Evaluation of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Resection in Patients with Locally Advanced versus (Borderline) Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes following pancreatectomy in patients with LAPC compared to (B)RPC patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Selected patients diagnosed with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are increasingly undergoing resection following induction chemotherapy. To evaluate the benefit of this treatment approach, it is helpful to compare outcomes in resected patients with primary LAPC to outcomes in resected patients with primary (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer ((B)RPC). METHODS: Two prospectively maintained nationwide databases were used for this study. Patients with (B)RPC undergoing upfront tumor resection and patients with resected LAPC after induction therapy were included. Outcomes were postoperative pancreas-specific complications, 90-day mortality, pathological outcomes, disease-free interval (DFI), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 879 patients were included; 103 with LAPC (12%) and 776 with (B)RPC (88%). LAPC patients had a lower WHO performance score and CACI. Postoperative pancreas-specific complications were comparable between groups, except delayed gastric emptying grade C, which occurred more often in LAPC patients (9% vs. 3%, P=0.03). Ninety-day mortality was comparable. About half of the patients in both groups (54% in LAPC vs. 48% in (B)RPC), P=0.21) had a radical resection (R0). DFI was 13 months in both groups (P=0.12) and OS from date of diagnosis was 24 months in LAPC patients and 19 months in (B)RPC patients (P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: In our nationwide prospective databases, pancreas-specific complications, mortality and survival in patients with LAPC following pancreatectomy are comparable with those undergoing resection for (B)RPC. These outcomes suggest that postoperative morbidity and mortality after tumor resection in carefully selected patients with LAPC are acceptable.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP. CONCLUSION: A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Minimum and Optimal CA19-9 Response After Two Months Induction Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Nationwide Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: This nationwide multicenter study aimed to define clinically relevant thresholds of relative serum CA19-9 response after 2 months of induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). BACKGROUND: CA19-9 is seen as leading biomarker for response evaluation in patients with LAPC, but early clinically useful cut-offs are lacking. METHODS: All consecutive patients with LAPC after 4 cycles (m)FOLFIRINOX or 2 cycles gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel induction chemotherapy (±radiotherapy) with CA19-9 ≥5 U/mL at baseline were analyzed (2015-2019). The association of CA19-9 response with median OS (mOS) was evaluated for different CA19-9 cut-off points. Minimum and optimal CA19-9 response were established via log-rank test. Predictors for OS were analyzed using COX regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 212 patients were included, of whom 42 (19.8%) underwent resection. Minimum CA19-9 response demonstrating a clinically significant median OS difference (12.7 vs. 19.6 months) was seen at ≥40% CA19-9 decrease. The optimal cutoff for CA19-9 response was ≥60% decrease (21.7 vs. 14.0 mo, P =0.021). Only for patients with elevated CA19-9 levels at baseline (n=184), CA19-9 decrease ≥60% [hazard ratio (HR)=0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98, P =0.042] was independently associated with prolonged OS, as were SBRT (HR=0.42, 95% CI, 0.25-0.70; P =0.001), and resection (HR=0.25, 95% CI, 0.14-0.46, P <0.001), and duration of chemotherapy (HR=0.75, 95% CI, 0.69-0.82, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CA19-9 decrease of ≥60% following induction chemotherapy as optimal response cut-off in patients with LAPC is an independent predictor for OS when CA19-9 is increased at baseline. Furthermore, ≥40% is the minimum cut-off demonstrating survival benefit. These cut-offs may be used when discussing treatment strategies during early response evaluation.

Predicting Long-term Disease-free Survival After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction model for long-term (≥5 years) disease-free survival (DFS) after the resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Despite high recurrence rates, ~10% of patients have long-term DFS after PDAC resection. A model to predict long-term DFS may aid individualized prognostication and shared decision-making. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2016). The best-performing prognostic model was selected by Cox-proportional hazard analysis and Akaike's Information Criterion, presented by hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Internal validation was performed, and discrimination and calibration indices were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 836 patients with a median follow-up of 67 months (interquartile range 51-79) were analyzed. Long-term DFS was seen in 118 patients (14%). Factors predictive of long-term DFS were low preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (logarithmic; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.10-1.32), no vascular resection (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12-1.58), T1 or T2 tumor stage (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.04, and HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.98-1.39, respectively), well/moderate tumor differentiation (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.22-1.68), absence of perineural and lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11-1.81 and HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96-1.36, respectively), N0 or N1 nodal status (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.54-2.40, and HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.11-1.60, respectively), R0 resection margin status (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07-1.46), no major complications (HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.97-1.35) and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.74; 95% CI 1.47-2.06). Moderate performance (concordance index 0.68) with adequate calibration (slope 0.99) was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The developed prediction model, readily available at www.pancreascalculator.com, can be used to estimate the probability of long-term DFS after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Perineural Invasion is an Important Prognostic Factor in Patients With Radically Resected (R0) and Node-negative (pN0) Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between perineural invasion (PNI) and overall survival (OS) in a nationwide cohort of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), stratified for margin negative (R0) or positive (R1) resection and absence or presence of lymph node metastasis (pN0 or pN1-N2, respectively). BACKGROUND: Patients with R0 and pN0 resected PDAC have a relatively favorable prognosis. As PNI is associated with worse OS, this might be a useful factor to provide further prognostic information for patients counselling. METHODS: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on relevant pathological features (PNI, R status, and N status). OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox-proportional hazard analyses were performed to calculate hazard ratio's (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: In total, 1630 patients were included with a median follow-up of 43 (interquartile range 33-58) months. PNI was independently associated with worse OS in both R0 patients (HR 1.49 [95%CI 1.18-1.88]; P<0.001) and R1 patients (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.06-1.83]; P=0.02), as well as in pN0 patients (HR 1.75 [95%CI 1.27-2.41]; P<0.001) and pN1-N2 patients (HR 1.35 [95% CI 1.10-1.67]; P<0.01). In 315 patients with R0N0, multivariable analysis showed that PNI was the strongest predictor of OS (HR 2.24 [95% CI 1.52-3.30]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: PNI is strongly associated with worse survival in patients with resected PDAC, in particular in patients with relatively favorable pathological features. These findings may aid patient stratification and counselling and help guide treatment strategies.

Surgery for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Following Induction Chemotherapy: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The use of surgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following induction chemotherapy is increasing. However, most series do not report on the total cohort of patients undergoing surgical exploration; therefore, this single-center study investigates outcomes among all consecutive patients with LAPC who underwent surgical exploration. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis including all consecutive patients with LAPC (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group criteria) who underwent surgical exploration with curative intent (January 2014-June 2023) after induction therapy. Primary outcomes were resection rate and overall survival (OS) from the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 127 patients underwent surgical exploration for LAPC, whereby 100 patients (78.7%) underwent resection and 27 patients (21.3%) underwent a non-therapeutic laparotomy due to the extent of vascular involvement (n = 11, 8.7%) or occult metastases (n = 16, 12.6%). The overall in-hospital/30-day mortality rate was 0.8% and major morbidity was 31.3% (in patients after resection: 1.0% and 33.3%, respectively). The overall 90-day mortality rate was 5.5%, which included 3.1% mortality due to disease progression. Resection was associated with longer median OS {29 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 26-43) vs. 17 months (95% CI 11-26); p < 0.001} compared with patients undergoing non-therapeutic laparotomy, with corresponding 5-year OS rates of 28.4% and 7.7%. In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, only pancreatic body/tail tumors independently predicted OS (hazard ratio 1.788 [95% CI 1.042-3.068]). CONCLUSION: This single-center series found a resection rate of 78.7% in patients with LAPC selected for surgical exploration, with a low risk of mortality and morbidity in all explored patients and a 5-year OS rate after resection of 28.4%.

Nationwide Use and Outcome of Surgery for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Following Induction Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several international high-volume centers have reported good outcomes after resection of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following chemo(radio)therapy, but it is unclear how this translates to nationwide clinical practice and outcome. This study aims to assess the nationwide use and outcome of resection of LAPC following induction chemo(radio)therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study including all patients who underwent resection for LAPC following chemo(radio)therapy in all 16 Dutch pancreatic surgery centers (2014-2020), registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. LAPC is defined as arterial involvement > 90° and/or portomesenteric venous > 270° involvement or occlusion. RESULTS: Overall, 142 patients underwent resection for LAPC, of whom 34.5% met the 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. FOLFIRINOX was the most commonly (93.7%) used chemotherapy [median 5 cycles (IQR 4-8)]. Venous and arterial resections were performed in 51.4% and 14.8% of patients. Most resections (73.9%) were performed in high-volume centers (i.e., ≥ 60 pancreatoduodenectomies/year). Overall median volume of LAPC resections/center was 4 (IQR 1-7). In-hospital/30-day major morbidity was 37.3% and 90-day mortality was 4.2%. Median OS from diagnosis was 26 months (95% CI 23-28) and 5-year OS 18%. Surgery in high-volume centers [HR = 0.542 (95% CI 0.318-0.923)], ypN1-2 [HR = 3.141 (95% CI 1.886-5.234)], and major morbidity [HR = 2.031 (95% CI 1.272-3.244)] were associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of LAPC following chemo(radio)therapy is infrequently performed in the Netherlands, albeit with acceptable morbidity, mortality, and OS. Given these findings, a structured nationwide approach involving international centers of excellence would be needed to improve selection of patients with LAPC for surgical resection following induction therapy.

The Value of Biological and Conditional Factors for Staging of Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Upfront Resection: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Novel definitions suggest that resectability status for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) should be assessed beyond anatomical criteria, considering both biological and conditional factors. This has, however, yet to be validated on a nationwide scale. This study evaluated the prognostic value of biological and conditional factors for staging of patients with resectable PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed, including all consecutive patients who underwent upfront resection of National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectable PDAC in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on preoperative carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. PDAC was considered biologically unfavorable (RB+) if CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL and favorable (RB-) otherwise. ECOG ≥ 2 was considered conditionally unfavorable (RC+) and favorable otherwise (RC-). Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-proportional hazard analysis, presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 688 patients were analyzed with a median overall survival (OS) of 20 months (95% CI 19-23). OS was 14 months (95% CI 10 months-median not reached) in 20 RB+C+ patients (3%; HR 1.61, 95% CI 0.86-2.70), 13 months (95% CI 11-15) in 156 RB+C- patients (23%; HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.50-2.31), and 21 months (95% CI 12-41) in 47 RB-C+ patients (7%; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80-1.62) compared with 24 months (95% CI 22-27) in 465 patients with RB-C- PDAC (68%; reference). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after upfront resection of anatomically resectable PDAC is worse in patients with CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL, while performance status had no impact. This supports consideration of CA19-9 in preoperative staging of resectable PDAC.

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Fistula Risk Score for Auditing Pancreatoduodenectomy: The Auditing-FRS.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a fistula risk score for auditing, to be able to compare postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy among hospitals. BACKGROUND: For proper comparisons of outcomes in surgical audits, case-mix variation should be accounted for. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Derivation of the score was performed with the data from 2014 to 2018 and validation with 2019 to 2020 data. The primary endpoint of the study was POPF (grade B or C). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for case-mix adjustment of known risk factors. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, 3271 patients were included, of whom 479 (14.6%) developed POPF. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.66], higher body mass index (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10), a final diagnosis other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis (OR=2.41; 95% CI: 1.90-3.06), and a smaller duct diameter (OR=1.43/mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.32-1.55) were independently associated with POPF. Diabetes mellitus (OR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98) was independently associated with a decreased risk of POPF. Model discrimination was good with a C -statistic of 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort (n=913). Hospitals differed in particular in the proportion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis patients, ranging from 36.0% to 58.1%. The observed POPF risk per center ranged from 2.9% to 25.4%. The expected POPF rate based on the 5 risk factors ranged from 11.6% to 18.0% among hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The auditing fistula risk score was successful in case-mix adjustment and enables fair comparisons of POPF rates among hospitals.

Risk Models for Developing Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreatoduodenectomy: Validation in a Nationwide Prospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of published fistula risk models by external validation, and to identify independent risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). BACKGROUND: Multiple risk models have been developed to predict POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy. External validation in high-quality prospective cohorts is, however, lacking or only performed for individual models. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of data from the stepped-wedge cluster cluster-randomized Care After Pancreatic Resection According to an Algorithm for Early Detection and Minimally Invasive Management of Pancreatic Fistula versus Current Practice (PORSCH) trial was performed. Included were all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands (January 2018-November 2019). Risk models on POPF were identified by a systematic literature search. Model performance was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating curves (AUC) and calibration plots. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors associated with clinically relevant POPF. RESULTS: Overall, 1358 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were included, of whom 341 patients (25%) developed clinically relevant POPF. Fourteen risk models for POPF were evaluated, with AUCs ranging from 0.62 to 0.70. The updated alternative fistula risk score had an AUC of 0.70 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.69-0.72). The alternative fistula risk score demonstrated an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.689-0.71), whilst an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.699-0.71) was also found for the model by Petrova and colleagues. Soft pancreatic texture, pathology other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma or chronic pancreatitis, small pancreatic duct diameter, higher body mass index, minimally invasive resection and male sex were identified as independent predictors of POPF. CONCLUSION: Published risk models predicting clinically relevant POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy have a moderate predictive accuracy. Their clinical applicability to identify high-risk patients and guide treatment strategies is therefore questionable.

Nationwide Outcome after Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at very High Risk (ISGPS-D) for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula.

OBJECTIVE: To assess nationwide surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at very high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), categorized as ISGPS-D. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Morbidity and mortality after ISGPS-D PD is perceived so high that a recent randomized trial advocated prophylactic total pancreatectomy (TP) as alternative aiming to lower this risk. However, current outcomes of ISGPS-D PD remain unknown as large nationwide series are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide retrospective analysis including consecutive patients undergoing ISGPS-D PD (i.e., soft texture and pancreatic duct ≤3 mm), using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2021). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and POPF (ISGPS grade B/C). The use of prophylactic TP to avoid POPF during the study period was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1402 patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 4.1% (n=57), which decreased to 3.7% (n=20/536) in the last 2 years. Major morbidity occurred in 642 patients (45.9%) and POPF in 410 (30.0%), which corresponded with failure to rescue in 8.9% (n=57/642). Patients with POPF had increased rates of major morbidity (88.0% vs. 28.3%; P<0.001) and mortality (6.3% vs. 3.5%; P=0.016), compared to patients without POPF. Among 190 patients undergoing TP, prophylactic TP to prevent POPF was performed in 4 (2.1%). CONCLUSION: This nationwide series found a 4.1% in-hospital mortality after ISGPS-D PD with 45.9% major morbidity, leaving little room for improvement through prophylactic TP. Nevertheless, given the outcomes in 30% of patients who develop POPF, future randomized trials should aim to prevent and mitigate POPF in this high-risk category.

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework. BACKGROUND: The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned." RESULTS: Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

Algorithm-based care versus usual care for the early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands: an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition and management of postoperative complications, before they become clinically relevant, can improve postoperative outcomes for patients, especially for high-risk procedures such as pancreatic resection. METHODS: We did an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that included all patients having pancreatic resection during a 22-month period in the Netherlands. In this trial design, all 17 centres that did pancreatic surgery were randomly allocated for the timing of the crossover from usual care (the control group) to treatment given in accordance with a multimodal, multidisciplinary algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of postoperative complications (the intervention group). Randomisation was done by an independent statistician using a computer-generated scheme, stratified to ensure that low-medium-volume centres alternated with high-volume centres. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment. A smartphone app was designed that incorporated the algorithm and included the daily evaluation of clinical and biochemical markers. The algorithm determined when to do abdominal CT, radiological drainage, start antibiotic treatment, and remove abdominal drains. After crossover, clinicians were trained in how to use the algorithm during a 4-week wash-in period; analyses comparing outcomes between the control group and the intervention group included all patients other than those having pancreatic resection during this wash-in period. The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding that required invasive intervention, organ failure, and 90-day mortality, and was assessed by a masked adjudication committee. This trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL6671. FINDINGS: From Jan 8, 2018, to Nov 9, 2019, all 1805 patients who had pancreatic resection in the Netherlands were eligible for and included in this study. 57 patients who underwent resection during the wash-in phase were excluded from the primary analysis. 1748 patients (885 receiving usual care and 863 receiving algorithm-centred care) were included. The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the algorithm-centred care group than in the usual care group (73 [8%] of 863 patients vs 124 [14%] of 885 patients; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 95% CI 0·38-0·61; p<0·0001). Among patients treated according to the algorithm, compared with patients who received usual care there was a decrease in bleeding that required intervention (47 [5%] patients vs 51 [6%] patients; RR 0·65, 0·42-0·99; p=0·046), organ failure (39 [5%] patients vs 92 [10%] patients; 0·35, 0·20-0·60; p=0·0001), and 90-day mortality (23 [3%] patients vs 44 [5%] patients; 0·42, 0·19-0·92; p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: The algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of complications after pancreatic resection considerably improved clinical outcomes compared with usual care. This difference included an approximate 50% reduction in mortality at 90 days. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society and UMC Utrecht.

Surgical Outcome After Pancreatoduodenectomy for Duodenal Adenocarcinoma Compared with Other Periampullary Cancers: A Nationwide Audit Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma could differ from pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers, but large multicenter series are lacking. This study aimed to determine surgical outcome in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma, compared with other periampullary cancers, in a nationwide multicenter cohort. METHODS: After pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer between 2014 and 2019, consecutive patients were included from the nationwide, mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Patients were stratified by diagnosis. Baseline, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcome were compared between groups. The association between diagnosis and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher) was assessed via multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 3113 patients, after pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer, were included in this study: 264 (8.5%) patients with duodenal adenocarcinomas and 2849 (91.5%) with other cancers. After pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma, patients had higher rates of major complications (42.8% vs. 28.6%; p < 0.001), postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery [ISGPS] grade B/C; 23.1% vs. 13.4%; p < 0.001), complication-related intensive care admission (14.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.046), re-interventions (39.8% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.001), in-hospital mortality (5.7% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.025), and longer hospital stay (15 days vs. 11 days; p < 0.001) compared with pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers. In multivariable analysis, duodenal adenocarcinoma was independently associated with major complications (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.27; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma is associated with higher rates of major complications, pancreatic fistula, re-interventions, and in-hospital mortality compared with patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers. These findings should be considered in patient counseling and postoperative management.

Predictive value of baseline serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level on treatment effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that the serum carbohydrate antigen (CA19-9) level should be used when deciding on neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (hereafter referred to as pancreatic cancer). In patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant therapy is advised when the CA19-9 level is 'markedly elevated'. This study investigated the impact of baseline CA19-9 concentration on the treatment effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, data were obtained from two RCTs that compared neoadjuvant CRT with upfront surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers. The effect of neoadjuvant treatment on overall survival was compared between patients with a serum CA19-9 level above or below 500 units/ml using the interaction test. RESULTS: Of 296 patients, 179 were eligible for analysis, 90 in the neoadjuvant CRT group and 89 in the upfront surgery group. Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with superior overall survival (HR 0.67, 95 per cent c.i. 0.48 to 0.94; P = 0.019). Among 127 patients (70, 9 per cent) with a low CA19-9 level, median overall survival was 23.5 months with neoadjuvant CRT and 16.3 months with upfront surgery (HR 0.63, 0.42 to 0.93). For 52 patients (29 per cent) with a high CA19-9 level, median overall survival was 15.5 months with neoadjuvant CRT and 12.9 months with upfront surgery (HR 0.82, 0.45 to 1.49). The interaction test for CA19-9 level exceeding 500 units/ml on the treatment effect of neoadjuvant CRT was not significant (P = 0.501). CONCLUSION: Baseline serum CA19-9 level defined as either high or low has prognostic value, but was not associated with the treatment effect of neoadjuvant CRT in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers, in contrast with current guideline advice.

Nationwide evaluation of pancreatic cancer networks ten years after the centralization of pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Due to centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with pancreatic cancer are treated in pancreatic cancer networks, composed of referring hospitals (Spokes) and an expert center (Hub). This study aimed to investigate I) how pancreatic cancer networks are organized and II) evaluated by involved clinicians. METHODS: Two online surveys were sent out between January-May 2022. Part I was sent out to the surgical network directors of all hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). Part II was sent out to all involved clinicians in the Hubs-and-Spokes networks. RESULTS: There was a large variety between the 15 networks concerning number of affiliated Spokes (1-7), annual pancreatoduodenectomies (20-129), and use of a service level agreement (SLA) (40%). More Spoke clinicians considered the Spoke the best location for diagnostic workup (74% vs 36%, P < 0.001). Only 30% of Spoke clinicians attended the Hubs multidisciplinary team meeting frequently. More Hub clinicians thought that exchange of patient information should be improved (37% vs 51%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: A large variety in Dutch pancreatic cancer networks was observed concerning number of affiliated Spokes, use of SLAs, and logistic aspects of network care. Improvement of network care concern agreements on diagnostic workup, use of SLA, Spoke participation in the MDT, and patient information exchange.

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. METHODS: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. CONCLUSION: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.

Surgical Complications in a Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy and Immediate Surgery in Patients With Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer (PREOPANC Trial).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on surgical complications in patients after pancreatic resection for (borderline-)resectable pancreatic cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is increasingly used in patients with (borderline-)resectable pancreatic cancer. concerns have been raised about the potential harmful effect of any preoperative therapy on the surgical complication rate after pancreatic resection. METHODS: An observational analysis was performed within the multicenter randomized controlled PREOPANC trial (April 2013-July 2017). The trial randomly assigned (1:1) patients to preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and the remaining adjuvant chemotherapy or to immediate surgery, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The main analysis consisted of a per-protocol approach. The endpoints of the present analyses were the rate of postoperative complications. RESULTS: This study included 246 patients from 16 centers, of whom 66 patients underwent resection after preoperative therapy and 98 patients after immediate surgery. No differences were found regarding major complications (37.9% vs 30.6%, P=0.400), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (9.1% vs 5.1%, P=0.352), delayed gastric emptying (21.2% vs 22.4%, P=0.930), bile leakage (4.5% vs 3.1%, P=0.686), intra-abdominal infections (12.1% vs 10.2%, P=0.800), and mortality (3.0% vs 4.1%, P=1.000). There was a significant lower incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (0% vs 9.2%, P=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy did not increase the incidence of surgical complications or mortality and reduced the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after resection in patients with (borderline-)resectable pancreatic cancer.

Detection, Treatment, and Survival of Pancreatic Cancer Recurrence in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether detection of recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in an early, asymptomatic stage increases the number of patients receiving additional treatment, subsequently improving survival. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: International guidelines disagree on the value of standardized postoperative surveillance for early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence. METHODS: A nationwide, observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Prospective baseline and perioperative data were retrieved from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Data on follow-up, treatment, and survival were collected retrospectively. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression analysis, before and after propensity-score matching, stratified for patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic recurrence. RESULTS: Eight hundred thirty-six patients with a median follow-up of 37 months (interquartile range 30-48) were analyzed. Of those, 670 patients (80%) developed PDAC recurrence after a median follow-up of 10 months (interquartile range 5-17). Additional treatment was performed in 159/511 patients (31%) with symptomatic recurrence versus 77/159 (48%) asymptomatic patients (P < 0.001). After propensity-score matching on lymph node ratio, adjuvant therapy, disease-free survival, and recurrence site, additional treatment was independently associated with improved OS for both symptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.42-0.67); P < 0.001] and asymptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.29-0.70); P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Additional treatment of PDAC recurrence was independently associated with improved OS, with asymptomatic patients having a higher probability to receive recurrence treatment. Therefore, standardized postoperative surveillance aiming to detect PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms has the potential to improve survival. This provides a rationale for prospective studies on standardized surveillance after PDAC resection.