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.

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.

Surveillance after surgery for pancreatic cancer: a global scoping review of guidelines and a nordic Survey of contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVES: Most patients with pancreatic cancer who have undergone surgical resection eventually develop disease recurrence. |This study aimed to investigate whether there is evidence to support routine surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery, with a secondary aim of analyzing the implementation of surveillance strategies in the Nordic countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify clinical practice guidelines globally and research studies relating to surveillance after pancreatic cancer resection. This was followed by a survey among 20 pancreatic units from four Nordic countries to assess their current practice of follow-up for operated patients. RESULTS: Altogether 16 clinical practice guidelines and 17 research studies were included. The guidelines provided inconsistent recommendations regarding postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer. The clinical research data were mainly based on retrospective cohort studies with low level of evidence and lead-time bias was not addressed. Active surveillance was recommended in Sweden and Denmark, but not in Norway beyond the post-operative/adjuvant period. Finland had no national recommendations for surveillance. The Nordic survey revealed a wide variation in reported practice among the different units. About 75% (15 of 20 units) performed routine postoperative surveillance. Routine CA 19-9 testing was used by 80% and routine CT by 67% as part of surveillance. About 73% of centers continued follow-up until 5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Evidence for routine long-term (i.e. 5 years) surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery remains limited. Most pancreatic units in the Nordic countries conduct regular follow-up, but protocols vary.

Preoperatively suspected gallbladder cancer improves survival compared with incidental gallbladder cancer in pT3 patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare survival for incidental gallbladder cancer (IGBC), respectively, preoperatively suspected gallbladder cancer (GBC), subjected to surgery for different pathological tumour (pT) stages and in different treatment groups in a national cohort. METHODS: Data were collected and crosslinked from two national quality registers, SweLiv (2009-2019) and GallRiks (2009-2016). Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The log-rank test and Cox regression analyses were used to compare groups. RESULTS: In total, 466 IGBC patients, including 225 who only underwent simple cholecystectomy (SC), and 477 GBC patients were included. Most patients were female, with small differences in mean age between groups. In all IGBC patients compared with GBC patients, an improved 5-year overall survival in pT3 GBC undergoing surgery (GBC 13% vs all IGBC 8%, p < 0.001), was seen. GBC was shown to be an independent predictor for improved survival in pT3 patients (hazard ratio (HR): 0.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4-0.8, p < 0.001). In addition, in GBC with curative reresection compared with IGBC SC and IGBC with curative resection, an improved 5-year overall survival in pT3 GBC was shown (GBC 20% vs all IGBC 10%, p < 0.001). GBC was an independent predictor for improved survival in pT3 patients with curative resection (HR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.3-0.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GBC was shown to be an independent predictor for improved survival in pT3 patients, and patients with GBC may benefit from one-stage resection. It is, therefore, reasonable to recommend that radiological suspicion of malignancy should be evaluated at a liver tumour centre to optimize patient outcomes.

Biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers comprise a heterogeneous collection of malignancies usually described as cholangiocarcinoma of the intra- or extrahepatic bile duct, including perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer. METHODS: A review of pertinent parts of the ESSO core curriculum for the UEMS diploma targets (Fellowships exam, EBSQ), based on updated and available guidelines for diagnosis, surgical treatment and oncological management of cholangiocarcinoma. RESULTS: Following the outline from the ESSO core curriculum we present the epidemiology and risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma, as well as the rationale for the current diagnosis, staging, (neo-)adjuvant treatment, surgical management, and short- and long-term outcomes. The available guidelines and consensus reports (i.e. NCCN, BGS and ESMO guidelines) are referred to. Recognition of biliary tract cancers as separate entities of the intrahepatic biliary ducts, the perihilar and distal bile duct as well as the gallbladder is important for proper management, as they each provide distinct clinical, molecular and treatment profiles to consider. CONCLUSION: Core competencies in knowledge to the diagnosis, management and outcomes of biliary tract cancers are presented.

Fast-track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer safely shortens hospital stay: A systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials and 356 patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer is still burdened by old traditions. All available data for fast-track recovery in this setting are either very unspecific or underpowered. The aim of this study was to evaluate fast-track recovery in this diagnosis-specific context in a larger sample. METHODS: Electronic data sources were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fast-track recovery and traditional management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines regulated the process. Quality and risk of bias assessments of individual RCTs were performed by means of the Let Evidence Guide Every New Decision criteria and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Primary endpoints were length of hospital stay and risk of complications. Random or fixed effects modeling were applied as indicated. Outcomes were measured by mean difference and risk difference. RESULTS: Six RCTs with a total cohort of 356 patients were included. Results of our meta-analysis showed significantly shortened length of hospital stay (mean difference -3.50 days [95% CI -4.51 to -2.49], p ≤ 0.00001), significantly less superficial and deep surgical-site infections (risk differences -0.12 [95% CI -0.20, -0.05], p = 0.002 and -0.03 [95% CI -0.09, 0.03], and p = 0.032, respectively), and significantly fewer pulmonary complications (risk difference -0.10 [95% CI -0.17, -0.03], p = 0.004) in the fast-track group. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that fast-track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer significantly shortened hospital stay in the studied cohort without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.

Intraductal papillary neoplasms of the bile ducts: a comparative study of a rare disease in Europe and Nagoya, Japan.

BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile ducts (IPNB) is a rare disease in Western countries. The aim of this study was to compare tumor characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes between Western and Eastern patients who underwent surgical resection for IPNB. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective series of patients with IPNB undergoing surgery between January 2010 and December 2020 was gathered under the auspices of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA), and at Nagoya University Hospital, Japan. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients (51% male; median age 66 years) from 28 E-AHPBA centers were compared to 91 patients (64% male; median age 71 years) from Nagoya. Patients in Europe had more multiple lesions (23% vs 2%, P < .001), less invasive carcinoma (42% vs 85%, P < .001), and more intrahepatic tumors (52% vs 24%, P < .001) than in Nagoya. Patients in Europe experienced less 90-day grade >3 Clavien-Dindo complications (33% vs 68%, P < .001), but higher 90-day mortality rate (7.0% vs 0%, P = .03). R0 resections (81% vs 82%) were similar. Overall survival, excluding 90-day postoperative deaths, was similar in both regions. DISCUSSION: Despite performing more extensive resections, the low perioperative mortality rate observed in Nagoya was probably influenced by a combination of patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related factors.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: Transatlantic Trend and Postoperative Outcomes Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of modern chemotherapy a decade ago has led to increased use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A recent North American study demonstrated increased use of NAT and improved operative outcomes in patients with PDAC. The aims of this study were to compare the use of NAT and short-term outcomes in patients with PDAC undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) among registries from the US and Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. STUDY DESIGN: Databases from 2 multicenter (voluntary) and 2 nationwide (mandatory) registries were queried from 2018 to 2020. Patients undergoing PD for PDAC were compared based on the use of upfront surgery vs NAT. Adoption of NAT was measured in each country over time. Thirty-day outcomes, including the composite measure (ideal outcomes), were compared by multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses of patients undergoing vascular resection were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 11,402 patients underwent PD for PDAC with 33.7% of patients receiving NAT. The use of NAT increased steadily from 28.3% in 2018 to 38.5% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). However, use of NAT varied widely by country: the US (46.8%), the Netherlands (44.9%), Sweden (11.0%), and Germany (7.8%). On multivariable analysis, NAT was significantly (p < 0.01) associated with reduced rates of serious morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulae, reoperations, and increased ideal outcomes. These associations remained on sensitivity analysis of patients undergoing vascular resection. CONCLUSIONS: NAT before PD for pancreatic cancer varied widely among 4 Western audits yet increased by 26% during 3 years. NAT was associated with improved short-term outcomes.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer (NORPACT-1): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49-71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62-84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2-34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6-not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00-2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46-67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55-83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2-34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4-not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99-2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven. FUNDING: Norwegian Cancer Society, South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority, The Sjöberg Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital Research Grants.