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.

A nationwide assessment of hepatocellular adenoma resection: Indications and pathological discordance.

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) are benign liver tumors associated with bleeding or malignant transformation. Data on the indication for surgery are scarce. We analyzed indications and outcome of patients operated for HCAs < 50 mm compared to HCAs ≥ 50 mm. Changes in final postoperative diagnosis were assessed. We performed a retrospective study that included patients who underwent resection for (suspected) HCAs in the Netherlands from 2014 to 2019. Indication for resection was analyzed and stratified for small (<50 mm) and large (≥50 mm) tumors. Logistic regression analysis was performed on factors influencing change in tumor diagnosis. Out of 222 patients who underwent surgery, 44 (20%) patients had a tumor <50 mm. Median age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR], 33-56) years in patients with small tumors and 37 (IQR, 31-46) years in patients with large tumors ( p  = 0.016). Patients with small tumors were more frequently men (21% vs. 5%, p  = 0.002). Main indications for resection in patients with small tumors were suspicion of (pre)malignancy (55%), (previous) bleeding (14%), and male sex (11%). Patients with large tumors received operations because of tumor size >50 mm (52%), suspicion of (pre)malignancy (28%), and (previous) bleeding (5.1%). No difference was observed in HCA-subtype distribution between small and large tumors. Ninety-six (43%) patients had a postoperative change in diagnosis. Independent risk factors for change in diagnosis were tumor size <50 mm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.4; p  < 0.01), male sex (aOR, 3.7; p  = 0.03), and lack of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) (aOR, 1.8; p  = 0.04). Resection for small (suspected) HCAs was mainly indicated by suspicion of (pre)malignancy, whereas for large (suspected) HCAs, tumor size was the most prevalent indication. Male sex, tumor size <50 mm, and lack of hepatobiliary CE-MRI were independent risk factors for postoperative change in tumor diagnosis.

Early Recurrence After Resection of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Following Induction Therapy: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish an evidence-based cutoff and predictors for early recurrence in patients with resected locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). BACKGROUND: It is unclear how many and which patients develop early recurrence after LAPC resection. Surgery in these patients is probably of little benefit. METHODS: We analyzed all consecutive patients undergoing resection of LAPC after induction chemotherapy who were included in prospective databases in The Netherlands (2015-2019) and the Johns Hopkins Hospital (2016-2018). The optimal definition for "early recurrence" was determined by the post-recurrence survival (PRS). Patients were compared for overall survival (OS). Predictors for early recurrence were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 168 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 28 months, recurrence was observed in 118 patients (70.2%). The optimal cutoff for recurrence-free survival to differentiate between early (n=52) and late recurrence (n=66) was 6 months ( P <0.001). OS was 8.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.3-9.6] in the early recurrence group (n=52) versus 31.1 months (95% CI: 25.7-36.4) in the late/no recurrence group (n=116) ( P <0.001). A preoperative predictor for early recurrence was postinduction therapy carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9≥100 U/mL [odds ratio (OR)=4.15, 95% CI: 1.75-9.84, P =0.001]. Postoperative predictors were poor tumor differentiation (OR=4.67, 95% CI: 1.83-11.90, P =0.001) and no adjuvant chemotherapy (OR=6.04, 95% CI: 2.43-16.55, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early recurrence was observed in one third of patients after LAPC resection and was associated with poor survival. Patients with post-induction therapy CA 19-9 ≥100 U/mL, poor tumor differentiation and no adjuvant therapy were especially at risk. This information is valuable for patient counseling before and after resection of LAPC.

Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Novel Standard of Care? Benchmark Values for Surgical Outcomes From 16 International Expert Centers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is an emerging attractive approach, but its role compared with laparoscopic or open surgery remains unclear. Benchmark values are novel and objective tools for such comparisons. The aim of this study was to identify benchmark cutoffs for many outcome parameters for DP with or without splenectomy beyond the learning curve. METHODS: This study analyzed outcomes from international expert centers from patients undergoing robotic DP for malignant or benign lesions. After excluding the first 10 cases in each center to reduce the effect of the learning curve, consecutive patients were included from the start of robotic DP up to June 2020. Benchmark patients had no significant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Benchmark values were compared with a laparoscopic control group from 4 high-volume centers and published open DP landmark series. RESULTS: Sixteen centers contributed 755 cases, whereof 345 benchmark patients (46%) were included the analysis. Benchmark cutoffs included: operation time ≤300 minutes, conversion rate ≤3%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula ≤32%, 3 months major complication rate ≤26.7%, and lymph node retrieval ≥9. The comprehensive complication index at 3 months was ≤8.7 without deterioration thereafter. Compared with robotic DP, laparoscopy had significantly higher conversion rates (5×) and overall complications, while open DP was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This first benchmark study demonstrates that robotic DP provides superior postoperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open DP. Robotic DP may be expected to become the approach of choice in minimally invasive DP.

Detection, Treatment, and Survival of Pancreatic Cancer Recurrence in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether detection of recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in an early, asymptomatic stage increases the number of patients receiving additional treatment, subsequently improving survival. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: International guidelines disagree on the value of standardized postoperative surveillance for early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence. METHODS: A nationwide, observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Prospective baseline and perioperative data were retrieved from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Data on follow-up, treatment, and survival were collected retrospectively. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression analysis, before and after propensity-score matching, stratified for patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic recurrence. RESULTS: Eight hundred thirty-six patients with a median follow-up of 37 months (interquartile range 30-48) were analyzed. Of those, 670 patients (80%) developed PDAC recurrence after a median follow-up of 10 months (interquartile range 5-17). Additional treatment was performed in 159/511 patients (31%) with symptomatic recurrence versus 77/159 (48%) asymptomatic patients (P < 0.001). After propensity-score matching on lymph node ratio, adjuvant therapy, disease-free survival, and recurrence site, additional treatment was independently associated with improved OS for both symptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.42-0.67); P < 0.001] and asymptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.29-0.70); P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Additional treatment of PDAC recurrence was independently associated with improved OS, with asymptomatic patients having a higher probability to receive recurrence treatment. Therefore, standardized postoperative surveillance aiming to detect PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms has the potential to improve survival. This provides a rationale for prospective studies on standardized surveillance after PDAC resection.

Clinical benefit of surveillance after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The value of routine surveillance after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unclear, and expert guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. This study is a systematic review of evidence for surveillance programs. METHODS: A systematic review of studies evaluating different surveillance methods was undertaken. A meta-analysis was performed for those studies reporting rates of asymptomatic recurrence, treatment of recurrence and overall survival, according to different surveillance methods. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the literature review, with five studies appropriate for meta-analysis (1596 patients). Patients within active surveillance programs were more likely to have recurrence detected at an asymptomatic stage (Pooled Rate: 49.3% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.043). Within studies reporting these outcomes, patients with asymptomatic recurrence were more likely to receive treatment for recurrence (Odds Ratio 3.49; 95% CI: 1.73-7.07; p < 0.001) and had longer overall survival (Mean Difference: 9.5 months; 95% CI: 4.1-14.8; p < 0.001) than those with symptoms at time of recurrence. DISCUSSION: Routine surveillance after surgery for PDAC appears to detect more patients at an asymptomatic stage. Data from these non-randomised trials also suggest that treatment rates and survival may be superior in patients were recurrence is detected when asymptomatic. As such, these data suggest that routine surveillance may improve patient outcomes, although an appropriately conducted trial would be required to address concerns that various sources of bias may be affecting these results.

Robotic Developments in Cancer Surgery.

Indications for robotic surgery have been rapidly expanding since the first introduction of the robotic surgical system in the US market in 2000. As the robotic systems have become more sophisticated over the past decades, there has been an expansion in indications. Many new tools have been added with the aim of optimizing outcomes after oncologic surgery. Complex abdominal cancers are increasingly operated on using robot-assisted laparoscopy and with acceptable outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss robotic developments, from the past and the future, with an emphasis on cancer surgery.

Radiofrequency ablation for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Median survival in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer lies in the range of 9-15 months. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) may prolong survival, but data on its safety and efficacy are scarce. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library with the syntax '(radiofrequency OR RFA) AND (pancreas OR pancreatic)' for studies published until 1 January 2012. In addition, a search of the proceedings of conferences on pancreatic disease that took place during 2009-2011 was performed. Studies with fewer than five patients were excluded as they were considered to be case reports. The primary endpoint was survival. Secondary endpoints included morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Five studies involving a total of 158 patients with pancreatic cancer treated with RFA fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These studies reported median survival after RFA of 3-33 months, morbidity related to RFA of 4-37%, mortality of 0-19% and overall morbidity of 10-43%. Pooling of data was not appropriate as the study populations and reported outcomes were heterogeneous. Crucial safety aspects included ensuring a maximum RFA tip temperature of < 90 °C and ensuring minimum distances between the RFA probe and surrounding structures. CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency ablation seems to be feasible and safe when it is used with the correct temperature and at an appropriate distance from vital structures. It appears to have a positive impact on survival. Multicentre randomized trials are necessary to determine the true effect size of RFA and to minimize the impacts of selection and publication biases.