MRI in addition to CT in patients scheduled for local therapy of colorectal liver metastases (CAMINO): an international, multicentre, prospective, diagnostic accuracy trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are inconclusive on whether contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid and diffusion-weighted imaging should be added routinely to CT in the investigation of patients with colorectal liver metastases who are scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation, or both. Although contrast-enhanced MRI is reportedly superior than contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterisation of colorectal liver metastases, its effect on clinical patient management is unknown. We aimed to assess the clinical effect of an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI on local treatment plan in patients with colorectal liver metastases amenable to local treatment, based on contrast-enhanced CT. METHODS: We did an international, multicentre, prospective, incremental diagnostic accuracy trial in 14 liver surgery centres in the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histological proof of colorectal cancer, a WHO performance status score of 0-4, and primary or recurrent colorectal liver metastases, who were scheduled for local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and liver contrast-enhanced MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid as a contrast agent before undergoing local therapy. The primary outcome was change in the local clinical treatment plan (decided by the individual clinics) on the basis of liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings, analysed in the intention-to-image population. The minimal clinically important difference in the proportion of patients who would have change in their local treatment plan due to an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI was 10%. This study is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL8039. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 31, 2021, 325 patients with colorectal liver metastases were assessed for eligibility. 298 patients were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat population, including 177 males (59%) and 121 females (41%) with planned local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. A change in the local treatment plan based on liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings was observed in 92 (31%; 95% CI 26-36) of 298 patients. Changes were made for 40 patients (13%) requiring more extensive local therapy, 11 patients (4%) requiring less extensive local therapy, and 34 patients (11%) in whom the indication for curative-intent local therapy was revoked, including 26 patients (9%) with too extensive disease and eight patients (3%) with benign lesions on liver contrast-enhanced MRI (confirmed by a median follow-up of 21·0 months [IQR 17·5-24·0]). INTERPRETATION: Liver contrast-enhanced MRI should be considered in all patients scheduled for local treatment for colorectal liver metastases on the basis of contrast-enhanced CT imaging. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society and Bayer AG - Pharmaceuticals.

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.

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.

Trends and overall survival after combined liver resection and thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population-based propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients, combination of liver resection and ablation permit a more parenchymal-sparing approach. This study assessed trends in use of combined resection and ablation, outcomes, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This population-based study included all CRLM patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2022. To assess OS, data was linked to two databases containing date of death for patients treated between 2014 and 2018. Hospital variation in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation versus major liver resection alone in patients with 2-3 CRLM and ≤3 cm was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 3593 patients, of whom 1336 (37.2%) underwent combined resection and ablation. Combined resection increased from 31.7% in 2014 to 47.9% in 2022. Significant hospital variation (range 5.9-53.8%) was observed in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation. PSM resulted in 1005 patients in each group. Major morbidity was not different (11.6% vs. 5%, P = 1.00). Liver failure occurred less often after combined resection and ablation (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.017). Five-year OS rates were not different (39.3% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.145). CONCLUSION: Combined resection and ablation should be available and considered as an alternative to resection alone in any patient with multiple metastases.

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. RESULTS: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM >5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07-2.34, P = 0.023), >3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00-1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25-2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09-1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.

Node-negative colon cancer: histological, molecular, and stromal features predicting disease recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Within the group of node-negative colon cancer patients, presumed to have a good prognosis, a significant percentage of patients develops cancer-recurrence. Current high-risk features prove inadequate to select these particular high-risk patients. In the process of tailor-made care and shared decision-making the need to identify these patients grows. In this study we investigate the value of adding molecular markers and the tumour-stroma ratio (TSR) to conventional histological tumour staging methods to improve the selection of high risk patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 201 patients diagnosed with TNM-stage I-II colon cancer and treated by complete oncological resection between November 1st 2002 and December 31st 2012 at the Jeroen Bosch Hospital. Conventional histological tumour staging, BRAF mutations, KRAS mutations, MSI status and TSR were determined. Differences between groups based on TSR and mutation status, in disease free survival were analysed using Cox-Regression analyses. RESULTS: Poorly differentiated histology (p = 0.002), high-TSR (p = 0.033), BRAF-mutation (p = 0.008) and MSI (p = 0.011) were identified as significant risk factors for cancer recurrence. The risk of recurrence increased in the presence of both a BRAF-mutation and high-TSR compared to the absence of both factors or presence of only one factor (HR = 3.66 BRAF-mt/TSR-low (p = 0.006), HR 2.82 BRAF-wt/TSR-high (p = 0.015), HR = 4.39 BRAF-mt/TSR-high (p = 0.023)). This was also seen in tumours with MSI and high-TSR (HR = 2.46 MSS/TSR-high (p = 0.041), HR = 3.31 MSI/TSR-high (p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Judging by the higher HR for the combination of the prognostic factors TSR and BRAF compared to the HRs of these prognostic factors individually, the prognostication for disease free survival can be improved by determining both TSR and BRAF instead of BRAF alone, as is done in current daily practise. In this study MSI also shows additional value to TSR in the prognostication of disease free survival. Adopting TSR into daily diagnostics will be of additional value next to currently used molecular markers in risk stratification of patients with node negative colon cancer and is therefore advised.

Implementation and Outcome of Robotic Liver Surgery in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve. BACKGROUND: RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss. RESULTS: Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.

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.

Outcome of Pancreatic Surgery During the First 6 Years of a Mandatory Audit Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcome after pancreatic surgery in the first 6 years of a mandatory nationwide audit. BACKGROUND: Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, efforts have been made to improve outcome after pancreatic surgery. These include collaborative projects, clinical auditing, and implementation of an algorithm for early recognition and management of postoperative complications. However, nationwide changes in outcome over time have not yet been described. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy from the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (January 2014-December 2019). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between 3 time periods (2014-2015, 2016-2017, and 2018-2019). Short-term surgical outcome was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Primary endpoints were failure to rescue (FTR) and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 5345 patients were included, of whom 4227 after PD and 1118 after distal pancreatectomy. After PD, FTR improved from 13% to 7.4% [odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.80, P <0.001] and in-hospital mortality decreased from 4.1% to 2.4% (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86, P =0.001), despite operating on more patients with age >75 years (18%-22%, P =0.006), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 (19%-31%, P <0.001) and Charlson comorbidity score ≥2 (24%-34%, P <0.001). The rates of textbook outcome (57%-55%, P =0.283) and major complications remained stable (31%-33%, P =0.207), whereas complication-related intensive care admission decreased (13%-9%, P =0.002). After distal pancreatectomy, improvements in FTR from 8.8% to 5.9% (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.30-1.37, P =0.253) and in-hospital mortality from 1.6% to 1.3% (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.72, P =0.711) were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 6 years of a nationwide audit, in-hospital mortality and FTR after PD improved despite operating on more high-risk patients. Several collaborative efforts may have contributed to these improvements.

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.

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.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

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.

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018. RESULTS: Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50-0.75, p < 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50-0.67, p < 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99-0.99, p < 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10-0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50-0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94-0.99, p < 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21. CONCLUSION: Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery.

External Validity of the Multicenter Randomized PREOPANC Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Outcome of Eligible but Nonrandomized Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the accrual proportion and patients' reasons for not participating in the PREOPANC trial on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and to compare these patients' outcomes with those of patients who had been randomized in the trial. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The external validity of multicenter randomized trials in cancer treatment has been criticized for suboptimal non-representative inclusion. In trials, it is unclear how outcomes compare between randomized and nonrandomized patients. METHODS: At 8 of 16 participant centers, this multicenter observational study identified validation patients, who had been eligible but not randomized during recruitment for the PREOPANC trial. We assessed the accrual proportion, investigated their most common reasons for not participating in the trial, and compared resection rates, radical (R0) resection rates, and overall survival between the validation patients and PREOPANC patients, who had been randomized in the trial to immediate surgery. RESULTS: In total, 455 patients had been eligible during the recruitment period, 151 of whom (33%) had been randomized. Fifty-five percent of the 304 validation patients had refused to participate. Median overall survival in the validation group was 15.2 months, against 15.5 months in the PREOPANC group (P = 1.00). The respective resection rates (76% vs 73%) and R0 resection rates (51% vs 46%) did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The PREOPANC trial included a reasonable percentage of 33% of eligible patients. In terms of the outcomes survival, resection rate, and R0 resection rate, this appeared to be a representative group.