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

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

Plastic pigtail vs lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis (PROMETHEUS study): an open-label, multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have displaced double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) as the standard treatment for walled-off necrosis (WON),ß but evidence for exclusively using LAMS is limited. We aimed to assess whether the theoretical benefit of LAMS was superior to DPS. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was carried out in 9 tertiary hospitals. Between June 2017, and Oct 2020, we screened 99 patients with symptomatic WON, of whom 64 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the DPS group (n = 31) or the LAMS group (n = 33). The primary outcome was short-term (4-weeks) clinical success determined by the reduction of collection. Secondary endpoints included long-term clinical success, hospitalization, procedure duration, recurrence, safety, and costs. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT03100578. RESULTS: A similar clinical success rate in the short term (RR, 1.41; 95% CI 0.88-2.25; p = 0.218) and in the long term (RR, 1.2; 95% CI 0.92-1.58; p = 0.291) was observed between both groups. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LAMS group (35 vs. 45-min, p = 0.003). The hospital admission after the index procedure (median difference, - 10 [95% CI - 17.5, - 1]; p = 0.077) and global hospitalization (median difference - 4 [95% CI - 33, 25.51]; p = 0.82) were similar between both groups. Reported stent-related adverse events were similar for the two groups (36 vs.45% in LAMS vs. DPS), except for de novo fever, which was significantly 26% lower in LAMS (RR, 0.26 [0.08-0.83], p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical superiority of LAMS over DPS for WON therapy was not proved, with similar clinical success, hospital stay and similar safety profile between both groups, yet a significant reduction in procedure time was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03100578.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct interventions: A single tertiary center experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) is one of the most technically challenging procedures. There remains a knowledge gap due to its rarity. The aim is to report the accumulated EUS-PDI experience in a tertiary center. METHODS: Single tertiary center, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data during the study period, from January 2013 to June 2021. RESULTS: In total, 14 patients (85% male; mean age, 61 years, range 37-81) and 25 EUS-PDI procedures for unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) were included. Principal etiology was chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct obstruction (78%). EUS-guided assisted (colorant and/or guidewire, rendezvous) ERP was performed in 14/25 (56%); and transmural drainage in 11 procedures, including pancreaticogastrosmy in 9/25 (36%) and pancreaticoduodenostomy in 2/25 (8%). Overall technical and clinical success was 78.5% (11/14). Three (21%) patients required a second procedure with success in all cases. Two failed cases required surgery. Three (21%) adverse events (AEs) were noted (fever, n=1; perforation, n=1; pancreatitis, n=1). Patients underwent a median of 58 months (range 24-108) follow-up procedures for re-stenting. Spontaneous stent migration was detected in 50% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-PDI is an effective salvage therapy for unsuccessful ERP, although 21% of patients may still experience AEs. In case of EUS-guided rendezvous failure, it can cross over to a transmural drainage.

The involvement of the hepatic artery is a risk factor for unresectability after neoadjuvant treatment in borderline pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) benefits from neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) with the intent of surgical salvage in the absence of disease progression during chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Scarce literature exists about prognostic factors of resectability at the time of diagnosis or during neoadjuvant treatment, especially regarding vascular relationships. MATERIALS: We reviewed our prospective BR-PDAC cohort to determine resectability predictors. We collected data about clinical baseline characteristics, vessels' involvement, type of NAT, CA19-9 evolution, and radiological outcome. We performed a descriptive analysis and a logistic regression model to define resectability predictors; we finally compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for those predictors. RESULTS: One hundred patients started NAT, with a resection rate of 44 % (40 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 4 distal pancreatectomies). The most frequent vessel relationship was the abutment of the superior mesenteric artery (44 %), and 26 patients had ≥2 vessels involved. Prognostic factors of resectability were CA19-9 response >10 % (OR 3.07, p = 0.016) and Hepatic Artery involvement (OR 0.21, p = 0.026). Median overall survival was better for CA19-9 responders than for non-responders (20.9 months and 11.8 months respectively, p < 0.001), and similar to normalized CA19-9 (25.0 months, p = 0.48). There were no differences in terms of OS or PFS with the involvement of the HA (17.7 vs 17.1 months, p = 0.367; and 8.7 vs 12.0 months, p = 0.267). CONCLUSION: The involvement of the Hepatic Artery seems to confer a worse prognosis regarding resectability. A decrease of only >10 % of CA19-9 is a predictive factor for resectability and better overall and progression-free survival.

A machine learning predictive model for recurrence of resected distal cholangiocarcinoma: Development and validation of predictive model using artificial intelligence.

INTRODUCTION: Distal Cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) represents a challenge in hepatobiliary oncology, that requires nuanced post-resection prognostic modeling. Conventional staging criteria may oversimplify dCCA complexities, prompting the exploration of novel prognostic factors and methodologies, including machine learning algorithms. This study aims to develop a machine learning predictive model for recurrence after resected dCCA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective multicentric observational study included patients with dCCA from 13 international centers who underwent curative pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). A LASSO-regularized Cox regression model was used to feature selection, examine the path of the coefficient and create a model to predict recurrence. Internal and external validation and model performance were assessed using the C-index score. Additionally, a web application was developed to enhance the clinical use of the algorithm. RESULTS: Among 654 patients, LNR (Lymph Node Ratio) 15, neural invasion, N stage, surgical radicality, and differentiation grade emerged as significant predictors of disease-free survival (DFS). The model showed the best discrimination capacity with a C-index value of 0.8 (CI 95 %, 0.77%-0.86 %) and highlighted LNR15 as the most influential factor. Internal and external validations showed the model's robustness and discriminative ability with an Area Under the Curve of 92.4 % (95 % CI, 88.2%-94.4 %) and 91.5 % (95 % CI, 88.4%-93.5 %), respectively. The predictive model is available at https://imim.shinyapps.io/LassoCholangioca/. CONCLUSIONS: This study pioneers the integration of machine learning into prognostic modeling for dCCA, yielding a robust predictive model for DFS following PD. The tool can provide information to both patients and healthcare providers, enhancing tailored treatments and follow-up.