651 patients, a total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no significant difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis.

Prognostic impact of positive microscopic margins (R1 resection) in patients with GIST (gastrointestinal stromal tumours): Results of a multicenter European study.

BACKGROUND: Although several prognostic factors in GIST have been well studied such as tumour size, mitotic rate, or localization, the influence of microscopic margins or R1 resection remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of R1 resection on the prognosis of GIST in a large multicentre retrospective series of patients. METHODS: From 2001 to 2013, 1413 patients who underwent surgery for any site of GIST were identified from 61 European centers. 1098 patients were included, excluding synchronous metastases, concurrent malignancies, R2 resection or GIST recurrence. Tumour rupture (TR) was reclassified according to the Oslo sarcoma classification. Cox proportional hazards ratio and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to analyse 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Of 1098 patients, 38 (3%) underwent R1 resection with a risk of TR of 11%. The 5-year RFS was 89.6% with a median follow-up of 81 months [range: 31.2-152 months]. On univariate analysis, lower RFS was significantly associated with R1 resection [HR = 2.13; p = 0.04], high risk score according to the modified NIH classification, administration of adjuvant therapy [HR = 2.24; p < 0.001] and intraoperative complications [HR = 2.82; p < 0.001]. Only intraoperative complications [HR = 1.79; p = 0.02] and high risk according to the modified NIH classification including the updated definition of TR [HR = 3.43; p = 0.04] remained significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: This study shows that positive microscopic margins are not an independent predictive factor for RFS in GIST when taking into account the up-dated classification of TR. R1 resection may be considered a reasonable alternative to avoid major functional sequelae and should not lead to reoperation.

Comparing indications, complexity and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection between centers with and without a liver transplant program: a French nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: There are no data to evaluate the difference in populations and impact of centers with liver transplant programs in performing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). METHODS: This was a multicenter study including patients undergoing LLR for benign and malignant tumors at 27 French centers from 1996 to 2018. The main outcomes were postoperative severe morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3154 patients were included, and 14 centers were classified as transplant centers (N = 2167 patients, 68.7 %). The transplant centers performed more difficult LLRs and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who more frequently had cirrhosis. A higher rate of performing the Pringle maneuver, a lower rate of blood loss and a higher rate of open conversion (all p < 0.05) were observed in the transplant centers. There was no association between the presence of a liver transplant program and either postoperative severe morbidity (<10 % in each group; p = 0.228) or mortality (1 % in each group; p = 0.915). CONCLUSIONS: Most HCCs, difficult LLRs, and cirrhotic patients are treated in transplant centers. We show that all centers can achieve comparable safety and quality of care in LLR independent of the presence of a liver transplant program.

Is systematic histological examination of the cholecystectomy specimen always necessary?

INTRODUCTION: The histological examination (HE) of all cholecystectomy specimens removed for cholelithiasis is a widespread practice to rule out unrecognized gallbladder cancer. (GBC). But this dogmatic practice has been called into question by recent published data. The aim of this literature review was to answer two questions: (1) can HE be omitted in specific cases; (2) under what conditions is a selective strategy indicated? METHODS: A review of the literature was carried out that included selected multicenter studies, registry studies, or meta-analyses. A reliable technique for the surgeon's macroscopic examination of the specimen would allow the selection of dubious cases for HE. The cost-effectiveness of selective HE was discussed. The PICO methodology (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) was used in the selection of articles that compared routine and selective histological examination. RESULTS: If cases from countries with a high prevalence of gallbladder cancer are excluded and in the absence of high-risk situations (advanced age, female gender, calcified or porcelain gallbladder, acute cholecystitis, polyps, abnormalities noted intra-operatively), the macroscopic examination of the gallbladder in the operating room has a reliability approaching 100% in the majority of published studies. This would make it possible to omit systematic HE without compromising the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with unsuspected GBC and with a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSION: Through a selection of patients at very low risk of incidentally-discovered cancer and a routine macroscopic examination of the opened gallbladder, the strategy of selective HE could prove useful in both clinical and economic terms.

Right portal vein ligation is still relevant for left hemi-liver hypertrophy: results of a comparative study using a propensity score between right portal vein ligation and embolization.

BACKGROUND: In two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar liver metastases from colorectal cancer, future liver remnant (FLR) growth can be achieved using several techniques, such as right portal vein ligation (RPVL) or right portal vein embolization (RPVE). A few heterogeneous studies have compared these two techniques with contradictory results concerning FLR growth. The objective of this study was to compare FLR hypertrophy of the left hemi-liver after RPVL and RPVE. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective comparative study using a propensity score of patients who underwent RPVL or RPVE prior to major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2020. The endpoints were FLR growth (%) after weighting using the propensity score, which included FLR prior to surgery and the number of chemotherapy cycles. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients undergoing simultaneous procedures, the morbidity and mortality, the recourse to other liver hypertrophy procedures, and the number of invasive procedures for the entire oncologic program in intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-four consecutive patients were retrospectively included and analyzed, 18 in the RPVL group, and 36 in the RPVE group. The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. After weighting, there was no significant difference between the RPVL and RPVE groups for FLR growth (%), respectively 32.5% [19.3-56.0%] and 34.5% [20.5-47.3%] (p = 0.221). There was no significant difference regarding the secondary outcomes except for the lower number of invasive procedures in RPVL group (median of 2 [2.0, 3.0] in RPVL group and 3 [3.0, 3.0] in RPVE group, p = 0.001)). CONCLUSION: RPVL and RPVE are both effective to provide required left hemi-liver hypertrophy before right hepatectomy. RPVL should be considered for the simultaneous treatment of liver metastases and the primary tumor.