Poor Prognostic Factors in Long-Term Survivors of Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International, Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the rate of LTS in resected PDAC and determine the association between predictors of OS and LTS. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Long-term survival (>5 y, LTS) remains rare in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Multiple predictors of overall survival (OS) are known but their association with LTS remains unclear. METHODS: An international, multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Included were patients from 2012-2019 with resected PDAC. Excluded were those with metastases at diagnosis or resection, R2 resections, and 90-day mortality. Predictors of OS were identified using multivariable Cox regression and their prevalence in patients with LTS assessed. LTS was calculated by excluding patients with shorter follow-up and predictors of LTS were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 3,003 patients were included (27.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Elevated baseline CA19-9, high tumor grade, nodal disease, and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were negative independent predictors of OS, while receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy predicted improved OS (all P<0.05). LTS was observed in 220/2,436 patients (9.0%), of whom 198 (90%) harbored poor prognostic factors: elevated baseline CA19-9 (58.1%), poor tumor differentiation (51.0%), nodal disease (46.8%), and perineural invasion (76.0%). Of those without any of these four features, 50.0% achieved LTS as compared to 21.3%, 13.3%, 5.2%, and 3.5% in those with 1, 2, 3, or 4 features. CONCLUSIONS: This bi-national cohort demonstrates a true LTS rate of 9.0% in resected PDAC. Clinicians should remain aware that presence of poor prognostic factors does not preclude LTS.

Total versus Partial Pancreatectomy in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Arising from Multifocal or Diffuse Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasia - A Multicenter Observational Study.

AIM: To investigate the impact of total pancreatectomy (TP) on oncological outcomes for patients at high-risk of local recurrence or secondary progression in the remnant gland after partial pancreatectomy (PP) for IPMN-associated cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Major risk factors for invasive progression in the remnant gland include multifocality, diffuse main duct dilation, and the presence of invasive cancer. In these high-risk patients, a TP may be oncologically beneficial. However, current guidelines discourage TP, especially in elderly patients. METHODS: This international multicenter study compares TP versus PP in patients with adenocarcinoma arising from multifocal or diffuse IPMN (2002-2022). Log-rank test and multivariable Cox-analysis with interaction analysis was performed to assess overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local-DFS. RESULTS: Of 359 included patients, 162 (45%) were treated with TP, whereas 197 (55%) underwent PP. Despite TP and PP having similar R0-rates (59% vs. 58%, P=0.866), patients undergoing a TP had significantly longer local-DFS compared to PP (P=0.039). However, no difference in OS was observed between the two surgical approaches (P=0.487). In a multivariable analysis, young age (optimal cut-off ≤63.6 yrs) was associated with an OS benefit derived from TP (HR:0.44, 95%CI:0.22-0.89), whereas no significant difference was observed in elderly patients (HR:1.24, 95%CI:0.92-1.67, Pinteraction=0.007). CONCLUSION: Since overall, patients with diffuse or multifocal IPMN with an invasive component do not benefit from TP in terms of OS, the indication for TP may be individualized to young patients who have sufficient life expectancy to benefit from the prevention of secondary progression or local recurrence.

Evaluation of AJCC Nodal Staging for Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm-Derived Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) eighth edition is based on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a biologically distinct entity from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic cancer. The role of nodal disease and the AJCC's prognostic utility for IPMN-derived pancreatic cancer are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of nodal disease and the AJCC eighth-edition N-staging for IPMN-derived pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Upfront-surgery patients with IPMN-derived PDAC from four centers were stratified according to the AJCC eighth-edition N stage. Disease characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics, and both overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were evaluated using log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox regression was performed to determine the prognostic value of N stage for OS, presented as hazard ratios with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs). A lowest p value log-rank statistic was used to derive the optimal cutoff for node-positive disease. RESULTS: For 360 patients, advanced N stage was associated with worse T stage, grade, tubular histology, and perineural and lymphovascular invasion (all p < 0.05). The median OS was 98.3 months (95 % CI 82.8-122.0 months) for N0 disease, 27.8 months (95 % CI 24.4-41.7 months) for N1 disease, and 18.1 months (95 % CI 16.2-25.9 months) for N2 disease (p < 0.001). The AJCC N stage was validated and associated with worse OS (N1 [HR 1.64; range, 1.05-2.57], N2 [HR2.42; range, 1.48-3.96]) and RFS (N1 [HR 1.81; range, 1.23-2.68], N2 [HR 3.72; range, 2.40-5.77]). The optimal cutoff for positive nodes was five nodes. CONCLUSION: The AJCC eighth-edition N-staging is valid and prognostic for both OS and RFS in IPMN-derived PDAC.

Impact of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Resected Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm-Derived Pancreatic Cancer: Results From an International Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: The benefit of adjuvant therapy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear because of severely limited evidence. Although biologically distinct entities, adjuvant therapy practices for IPMN-derived PDAC are largely founded on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia-derived PDAC. We aimed to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in IPMN-derived PDAC. METHODS: This international multicenter retrospective cohort study (2005-2018) was conceived at the Verona Evidence-Based Medicine meeting. Cox regressions were performed to identify risk-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) associated with overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were employed for survival analysis. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors motivating adjuvant chemotherapy administration. A decision tree was proposed and categorized patients into overtreated, undertreated, and optimally treated cohorts. RESULTS: In 1,031 patients from 16 centers, nodal disease (HR, 2.88, P < .001) and elevated (≥37 to <200 µ/mL, HR, 1.44, P = .006) or markedly elevated (≥200 µ/mL, HR, 2.53, P < .001) carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) were associated with worse OS. Node-positive patients with elevated CA19-9 had an associated 34.4-month improvement in median OS (P = .047) after adjuvant chemotherapy while those with positive nodes and markedly elevated CA19-9 had an associated 12.6-month survival benefit (P < .001). Node-negative patients, regardless of CA19-9, did not have an associated benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (all P > .05). Based on this model, we observed undertreatment in 18.1% and overtreatment in 61.2% of patients. Factors associated with chemotherapy administration included younger age, R1-margin, poorer differentiation, and nodal disease. CONCLUSION: Almost half of patients with resected IPMN-derived PDAC may be overtreated or undertreated. In patients with node-negative disease or normal CA19-9, adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with a survival benefit, whereas those with node-positive disease and elevated CA19-9 have an associated benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. A decision tree was proposed. Randomized controlled trials are needed for validation.

Informing Decision-making for Transected Margin Reresection in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm-derived PDAC: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic impact of margin status in patients with resected intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to inform future intraoperative decision-making on handling differing degrees of dysplasia on frozen section. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The ideal oncologic surgical outcome is a negative transection margin with normal pancreatic epithelium left behind. However, the prognostic significance of reresecting certain degrees of dysplasia or invasive cancer at the pancreatic neck margin during pancreatectomy for IPMN-derived PDAC is debatable. METHODS: Consecutive patients with resected and histologically confirmed IPMN-derived PDAC (2002-2022) from six international high-volume centers were included. The prognostic relevance of a positive resection margin (R1) and degrees of dysplasia at the pancreatic neck margin were assessed by log-rank test and multivariable Cox-regression for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Overall, 832 patients with IPMN-derived PDAC were included with 322 patients (39%) having an R1-resection on final pathology. Median OS (mOS) was significantly longer in patients with an R0 status compared to those with an R1 status (65.8 vs. 26.3 mo P<0.001). Patients without dysplasia at the pancreatic neck margin had similar OS compared to those with low-grade dysplasia (mOS: 78.8 vs. 66.8 months, P=0.344). However, high-grade dysplasia (mOS: 26.1 mo, P=0.001) and invasive cancer (mOS: 25.0 mo, P<0.001) were associated with significantly worse OS compared to no or low-grade dysplasia. Patients who underwent conversion of high-risk margins (high-grade or invasive cancer) to a low-risk margin (low-grade or no dysplasia) after intraoperative frozen section had significantly superior OS compared to those with a high-risk neck margin on final pathology (mOS: 76.9 vs. 26.1 mo P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In IPMN-derived PDAC, normal epithelium or low-grade dysplasia at the neck have similar outcomes while pancreatic neck margins with high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer are associated with poorer outcomes. Conversion of a high-risk to low-risk margin after intraoperative frozen section is associated with survival benefit and should be performed when feasible.

Outcome of Minimally Invasive and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients with Intestinal- and Pancreatobiliary Subtype Ampullary Cancer: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy in different subtypes of ampullary adenocarcinoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) is widely seen as the best indication for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) due to the lack of vascular involvement and dilated bile and pancreatic duct. However, it is unknown whether outcomes of MIPD for AAC differ between the pancreatobiliary (AAC-PB) and intestinal (AAC-IT) subtypes as large studies are lacking. METHODS: This is an international cohort study, encompassing 27 centers from 12 countries. Outcome of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were compared in patients with AAC-IT and AAC-PB. Primary end points were R1 rate, lymph node yield, and 5-year overall survival (5yOS). RESULTS: Overall, 1187 patients after MIPD for AAC were included, of whom 572 with AAC-IT (62 MIPD, 510 OPD) and 615 with AAC-PB (41 MIPD and 574 OPD). The rate of R1 resection was not significantly different between MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (3.4% vs 6.9%, P=0,425) and AAC-PB (9.8% vs 14.9%, P=0,625). AAC-IT, more lymph nodes were resected with MIPD group (19 vs 16, P=0.007), compared to OPD. The 5y-OS did not differ after MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (56.8% vs 59.5%, P=0.827 and AAC-PB (52.5% vs 44.4%, P=0.357). The rates of surgical complication between MIPD and OPD did not differ between AmpIT and AmpPB. DISCUSSION: This international multicenter study found no differences in outcomes between MIPD and OPD for AAC-IT and AAC-PB. MIPD and OPD demonstrated comparable outcomes in oncological resection, survival and surgical outcomes for both subtypes of AAC.

The differential benefit of laparoscopic over open minor liver resection for lesions situated in the anterolateral or posterosuperior segments.

Background: It is well known that laparoscopic liver surgery can offer advantages over open liver surgery in selected patients. However, what type of procedures can benefit most from a laparoscopic approach has been investigated poorly thus far. The aim of this study is thus to define the extent of advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery for lesions in the anterolateral (AL) and posterosuperior (PS) segments. Methods: In this international multicentre retrospective cohort study, laparoscopic and open minor liver resections for lesions in the AL and PS segments were compared after propensity score matching. The differential benefit of laparoscopy over open liver surgery, calculated using bootstrap sampling, was compared between AL and PS resections and expressed as a Delta of the differences. Results: After matching, 3,040 AL and 2,336 PS resections were compared, encompassing open and laparoscopic procedures in a 1:1 ratio. AL and PS laparoscopic liver resections were more advantageous in comparison to open in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and length of stay. However, AL resections benefitted more from laparoscopy than PS in terms of overall and severe complications (D-difference were 4.8%, P=0.046 and 3%, P=0.046) and blood loss (D-difference was 195 mL, P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the subset for high-volume centres, while in recent years no significant differences were found in the differential benefit between AL and PS segments. Conclusions: The advantage of laparoscopic over open liver surgery is greater in the AL segments than in the PS segments.

Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking. METHODS: An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points. RESULTS: Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually. CONCLUSION: This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

Intravenous lidocaine for refractory pain in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and chronic pancreatitis (LIDOPAN): a multicenter prospective non-randomized pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Refractory pain is a major clinical problem in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP). New, effective therapies to reduce pain are urgently needed. Intravenous lidocaine is used in clinical practice in patients with PDAC and CP, but its efficacy has not been studied prospectively. METHODS: Multicentre prospective non-randomized pilot study including patients with moderate or severe pain (NRS ≥ 4) associated with PDAC or CP in 5 Dutch centers. An intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5mg/kg, was followed by continuous infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/hour. The dose was raised every 15 minutes until treatment response (up to a maximum 2mg/kg/hour) and consecutively administered for two hours. Primary outcome was the mean difference in pain severity, pre-infusion and the first day after (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] scale 1-10). A BPI decrease ≥ 1.3 points was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Overall, 30 patients were included, 19 with PDAC (63%) and 11 with CP (37%). The mean difference in BPI at day one was 1.1 (SD±1.3) points for patients with PDAC and 0.5 (SD±1.7) for CP patients. A clinically relevant decrease in BPI on day one was reported in 9/29 patients (31%), this response lasted up to one month. No serious complications were reported, and only three minor complications (vertigo, nausea, tingling of mouth). Treatment with lidocaine did not impact quality of life. CONCLUSION: Intravenous lidocaine in patients with painful PDAC and CP did not show an overall clinically relevant reduction of pain. However, this pilot study shows that the treatment is feasible in this patient group, and had a positive effect in a third of patients which lasted up to a month with only minor side effects. To prove or exclude the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, the study should be performed in a study with a greater sample size and less heterogeneous patient group.

Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization: international multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly used for more challenging procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization. METHODS: This was an international retrospective multicentre study of patients with colorectal liver metastases who underwent open or laparoscopic right and extended right hepatectomy after portal vein embolization between 2004 and 2020. The perioperative and oncological outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic and open approaches were compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 338 patients, 84 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and 254 patients underwent an open procedure. Patients in the laparoscopic group less often underwent extended right hepatectomy (18% versus 34.6% (P = 0.004)), procedures in the setting of a two-stage hepatectomy (42% versus 65% (P < 0.001)), and major concurrent procedures (4% versus 16.1% (P = 0.003)). After propensity score matching, 78 patients remained in each group. The laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating and Pringle times (330 versus 258.5 min (P < 0.001) and 65 versus 30 min (P = 0.001) respectively) and a shorter length of stay (7 versus 8 days (P = 0.011)). The R0 resection rate was not different (71% for the laparoscopic approach versus 60% for the open approach (P = 0.230)). The median disease-free survival was 12 (95% c.i. 10 to 20) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 20 (95% c.i. 13 to 31) months for the open approach (P = 0.145). The median overall survival was 28 (95% c.i. 22 to 48) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 42 (95% c.i. 35 to 52) months for the open approach (P = 0.614). CONCLUSION: The advantages of a laparoscopic over an open approach for (extended) right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization are limited.

Outcomes in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm-derived pancreatic cancer differ from PanIN-derived pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) management is generally extrapolated from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)-derived PDAC guidelines. However, these are biologically divergent, and heterogeneity further exists between tubular and colloid subtypes. METHODS: Consecutive upfront surgery patients with PanIN-derived and IPMN-derived PDAC were retrospectively identified from international centers (2000-2019). One-to-one propensity score matching for clinicopathologic factors generated three cohorts: IPMN-derived versus PanIN-derived PDAC, tubular IPMN-derived versus PanIN-derived PDAC, and tubular versus colloid IPMN-derived PDAC. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox regression determined corresponding hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The median OS (mOS) in 2350 PanIN-derived and 700 IPMN-derived PDAC patients was 23.0 and 43.1 months (P < 0.001), respectively. PanIN-derived PDAC had worse T-stage, CA19-9, grade, and nodal status. Tubular subtype had worse T-stage, CA19-9, grade, nodal status, and R1 margins, with a mOS of 33.7 versus 94.1 months (P < 0.001) in colloid. Matched (n = 495), PanIN-derived and IPMN-derived PDAC had mOSs of 30.6 and 42.8 months (P < 0.001), respectively. In matched (n = 341) PanIN-derived and tubular IPMN-derived PDAC, mOS remained poorer (27.7 vs 37.4, P < 0.001). Matched tubular and colloid cancers (n = 112) had similar OS (P = 0.55). On multivariable Cox regression, PanIN-derived PDAC was associated with worse OS than IPMN-derived (HR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.44-1.90) and tubular IPMN-derived (HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.32-1.77) PDAC. Colloid and tubular subtype was not associated with OS (P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: PanIN-derived PDAC has worse survival than IPMN-derived PDAC supporting distinct outcomes. Although more indolent, colloid IPMN-derived PDAC has similar survival to tubular after risk adjustment.

Interobserver Variability in the International Study Group for Pancreas Surgery (ISGPS)-Defined Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy: An International Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the interobserver variability for complications of pancreatoduodenectomy as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) and others. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Good interobserver variability for the definitions of surgical complications is of major importance in comparing surgical outcomes between and within centers. However, data on interobserver variability for pancreatoduodenectomy-specific complications are lacking. METHODS: International cross-sectional multicenter study including 52 raters from 13 high-volume pancreatic centers in 8 countries on 3 continents. Per center, 4 experienced raters scored 30 randomly selected patients after pancreatoduodenectomy. In addition, all raters scored six standardized case vignettes. This variability and the 'within centers' variability were calculated for twofold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B/C) and threefold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B vs grade C) of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), post-pancreatoduodenectomy hemorrhage (PPH), chyle leak (CL), bile leak (BL), and delayed gastric emptying (DGE). Interobserver variability is presented with Gwet's AC-1 measure for agreement. RESULTS: Overall, 390 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The overall agreement rate for the standardized cases vignettes for twofold scoring was 68% (95%-CI: 55%-81%, AC1 score: moderate agreement) and for threefold scoring 55% (49%-62%, AC1 score: fair agreement). The mean 'within centers' agreement for twofold scoring was 84% (80%-87%, AC1 score; substantial agreement). CONCLUSION: The interobserver variability for the ISGPS defined complications of pancreatoduodenectomy was too high even though the 'within centers' agreement was acceptable. Since these findings will decrease the quality and validity of clinical studies, ISGPS has started efforts aimed at reducing the interobserver variability.

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. RESULTS: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

Robotic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy: The Warshaw and Kimura Techniques.

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy offers an alternative surgical approach to the traditional distal pancreatectomy combined with splenectomy for removing benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas, avoiding complications associated with splenectomy. This procedure can be accomplished either by resecting and ligating the splenic vessels (Warshaw technique) or by preserving them (Kimura technique). Currently, the widespread use of minimally invasive surgery has established laparoscopic and robotic approaches for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy as valid and safe options for treating such conditions. Our protocol aims to describe how the Warshaw and Kimura techniques of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy can be performed robotically. The first patient is a 36-year-old female with a neuroendocrine tumor (NET) in the pancreatic body who underwent a spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with the ligation of the splenic vessels (WT). The second patient is a 76-year-old male with chronic pancreatitis presenting with a dilated main pancreatic duct in the tail of the pancreas who underwent a spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with a vessel-preserving approach (KT).

Tackling challenges in rare diseases: The ISGACA approach on non-pancreatic cancers in the periampullary region.

OBJECTIVE: Rare but aggressive cancer types like non-pancreatic periampullary cancers pose unique challenges for cancer research due to their low incidence rates and lack of consensus on optimal treatment strategies, therefore necessitating a collaborative approach. The International Study Group on non-pancreatic peri-Ampullary CAncer (ISGACA) aimed to build a collaborative initiative to pool expertise, funding opportunities, and data from over 60 medical centers, in order to improve outcomes for underrepresented patients with rare cancers. METHODS: The ISGACA approach predefined a stepwise approach including a research scope, establishing a dedicated steering committee, creating a recognizable brand, identifying research gaps, following a well-defined timeline, ensuring robust data collection, addressing legal and ethical considerations, securing financial resources, investing in research ethics training and statistical expertise, raising awareness, creating uniformity, and initiating prospective studies. RESULTS: Overall, 60 medical centers joined the ISGACA consortium (41 in Europe, 15 in North-America, three in Asia, one in Australia). The database includes 4309 patients. Nine publications and several ongoing studies which in turn allowed for a successful application of research grants. Subsequently, an international consensus meeting established uniform definitions and classifications, and one prospective multicenter international clinical trial has been initiated. CONCLUSION: By sharing knowledge, expertise, and clinical data, the ISGACA approach has not only gathered sufficient evidence to secure grants and ethical approvals for prospective studies, but also demonstrates options for standardizing patient care and improving outcomes for patients with rare cancers. The ISGACA approach offers a detailed methodology for initiating research on rare cancers and could serve as a replicable model for future research initiatives.

International differences in the selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy: A transatlantic analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. METHODS: All patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014-2020 were included. RESULTS: Overall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159-2.300, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve.