The Impact of Neoadjuvant Treatment on Survival in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy With Concomitant Portomesenteric Venous Resection: An International Multicenter Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) critically influenced microscopically complete resection (R0) rates and long-term outcomes for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with portomesenteric vein resection (PVR) from a diverse, world-wide group of high-volume centers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Limited size studies suggest that NAT improves R0 rates and overall survival compared to upfront surgery in R/BR-PDAC patients. METHODS: This multicenter study analyzed consecutive patients with R/BR-PDAC who underwent PD with PVR in 23 high-volume centers from 2009 to 2018. RESULTS: Data from 1192 patients with PD and PVR were collected and analyzed. The median age was 68 [interquartile range (IQR) 60-73] years and 52% were males. Some 186 (15.6%) and 131 (10.9%) patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) alone and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, respectively. The R0/R1/R2 rates were 57%, 39.3%, and 3.2% in patients who received NAT compared to 46.6%, 49.9%, and 3.5% in patients who did not, respectively (P =0.004). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS in patients receiving NAT was 79%, 41%, and 29%, while for those that did not it was 73%, 29%, and 18%, respectively (P <0.001). Multivariable analysis showed no administration of NAT, high tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, R1/R2 resection, no adjuvant chemotherapy, occurrence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative complications within 90 days, preoperative diabetes mellitus, male sex and portal vein involvement were negative independent predictive factors for OS. CONCLUSION: Patients with PDAC of the pancreatic head expected to undergo venous reconstruction should routinely be considered for NAT.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Pancreatoduodenectomy With Portomesenteric Venous Resection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish clinically relevant outcome benchmark values using criteria for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with portomesenteric venous resection (PVR) from a low-risk cohort managed in high-volume centers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: PD with PVR is regarded as the standard of care in patients with cancer involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. There are, however, no benchmark outcome indicators for this population which hampers comparisons of patients undergoing PD with and without PVR resection. METHODS: This multicenter study analyzed patients undergoing PD with any type of PVR in 23 high-volume centers from 2009 to 2018. Nineteen outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of the centers (NCT04053998). RESULTS: Out of 1462 patients with PD and PVR, 840 (58%) formed the benchmark cohort, with a mean age was 64 (SD11) years, 413 (49%) were females. Benchmark cutoffs, among others, were calculated as follows: Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery): ≤14%; in-hospital mortality rate: ≤4%; major complication rate Grade≥3 and the CCI up to 6 months postoperatively: ≤36% and ≤26, respectively; portal vein thrombosis rate: ≤14% and 5-year survival for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: ≥9%. CONCLUSION: These novel benchmark cutoffs targeting surgical performance, morbidity, mortality, and oncological parameters show relatively inferior results in patients undergoing vascular resection because of involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. These benchmark values however can be used to conclusively assess the results of different centers or surgeons operating on this high-risk group.

Disparities in bile duct injury care.

BACKGROUND: An international group proposed a standardized terminology to report outcomes after bile duct repair. Data on this surgical complication vary depending on the center and country where patients are treated. The aim of this work is to show disparities in the care process of bile duct injury between patients from two different income-level countries, using a standard terminology of outcomes and clinical reporting. METHODS: A retrospective review comparing primary repair and re-repaired cases performed in an upper middle-income country (UMIC) versus primary repair cases treated in a high-income country (HIC) was performed. All pertinent data included in the tabular reporting system and outcomes classification were collected. Patients' characteristics were reported by calculating descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 261 patients from UMIC (148 (56%) primary repair and 113 (44%) re-repair) were compared with 122 primary repair from HIC. Open cholecystectomy (55.4% vs 3.3%) and more E4 injuries (37.8% vs 19.7%) were found in the UMIC group. More Accordion 3 and higher complications were present in the UMIC primary and repair groups, as well as more episodes of postoperative acute cholangitis. Eleven patients were listed for liver transplant in the UMIC re-repair group. Primary patency by the end of the index treatment period was present in 217 (83%) of the full UMIC cohort. Median time to loss of primary patency was not reached in the primary repair, and was 3.8 years in the re-repair group. Patency was below HIC primary repaired cases. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized reporting outcomes after primary repair are applicable to re-repaired patients and are helpful to compare different populations, showing better outcomes in HIC. Measures of surgical access disparities exist among the process of bile duct injury care.