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.

Oncological Outcomes and Patterns of Recurrence after the Surgical Resection of an Invasive Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm versus Primary Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An Analysis from the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers.

BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are premalignant cystic neoplasms of the pancreas (CNPs), which can progress to invasive IPMN and pancreatic cancer. The available literature has shown controversial results regarding prognosis and clinical outcomes after the resection of invasive IPMN. AIMS: This study aims to characterize the oncologic outcomes and metastatic progression pattern after the resection of non-metastatic invasive IPMN. METHODS: Data were obtained from 24 clinical cancer registries participating in the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers (ADT). Patients with invasive IPMN (n = 217) as well as PDAC (n = 5794) between 2000 and 2021 were included and compared regarding oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Invasive IPMN was significantly smaller in size (p < 0.001) and of a lower tumor grade (p < 0.001), with fewer lymph node metastases (p < 0.001), lymphangiosis (p < 0.001), and consequently a higher R0 resection rate (88 vs. 74%) compared to PDAC. Moreover, invasive IPMN was associated with fewer local (11 vs. 15%) and distant recurrences (29 vs. 46%) and metastasized more frequently in the lungs only (26% vs. 14%). Invasive IPMN was associated with a longer median OS (29 vs. 19 months) and DFS (31 vs. 15 months) compared to PDAC and stayed independently prognostic in multivariable analyses. These survival differences were most pronounced in early tumor stages. Interestingly, postoperative chemotherapy was not associated with improved overall survival in surgically resected invasive IPMN. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive IPMN is a rare pancreatic entity with increasing incidence in Germany. It is associated with favorable histopathological features at the time of resection and longer OS and DFS compared to PDAC, particularly before the locoregional spread has occurred. Invasive IPMNs are associated with lung-only metastasis. The benefit of postoperative chemotherapy after the resection of invasive IPMN remains uncertain.

Monopolar electrocautery versus scalpel for pancreatic neck transection during open pancreatoduodenectomy: A retrospective, registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: The method of transecting the pancreatic parenchyma during pancreatic resection may influence the rate of complications, including pancreatic fistula and bleeding. The objective of this study was to compare the transection of the pancreatic parenchyma during pancreatoduodenectomy with monopolar electrocautery versus scalpel in terms of postoperative complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with open pancreatoduodenectomy from the German DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas registry (January 2013 to December 2021) was performed. Transection of the pancreatic parenchyma with a scalpel versus monopolar electrocautery was compared regarding postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, and major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3) rates. Multivariable analysis with adjustment for potential confounders and surgical center cluster effect was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 6,752 patients were included in the study. In 4,072 (60.3%), transection was performed with a scalpel and, in 2,680 (39.7%), with electrocautery. Transection with electrocautery was associated with higher postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C (15.4% vs 12.8%; P = .003), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C (11% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and major complications (33.4% vs 29.6%; P = .001) rates. In the multivariable analysis, after adjustment for potential confounders and surgical center, the association of the transection method with postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C (odds ratio = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.2; P = .962), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C (odds ratio = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.94-1.6; P = .127), and major complications (odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .297) was not significant. CONCLUSION: The study found no significant association between transection of the pancreatic parenchyma during open pancreatoduodenectomy with a scalpel compared with monopolar electrocautery regarding pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, or overall major complication rates.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Patient-reported outcomes at three months after pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant diseases - A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic surgery may have a long-lasting effect on patients' health status and quality of life (QoL). We aim to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) 3 months after pancreatic surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for pancreatic surgery were enrolled in a prospective trial at five German centers. Patients completed PRO questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-PAN26, patient-reported happiness, and HADS-D), we report the first follow-up 3 months after surgery as an interim analysis. Statistical testing was performed using R software. RESULTS: From 2019 to 2022 203 patients were enrolled, a three-month follow-up questionnaire was available in 135 (65.5 %). 77 (57.9 %) underwent surgery for malignant disease. Patient-reported health status (EQ-5D-5L) was impaired in 4/5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, discomfort) for patients with malignant and 3/5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities) for patients with benign disease 3 months after surgery (p < 0.05). Patients with malignant disease reported an increase in depressive symptoms, patients with benign disease had a decrease in anxiety symptoms (HADS-D; depression: 5.00 vs 6.51, p = 0.002; anxiety: 8.04 vs. 6.34, p = 0.030). Regarding pancreatic-disease-specific symptoms (EORTC-QLQ-PAN26), patients with malignant disease reported increased problems with taste, weight loss, weakness in arms and legs, dry mouth, body image and troubling side effects at three months. Patients with benign disease indicated more weakness in arms and legs, troubling side effects but less future worries at three months. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing pancreatic surgery for benign vs. malignant disease show important differences. Patients with malignant tumors report more severely decreased quality of life 3 months postoperatively than patients with benign tumors.

Near complete remission of an inoperable pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma after BRAF-/MEK-inhibitor treatment-A case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic acinar cell carcinomas are rare malignant neoplasms. High-quality evidence about the best treatment strategy is lacking. We present the case of a 52-year-old male with a BRAFV600E -mutated PACC who experienced a complete remission after chemotherapy with BRAF-/MEK-inhibitors. CASE: The patient presented with upper abdomen pain, night sweat, and weight loss. CT scan showed a pancreatic tumor extending from the pancreas head to body. Histological workup identified an acinar cell carcinoma. As the tumor was inoperable, chemotherapy with FOFIRNIOX was initiated and initially showed a slight regression of disease. The regimen had to be discontinued due to severe side effects. Molecular analysis identified a BRAFV600E mutation, so the patient was started on BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors (dabrafenib/trametinib). After 16 months, CT scans showed a near complete remission with a markedly improved overall health. DISCUSSION: Studies suggest that up to one-fourth of PACCs carry a BRAF mutation and might therefore be susceptible to a BRAF-/MEK-inhibitor therapy. This offers a new therapeutic pathway to treat this rare but malignant neoplasm.

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Is Not Associated With Improved Survival After Pancreatic Surgery: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled PAKMAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.

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.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Conception and prospective multicentric validation of a Robotic Surgery Training Curriculum (RoSTraC) for surgical residents: from simulation via laboratory training to integration into the operation room.

There is a lack of training curricula and educational concepts for robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). It remains unclear how surgical residents can be trained in this new technology and how robotics can be integrated into surgical residency training. The conception of a training curriculum for RAS addressing surgical residents resulted in a three-step training curriculum including multimodal learning contents: basics and simulation training of RAS (step 1), laboratory training on the institutional robotic system (step 2) and structured on-patient training in the operating room (step 3). For all three steps, learning content and video tutorials are provided via cloud-based access to allow self-contained training of the trainees. A prospective multicentric validation study was conducted including seven surgical residents. Transferability of acquired skills to a RAS procedure were analyzed using the GEARS score. All participants successfully completed RoSTraC within 1 year. Transferability of acquired RAS skills could be demonstrated using a RAS gastroenterostomy on a synthetic biological organ model. GEARS scores concerning this procedure improved significantly after completion of RoSTraC (17.1 (±5.8) vs. 23.1 (±4.9), p < 0.001). In step 3 of RoSTraC, all participants performed a median of 12 (range 5-21) RAS procedures on the console in the operation room. RoSTraC provides a highly standardized and comprehensive training curriculum for RAS for surgical residents. We could demonstrate that participating surgical residents acquired fundamental and advanced RAS skills. Finally, we could confirm that all surgical residents were successfully and safely embedded into the local RAS team.

When Should Lymphadenectomy Be Performed in Non-Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors? A Population-Based Analysis of the German Clinical Cancer Registry Group.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for lymphadenectomy remains a controversial aspect in the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), given the growing importance of parenchyma-sparing resections and minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: This population-based analysis was derived from the German Cancer Registry Group during the period from 2000 to 2021. Patients with upfront resected non-functional non-metastatic pNETs were included. RESULTS: Out of 5520 patients with pNET, 1006 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-three percent of the patients were male. The median age was 64 ± 17 years. G1, G2, and G3 pNETs were found in 57%, 37%, and 7% of the patients, respectively. Lymph node metastasis (LNM) was present in 253 (24%) of all patients. LNM was an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.79, CI 95% 1.21-2.64, p = 0.001) for disease-free survival (DFS). The 3-, 5-, and 10-year disease-free survival in nodal negative tumors compared to nodal positive was 82% vs. 53%, 75% vs. 38%, and 48% vs. 16%. LNM was present in 5% of T1 tumors, 25% of T2 tumors, and 49% of T3-T4 tumors. In T1 tumors, G1 was the most predominant tumor grade (80%). However, in T2 tumors, G2 and G3 represented 44% and 5% of all tumors. LNM was associated with tumors located in the pancreatic head (p < 0.001), positive resection margin (p < 0.001), tumors larger than 2 cm (p < 0.001), and higher tumor grade (p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis showed that tumor size, tumor grade, and location were independent prognostic factors associated with LNM that could potentially be used to predict LNM preoperatively. CONCLUSION: LNM is an independent negative prognostic factor for DFS in pNETs. Due to the low incidence of LNM in T1 tumors (5%), parenchyma-sparing surgery seems oncologically adequate in small G1 pNETs, while regional lymphadenectomy should be recommended in T2 or G2/G3 pNETs.