REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining momentum, but there is still uncertainty regarding its safety, reproducibility, and oncologic appropriateness. This review assesses the current status of LPD. METHODS: Our literature review was conducted in Pubmed. Articles written in English containing five or more LPD were selected. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles matched the review criteria. Out of a total of 746 LPD, 341 were reported between 1997 and 2011 and 405 (54.2 %) between 2012 and June 1, 2013. Pure laparoscopy (PL) was used in 386 patients (51.7 %), robotic assistance (RA) in 234 (31.3 %), laparoscopic assistance (LA) in 121 (16.2 %), and hand assistance in 5 (0.6 %). PL was associated with shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and lower rate of pancreatic fistula (vs LA and RA). LA was associated with shorter operative time (vs RA), but with higher blood loss and increased incidence of pancreatic fistula (vs PL and RA). Conversion to open surgery was required in 64 LPD (9.1 %). Operative time averaged 464.3 min (338-710) and estimated blood 320.7 mL (74-642). Cumulative morbidity was 41.2 %, and pancreatic fistula was reported in 22.3 % of patients (4.5-52.3 %). Mean length of hospital stay was 13.6 days (7-23), showing geographic variability (21.9 days in Europe, 13.0 days in Asia, and 9.4 days in the US). Operative mortality was 1.9 %, including one intraoperative death. No difference was noted in conversion rate, incidence of pancreatic fistula, morbidity, and mortality when comparing results from larger (≥30 LPD) and smaller (≤29 LPD) series. Pathology demonstrated ductal adenocarcinoma in 30.6 % of the specimens, other malignant tumors in 51.7 %, and benign tumor/disease in 17.5 %. The mean number of lymph nodes examined was 14.4 (7-32), and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margin was 4.4 %. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, operated on by expert laparoscopic pancreatic surgeons, LPD is feasible and safe.

Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections. METHODS: Eleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: No LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: LRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.

Detection of Uterine Leiomyosarcoma Peritoneal Lesions by SPECT/CT and ROLL Technique.

We reported the preoperative radio-guided localization of 4 peritoneal metastatic nodules in the case of a 45-year-old woman with uterine leiomyosarcoma. Three lines of chemotherapy were tried, but cardiotoxicity occurred. Within the context of so-called GOSTT (guided intraoperative scintigraphic tumor targeting), preoperative radio-guided localization of peritoneal metastases enabled their subsequent radio-guided excisional biopsy. SPECT/CT allowed for anatomical localization of the hot lesions and generated a 3-dimensional volume-rendering roadmap, facilitating a surgical approach.