Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A 10-Point Score to Predict Post-Recurrence Survival and Guide Treatment of Recurrence.

INTRODUCTION: Although up to 50-70% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) recur following resection, data to predict post-recurrence survival (PRS) and guide treatment of recurrence are limited. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection of ICC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international, multi-institutional database. Data on primary disease as well as laboratory and radiologic data on recurrent disease were collected. Factors associated with PRS were examined and a novel scoring system to predict PRS (PRS score) was developed and internally validated. RESULTS: Among 986 individuals who underwent resection for ICC, 588 (59.6%) patients developed recurrence at a median follow up of 20.3 months. Among patients who experienced a recurrence, 97 (16.5%) underwent re-resection/ablation for recurrent ICC; 88 (15.0%) and 403 (68.5%) patients received intra-arterial treatment or systemic chemotherapy/supportive therapy, respectively. Patient American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class > 2 (1 point), primary tumor N1/Nx status (1 point), primary R1 resection margin (1 point), primary tumor G3/G4 grade (1 point), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 > 37 UI/mL (2 points) at recurrence and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) > 5 ng/mL (2 points) at recurrence, as well as recurrent bilateral disease (1 point) and early recurrence (1 point) were included in the PRS score. The PRS score successfully stratified patients relative to PRS and demonstrated strong discriminatory ability (C-index 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.72). While a PRS score of 0-3 was associated with a 3-year PRS of 62.5% following resection/ablation for recurrent ICC, a PRS score > 3 was associated with a low 3-year PRS of 35.5% (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The PRS score demonstrated strong discriminatory ability to predict PRS among patients who had developed recurrence following initial resection of ICC. The PRS score may be a useful tool to guide treatment among patients with recurrent ICC.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy but not chemotherapy is associated with reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula remains the leading cause of significant morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy has been described to reduce the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but randomized trials on neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma focus increasingly on preoperative chemotherapy rather than preoperative chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the impact of preoperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemoradiotherapy on postoperative pancreatic fistula and other pancreatic-specific surgery related complications on a nationwide level. METHODS: All patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included in the mandatory nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2020). Baseline and treatment characteristics were compared between immediate surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The relationship between preoperative chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) was investigated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 2,019 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included, of whom 1,678 underwent immediate surgery (83.1%), 192 (9.5%) received preoperative chemotherapy, and 149 (7.4%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 8.3% of patients after immediate surgery, 4.2% after preoperative chemotherapy, and 2.0% after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (P = .004). In multivariable analysis, the use of preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.69; P = .033) compared with immediate surgery, whereas preoperative chemotherapy was not (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.25; P = .199). Intraoperatively hard, or fibrotic pancreatic texture was most frequently observed after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (53% immediate surgery, 62% preoperative chemotherapy, 77% preoperative chemoradiotherapy, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This nationwide analysis demonstrated that in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, only preoperative chemoradiotherapy, but not preoperative chemotherapy, was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Early Onset Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Clinical Characteristics, Oncological Outcomes, and Genomic/Transcriptomic Features.

INTRODUCTION: Data on clinical characteristics and disease-specific prognosis among patients with early onset intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are currently limited. METHODS: Patients undergoing hepatectomy for ICC between 2000 and 2020 were identified by using a multi-institutional database. The association of early (≤50 years) versus typical onset (>50 years) ICC with recurrence-free (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) was assessed in the multi-institutional database and validated in an external cohort. The genomic and transcriptomic profiles of early versus late onset ICC were analyzed by using the Total Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center databases. RESULTS: Among 971 patients undergoing resection for ICC, 22.7% (n = 220) had early-onset ICC. Patients with early-onset ICC had worse 5-year RFS (24.1% vs. 29.7%, p < 0.05) and DSS (36.5% vs. 48.9%, p = 0.03) compared with patients with typical onset ICC despite having earlier T-stage tumors and lower rates of microvascular invasion. In the validation cohort, patients with early-onset ICC had worse 5-year RFS (7.4% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.002) compared with individuals with typical onset ICC. Using the TCGA cohort, 652 and 266 genes were found to be upregulated (including ATP8A2) and downregulated (including UTY and KDM5D) in early versus typical onset ICC, respectively. Genes frequently implicated as oncogenic drivers, including CDKN2A, IDH1, BRAF, and FGFR2 were infrequently mutated in the early-onset ICC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Early-onset ICC has distinct clinical and genomic/transcriptomic features. Morphologic and clinicopathologic characteristics were unable to fully explain differences in outcomes among early versus typical onset ICC patients. The current study offers a preliminary landscape of the molecular features of early-onset ICC.

A liquid biomarker signature of inflammatory proteins accurately predicts early pancreatic cancer progression during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is often treated with FOLFIRINOX, a chemotherapy associated with high toxicity rates and variable efficacy. Therefore, it is crucial to identify patients at risk of early progression during treatment. This study aims to explore the potential of a multi-omics biomarker for predicting early PDAC progression by employing an in-depth mathematical modeling approach. METHODS: Blood samples were collected from 58 PDAC patients undergoing FOLFIRINOX before and after the first cycle. These samples underwent gene (GEP) and inflammatory protein expression profiling (IPEP). We explored the predictive potential of exclusively IPEP through Stepwise (Backward) Multivariate Logistic Regression modeling. Additionally, we integrated GEP and IPEP using Bayesian Kernel Regression modeling, aiming to enhance predictive performance. Ultimately, the FOLFIRINOX IPEP (FFX-IPEP) signature was developed. RESULTS: Our findings revealed that proteins exhibited superior predictive accuracy than genes. Consequently, the FFX-IPEP signature consisted of six proteins: AMN, BANK1, IL1RL2, ITGB6, MYO9B, and PRSS8. The signature effectively identified patients transitioning from disease control to progression early during FOLFIRINOX, achieving remarkable predictive accuracy with an AUC of 0.89 in an independent test set. Importantly, the FFX-IPEP signature outperformed the conventional CA19-9 tumor marker. CONCLUSIONS: Our six-protein FFX-IPEP signature holds solid potential as a liquid biomarker for the early prediction of PDAC progression during toxic FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. Further validation in an external cohort is crucial to confirm the utility of the FFX-IPEP signature. Future studies should expand to predict progression under different chemotherapies to enhance the guidance of personalized treatment selection in PDAC.

Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). BACKGROUND: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. METHODS: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods." RESULTS: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Benchmarks in Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Benchmarking in surgery has been proposed as a means to compare results across institutions to establish best practices. We sought to define benchmark values for hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) across an international population. METHODS: Patients who underwent liver resection for ICC between 1990 and 2020 were identified from an international database, including 14 Eastern and Western institutions. Patients operated on at high-volume centers who had no preoperative jaundice, ASA class <3, body mass index <35 km/m2, without need for bile duct or vascular resection were chosen as the benchmark group. RESULTS: Among 1193 patients who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy for ICC, 600 (50.3%) were included in the benchmark group. Among benchmark patients, median age was 58.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49.0-67.0), only 28 (4.7%) patients received neoadjuvant therapy, and most patients had a minor resection (n = 499, 83.2%). Benchmark values included ≥3 lymph nodes retrieved when lymphadenectomy was performed, blood loss ≤600 mL, perioperative blood transfusion rate ≤42.9%, and operative time ≤339 min. The postoperative benchmark values included TOO achievement ≥59.3%, positive resection margin ≤27.5%, 30-day readmission ≤3.6%, Clavien-Dindo III or more complications ≤14.3%, and 90-day mortality ≤4.8%, as well as hospital stay ≤14 days. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmark cutoffs targeting short-term perioperative outcomes can help to facilitate comparisons across hospitals performing liver resection for ICC, assess inter-institutional variation, and identify the highest-performing centers to improve surgical and oncologic outcomes.

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.

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.

Impact of EUS in liver transplantation workup for patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: For a highly selected group of patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), liver transplantation (LT) is a treatment option. The Dutch screening protocol comprises nonregional lymph node (LN) assessment by EUS, and whenever LN metastases are identified, further LT screening is precluded. The aim of this study is to investigate the yield of EUS in patients with pCCA who are potentially eligible for LT. METHODS: In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, all consecutive patients with suspected unresectable pCCA who underwent EUS in the screening protocol for LT were included from 2011 to 2021. During EUS, sampling of a "suspicious" nonregional LN was performed based on the endoscopist's discretion. The primary outcome was the added value of EUS, defined as the number of patients who were precluded from further screening because of malignant LNs. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in whom 84 EUS procedures were performed, with EUS-guided tissue acquisition confirming malignancy in LNs in 3 of 75 (4%) patients. In the 43 who underwent surgical staging according to the protocol, nonregional LNs with malignancy were identified in 6 (14%) patients. Positive regional LNs were found in 7 patients in post-LT-resected specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our current EUS screening for the detection of malignant LNs in patients with pCCA eligible for LT shows a limited but clinically important yield. EUS with systematic screening of all LN stations, both regional and nonregional, and the sampling of suspicious lymph nodes according to defined and set criteria could potentially increase this yield.

Preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage by metal versus plastic stents for resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) is recommended in most patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Most expert centers use endoscopic plastic stents rather than self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs). In the palliative setting, however, use of SEMSs has shown longer patency and superior survival. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare stent dysfunction of SEMSs versus plastic stents for PBD in resectable pCCA patients. METHODS: In this multicenter international retrospective cohort study, patients with potentially resectable pCCAs who underwent initial endoscopic PBD from 2010 to 2020 were included. Stent failure was a composite end point of cholangitis or reintervention due to adverse events or insufficient PBD. Other adverse events, surgical outcomes, and survival were recorded. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed on several baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 474 patients had successful stent placement, of whom 61 received SEMSs and 413 plastic stents. PSM (1:1) resulted in 2 groups of 59 patients each. Stent failure occurred significantly less in the SEMSs group (31% vs 64%; P < .001). Besides less cholangitis after SEMSs placement (15% vs 31%; P = .012), other PBD-related adverse events did not differ. The number of patients undergoing surgical resection was not significantly different (46% vs 49%; P = .71). Complete intraoperative SEMSs removal was successful and without adverse events in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Stent failure was lower in patients with SEMSs as PBD compared with plastic stents in patients with resectable pCCA. Removal during surgery was quite feasible. Surgical outcomes were similar.

Classification of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma into Perihilar Versus Peripheral Subtype.

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) constitutes a group of heterogeneous malignancies within the liver. We sought to subtype ICC based on anatomical origin of tumors, as well as propose modifications of the current classification system. METHODS: Patients undergoing curative-intent resection for ICC, hilar cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were identified from three international multi-institutional consortia of databases. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1264 patients with ICC, 1066 (84.3%) were classified as ICC-peripheral subtype, whereas 198 (15.7%) were categorized as ICC-perihilar subtype. Compared with ICC-peripheral subtype, ICC-perihilar subtype was more often associated with aggressive tumor characteristics, including a higher incidence of nodal metastasis, macro- and microvascular invasion, perineural invasion, as well as worse overall survival (OS) (median: ICC-perihilar 19.8 vs. ICC-peripheral 37.1 months; p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (median: ICC-perihilar 12.8 vs. ICC-peripheral 15.2 months; p = 0.019). ICC-perihilar subtype and hilar CCA had comparable OS (19.8 vs. 21.4 months; p = 0.581) and DFS (12.8 vs. 16.8 months; p = 0.140). ICC-peripheral subtype tumors were associated with more advanced tumor features, as well as worse survival outcomes versus HCC (OS, median: ICC-peripheral 37.1 vs. HCC 74.3 months; p < 0.001; DFS, median: ICC-peripheral 15.2 vs. HCC 45.5 months; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ICC should be classified as ICC-perihilar and ICC-peripheral subtype based on distinct clinicopathological features and survival outcomes. ICC-perihilar subtype behaved more like carcinoma of the bile duct (i.e., hilar CCA), whereas ICC-peripheral subtype had features and a prognosis more akin to a primary liver malignancy.

B cell immune profiles in dysbiotic vermiform appendixes of pancreatic cancer patients.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the deadliest solid tumors and is resistant to immunotherapy. B cells play an essential role in PDAC progression and immune responses, both locally and systemically. Moreover, increasing evidence suggests that microbial compositions inside the tumor, as well as in the oral cavity and the gut, are important factors in shaping the PDAC immune landscape. However, the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) has not previously been explored in PDAC patients. In this study, we analyzed healthy vermiform appendix (VA) from 20 patients with PDAC and 32 patients with colon diseases by gene expression immune profiling, flow cytometry analysis, and microbiome sequencing. We show that the VA GALT of PDAC patients exhibits markers of increased inflammation and cytotoxic cell activity. In contrast, B cell function is decreased in PDAC VA GALT based on gene expression profiling; B cells express significantly fewer MHC class II surface receptors, whereas plasma cells express the immune checkpoint molecule HLA-G. Additionally, the vermiform appendix microbiome of PDAC patients is enriched with Klebsiella pneumoniae, Bifidobacterium animalis, and Adlercreutzia equolifaciens, while certain commensals are depleted. Our findings may suggest impaired B cell function within the GALT of PDAC patients, which could potentially be linked to microbial dysbiosis. Additional investigations are imperative to validate our observations and explore these potential targets of future therapies.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. METHODS/DESIGN: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-ß), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. DISCUSSION: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (ENDURO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs. METHODS: The ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs. DISCUSSION: The ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): NL9592. Registered on 07 July 2021.

An attempt to establish and apply global benchmarks for liver resection of malignant hepatic tumors.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is a process of continuous self-evaluation and comparison with best-in-class hospitals to guide quality improvement initiatives. We sought to define global benchmarks relative to liver resection for malignancy and to assess their achievement in hospitals in the United States. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or colorectal or neuroendocrine liver metastases between 2000 and 2019 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between open and minimally invasive approaches. Best-in-class hospitals were defined relative to the achievement rate of textbook oncologic outcomes and case volume. Benchmark values were established relative to best-in-class institutions. The achievement of benchmark values among hospitals in the National Cancer Database was then assessed. RESULTS: Among 2,624 patients treated at 20 centers, a majority underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1,609, 61.3%), followed by colorectal liver metastases (n = 650, 24.8%), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 299, 11.4%), and neuroendocrine liver metastases (n = 66, 2.5%). Notably, 1,947 (74.2%) patients achieved a textbook oncologic outcome. After propensity score matching, 6 best-in-class hospitals with the highest textbook oncologic outcome rates (≥75.0%) were identified. Benchmark values were calculated for margin positivity (≤11.7%), 30-day readmission (≤4.1%), 30-day mortality (≤1.6%), minor postoperative complications (≤24.7%), severe complications (≤12.4%), and failure to achieve the textbook oncologic outcome (≤22.8%). Among the National Cancer Database hospitals, global benchmarks for margin positivity, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, severe complications, and textbook oncologic outcome failure were achieved in 62.9%, 27.1%, 12.1%, 7.1%, and 29.3% of centers, respectively. CONCLUSION: These global benchmarks may help identify hospitals that may benefit from quality improvement initiatives, aiming to improve patient safety and surgical oncologic outcomes.